5 ms·

My understanding is that half of everything you earned and bought while married is on the table. Stuff you owned or earned before the marriage is not on the tab

by yef 16y ago

My understanding is that half of everything you earned and bought while married is on the table. Stuff you owned or earned before the marriage is not on the table unless you want it to be. Non-marital property vs. marital property. I'm not a lawyer.

cageface 16y ago
I think it depends on the state but you're right that's how it works in CA. Of course that means that if you're the only one working in a marriage that's half of your 100%. If you get married young you probably won't be starting with much.
- yef 16y ago
  Yup. Presumably the non-earner is contributing something else to the marriage and to the household (like child-rearing). And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner. But who knows. I'd want to talk to a divorce lawyer or judge. I just wanted to clarify the common misconception that you can "marry someone and take half of their [existing] stuff".
  - cageface 16y ago
    And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner. Again I think this varies from state to state but at least in CA considerations like this make zero difference. You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period. I imagine the intent of this rule is to limit the legal wiggle room and consequently the court costs of a divorce but the first thing they'll tell you is to not even use the word "fair". But you're right that things you owned beforehand remain yours.
    - __david__ 16y ago
      > You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period. And on top of that the judge that ultimately reviews the case can change the terms even if both parties have agreed to them. Presumably this is to fix the problem of making someone sign to a unfair arrangement under duress. This annoyed me (scared me, really) when I went through my divorce, but ultimately our agreement went through the court unscathed (pretty much just 50/50, though certain things are complicated, like how do you value the dog??).
honopu 16y ago
is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce? The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair?
- cageface 16y ago
  You also split debts. I had a friend that split up with his wife but got saddled with half of the debts she ran up running her own business that he had nothing to do with. This is why it's very important to document the date of separation because that's what's used to decide who gets what.
  - honopu 16y ago
    thank you. Fortunately I am not that well educated on the subject :)
- btilly 16y ago
  is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce? Depending on how you define said net worth, possibly. But you have to define it very carefully. So that's probably not a good way to look at things. The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair? The problem is that the yearly earnings of the breadwinner are often affected by the support of the partner. If a woman puts her husband through med school, his expected future income is an asset that she had some role in providing him. Does she deserve to be compensated for that? If so, then how much? Going the other way, suppose that she compromised her career for him. Sure, she can go back in the working world, but initial differences in income levels tend to permanently affect your future income. Does she deserve compensation for her likely permanent reduction in potential earnings? Speaking of which, how can you try to quantify that? And then the million dollar question. Suppose that she is left with a permanent economic liability, aka kids. (When men contest custody, they get the kids 70% of time, but men seldom contest custody.) How do you fairly divide the cost of raising said kids? Nothing is simple about the economics of what constitutes a fair divorce. And there are enough vague, open-ended questions there for both parties to come out feeling legitimately hard done by.
amh 16y ago
A co-worker of mine got divorced not long ago. I believe it went to court, but not sure (they both had lawyers). No kids were involved. His wife received half his assets, 100% of their co-owned business, all of his retirement money, and substantial alimony for 5 years. He got a devalued house with 2 mortgages and a 15 year old car. The wife is also a skilled, in-demand professional who could easily make $60k/year+. Hearing face-to-face how badly this guy got fucked over was eye-opening to say the least. The truth is, family courts are highly biased against men. Get a pre-nup if you get married, or learn that truth the hard way.
- thomasz 16y ago
  > The truth is, family courts are highly biased against men Does anyone know about a study supporting this claim? Not that I'd be surprised, but confirmation bias can be a bitch...
  - btilly 16y ago
    Much bitching by men notwithstanding, I believe the exact opposite. Statistics say that after divorce, men usually wind up better off and women worse off. One place that I wound up reading about this, with lots of specific statistics quoted, was The Price of Motherhood. (That source had an obvious axe to grind. But including lots of citations from actual research, and that is the part I'd trust here.)
    - cageface 16y ago
      I've read otherwise. Divorce is also initiated about 70% of the time by women now, with women typically getting better settlements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce Custody of children goes overwhelmingly to women too: http://deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php http://deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php What statistics are you referencing?
      - btilly 16y ago
        For every figure you have to dig deeper. You point out that divorce is initiated 70% of the time by women. However that has little direct correlation with how the divorce goes. You point out that women tend to get over 50% of the assets. This is true. However women tend to keep the kids, and therefore take an undue portion of the future economic liabilities coming from the relationship. In particular this makes it more likely that they will be granted the house - typically the couple's biggest asset. Furthermore if you include expected future income, women are suddenly much worse off. And we come to the more important point. It is indisputable that women are much more likely to be granted custody of the kids. However most of the time men don't actually want custody of the kids. When men choose to contest it, they usually wind up with the kids. (For the simple reason that, having a more dependable source of income, men are typically in a better position to raise the kids.) you have to look at what the couple wanted. Men who choose to contest custody usually wind up with the kids. Therefore the fact that the woman tends to wind up with the bulk of the responsibility for that liability isn't actually a sign that women are coming out ahead in the divorce.

by yef 16y ago

cageface 16y ago

I think it depends on the state but you're right that's how it works in CA. Of course that means that if you're the only one working in a marriage that's half of your 100%. If you get married young you probably won't be starting with much.

yef 16y ago
Yup. Presumably the non-earner is contributing something else to the marriage and to the household (like child-rearing). And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner. But who knows. I'd want to talk to a divorce lawyer or judge. I just wanted to clarify the common misconception that you can "marry someone and take half of their [existing] stuff".
- cageface 16y ago
  And you'd think that if that person was a total slacker and bad spouse, the court would divide the stuff in favor of the earner. Again I think this varies from state to state but at least in CA considerations like this make zero difference. You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period. I imagine the intent of this rule is to limit the legal wiggle room and consequently the court costs of a divorce but the first thing they'll tell you is to not even use the word "fair". But you're right that things you owned beforehand remain yours.
  - __david__ 16y ago
    > You split anything acquired during the marriage 50/50. Period. And on top of that the judge that ultimately reviews the case can change the terms even if both parties have agreed to them. Presumably this is to fix the problem of making someone sign to a unfair arrangement under duress. This annoyed me (scared me, really) when I went through my divorce, but ultimately our agreement went through the court unscathed (pretty much just 50/50, though certain things are complicated, like how do you value the dog??).

honopu 16y ago

is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce? The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair?

cageface 16y ago
You also split debts. I had a friend that split up with his wife but got saddled with half of the debts she ran up running her own business that he had nothing to do with. This is why it's very important to document the date of separation because that's what's used to decide who gets what.
- honopu 16y ago
  thank you. Fortunately I am not that well educated on the subject :)
btilly 16y ago
is it and shouldn't it be a net worth upon marriage vs a net worth upon filing for divorce? Depending on how you define said net worth, possibly. But you have to define it very carefully. So that's probably not a good way to look at things. The yearly earnings of the breadwinner shouldn't matter, they both squandered that while married, right?, if they didn't well let's split it then, as that is fair? The problem is that the yearly earnings of the breadwinner are often affected by the support of the partner. If a woman puts her husband through med school, his expected future income is an asset that she had some role in providing him. Does she deserve to be compensated for that? If so, then how much? Going the other way, suppose that she compromised her career for him. Sure, she can go back in the working world, but initial differences in income levels tend to permanently affect your future income. Does she deserve compensation for her likely permanent reduction in potential earnings? Speaking of which, how can you try to quantify that? And then the million dollar question. Suppose that she is left with a permanent economic liability, aka kids. (When men contest custody, they get the kids 70% of time, but men seldom contest custody.) How do you fairly divide the cost of raising said kids? Nothing is simple about the economics of what constitutes a fair divorce. And there are enough vague, open-ended questions there for both parties to come out feeling legitimately hard done by.

amh 16y ago

A co-worker of mine got divorced not long ago. I believe it went to court, but not sure (they both had lawyers). No kids were involved. His wife received half his assets, 100% of their co-owned business, all of his retirement money, and substantial alimony for 5 years. He got a devalued house with 2 mortgages and a 15 year old car. The wife is also a skilled, in-demand professional who could easily make $60k/year+. Hearing face-to-face how badly this guy got fucked over was eye-opening to say the least. The truth is, family courts are highly biased against men. Get a pre-nup if you get married, or learn that truth the hard way.

thomasz 16y ago
> The truth is, family courts are highly biased against men Does anyone know about a study supporting this claim? Not that I'd be surprised, but confirmation bias can be a bitch...
- btilly 16y ago
  Much bitching by men notwithstanding, I believe the exact opposite. Statistics say that after divorce, men usually wind up better off and women worse off. One place that I wound up reading about this, with lots of specific statistics quoted, was The Price of Motherhood. (That source had an obvious axe to grind. But including lots of citations from actual research, and that is the part I'd trust here.)
  - cageface 16y ago
    I've read otherwise. Divorce is also initiated about 70% of the time by women now, with women typically getting better settlements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce Custody of children goes overwhelmingly to women too: http://deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php http://deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php What statistics are you referencing?
    - btilly 16y ago
      For every figure you have to dig deeper. You point out that divorce is initiated 70% of the time by women. However that has little direct correlation with how the divorce goes. You point out that women tend to get over 50% of the assets. This is true. However women tend to keep the kids, and therefore take an undue portion of the future economic liabilities coming from the relationship. In particular this makes it more likely that they will be granted the house - typically the couple's biggest asset. Furthermore if you include expected future income, women are suddenly much worse off. And we come to the more important point. It is indisputable that women are much more likely to be granted custody of the kids. However most of the time men don't actually want custody of the kids. When men choose to contest it, they usually wind up with the kids. (For the simple reason that, having a more dependable source of income, men are typically in a better position to raise the kids.) you have to look at what the couple wanted. Men who choose to contest custody usually wind up with the kids. Therefore the fact that the woman tends to wind up with the bulk of the responsibility for that liability isn't actually a sign that women are coming out ahead in the divorce.