4 ms·

>> My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties.

by patmcc 8y ago

>> My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. This is something I really don't understand. If both parties want the divorce and can agree on any asset splits, a divorce costs whatever the filing fee is. A few hundred dollars and you're done.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Wouldn't that be nice? No - marriage over 20 years, spousal support for life. Money came from an inheritance? Not part of the so-called 50/50 split. Kids involved? Are you male? Get ready to get screwed - either you go bankrupt to get your kids or you lose your kids. Are the significant assets at stake? Then these things are never simple, and if they are the lawyers are going to make sure that they aren't because they want their share of the action. I am in full agreement with you - the majority of divorces should be simple. They should be a form you complete in a clerks office. But that's not how it actually goes, unless both parties are very, very agreeable, and even then you'd better hope the judge is in a good mood and doesn't overrule what you've both agreed to (no I'm not kidding).
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  A downvote, really? Must be a lawyer in the crowd. Having just finished spending $15,000 and two years of my life on this, I'm not exactly happy with our legal system.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Inheritance isn't considered community property. It is the sole property of the heir spouse except to the extent explicitly gifted to the union. That aside, assets can be divided up without involving lawyers. Indeed, hiring lawyers is the pretty much the one thing you can do to guarantee that the divorce will be acrimonious, because the lawyers could care less about your (or your soon-to-be-ex spouse's) feelings. I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. At most, they required the divorcing parties to have the agreement looked over by a lawyer to make sure it satisfied necessary legal requirements.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    >I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. And I had three lawyers warn me of exactly this scenario. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating.
    - dsnuh 8y ago
      >I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating. This was my experience as well. I've been wondering if there is an audience for tools to help people going through a divorce, especially for those in the tech industry, since there are often complicated concerns over stock options, RSUs, 401k, bonus plans, etc. that are included in most tech worker's total compensation (btw - this is what you use to calculate support, not salary) that can. I had a very hard time finding help during my divorce for complicated topics such as these, and had to turn to many costly specialists to apply their formulas to determine community property.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      If you have complicated assets prior to the marriage, like RSUs, you may want to hire a lawyer simply because RSUs are tricky beasts even if you're not getting married. But otherwise, the Nolo Prenuptial guide is sufficient for most marriages and is in fact the guide that judges in SoCal will recommend.
- dsnuh 8y ago
  Let them downvote you. You're absolutely spot on. I suspect the downvote is because you brought up gender. You aren't supposed to point out that there are differences in the way men and women are treated upon leaving a marriage.
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    Well, that and because he appears to be saying "this happened to me and therefore it happens 100% of the time to everyone", which isn't true.
    - poulsbohemian 8y ago
      Did I anywhere use the words "this happens 100% of the time"? No, I shared a personal reflection, plus would be happy to rattle off about ten more examples if you'd like. Once I get my life back in order, I intend to petition the Washington State Legislature, because I am not happy about laws that enabled my nut-job ex to use the legal system to her whims while leaving me on the edge of bankruptcy. I would like to believe this was not the legislature or courts intents, yet I have at this point read many accounts of exactly this scenario. So quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't use and cite some of your own counter-facts if you feel otherwise.
      - dsnuh 8y ago
        I'm in California, but facing much the same situation. I've said it before and I will say it again... I think people are ignorant of divorce laws and simply do not realize how much financial damage a motivated (i.e. nut-job) ex can get cause if they decide they want to. To give an example, I have my 2 kids almost 50/50 split custody (I have them 6pm Thursday to 6pm Sunday) and had my child support set at $1700 per month. This was on top of an additional $1800 per month of spousal support, which I had to give up my 401k to pay off because I couldn't afford that much monthly expense). My ex makes variable income of $3,500 to $5000 per month working part time as a wedding photographer. My wages are garnished, and if I ever have a change in circumstances, I will have to go through a lengthy court process just for a shot at that. In the meantime, I would be responsible for the original amount plus interest until such time as the court saw fit to change it. I'm a good father. I love my kids and want to support them. The way the system is currently structured, if you made more money than your spouse during the marriage, you have to provide the same "lifestyle" as you had during the marriage to your children, regardless if they are in your care or not. I struggle to make ends meet, while my ex is able to live comfortably, take them on numerous expensive vacations, etc. because so much of my income is given to the other party as child support, but can spent as they see fit.
- patmcc 8y ago
  >>unless both parties are very, very agreeable This is the real problem, I think - people can't seem to split agreeably. If you have a good solution for that I'm sure we can clean up all the messy divorces. Until then though...not sure what options we have.
pm24601 8y ago
Hmmm try again. Here are some more common barriers. Notice that these are 'assets' that are not controlled by the couple: * Social Security with survivor benefits * Pension payouts * Health Insurance coverage (1 person's job has HC, the other doesn't)

by patmcc 8y ago

poulsbohemian 8y ago

Wouldn't that be nice? No - marriage over 20 years, spousal support for life. Money came from an inheritance? Not part of the so-called 50/50 split. Kids involved? Are you male? Get ready to get screwed - either you go bankrupt to get your kids or you lose your kids. Are the significant assets at stake? Then these things are never simple, and if they are the lawyers are going to make sure that they aren't because they want their share of the action. I am in full agreement with you - the majority of divorces should be simple. They should be a form you complete in a clerks office. But that's not how it actually goes, unless both parties are very, very agreeable, and even then you'd better hope the judge is in a good mood and doesn't overrule what you've both agreed to (no I'm not kidding).

poulsbohemian 8y ago
A downvote, really? Must be a lawyer in the crowd. Having just finished spending $15,000 and two years of my life on this, I'm not exactly happy with our legal system.
gamblor956 8y ago
Inheritance isn't considered community property. It is the sole property of the heir spouse except to the extent explicitly gifted to the union. That aside, assets can be divided up without involving lawyers. Indeed, hiring lawyers is the pretty much the one thing you can do to guarantee that the divorce will be acrimonious, because the lawyers could care less about your (or your soon-to-be-ex spouse's) feelings. I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. At most, they required the divorcing parties to have the agreement looked over by a lawyer to make sure it satisfied necessary legal requirements.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  >I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. And I had three lawyers warn me of exactly this scenario. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating.
  - dsnuh 8y ago
    >I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating. This was my experience as well. I've been wondering if there is an audience for tools to help people going through a divorce, especially for those in the tech industry, since there are often complicated concerns over stock options, RSUs, 401k, bonus plans, etc. that are included in most tech worker's total compensation (btw - this is what you use to calculate support, not salary) that can. I had a very hard time finding help during my divorce for complicated topics such as these, and had to turn to many costly specialists to apply their formulas to determine community property.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    If you have complicated assets prior to the marriage, like RSUs, you may want to hire a lawyer simply because RSUs are tricky beasts even if you're not getting married. But otherwise, the Nolo Prenuptial guide is sufficient for most marriages and is in fact the guide that judges in SoCal will recommend.
dsnuh 8y ago
Let them downvote you. You're absolutely spot on. I suspect the downvote is because you brought up gender. You aren't supposed to point out that there are differences in the way men and women are treated upon leaving a marriage.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  Well, that and because he appears to be saying "this happened to me and therefore it happens 100% of the time to everyone", which isn't true.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    Did I anywhere use the words "this happens 100% of the time"? No, I shared a personal reflection, plus would be happy to rattle off about ten more examples if you'd like. Once I get my life back in order, I intend to petition the Washington State Legislature, because I am not happy about laws that enabled my nut-job ex to use the legal system to her whims while leaving me on the edge of bankruptcy. I would like to believe this was not the legislature or courts intents, yet I have at this point read many accounts of exactly this scenario. So quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't use and cite some of your own counter-facts if you feel otherwise.
    - dsnuh 8y ago
      I'm in California, but facing much the same situation. I've said it before and I will say it again... I think people are ignorant of divorce laws and simply do not realize how much financial damage a motivated (i.e. nut-job) ex can get cause if they decide they want to. To give an example, I have my 2 kids almost 50/50 split custody (I have them 6pm Thursday to 6pm Sunday) and had my child support set at $1700 per month. This was on top of an additional $1800 per month of spousal support, which I had to give up my 401k to pay off because I couldn't afford that much monthly expense). My ex makes variable income of $3,500 to $5000 per month working part time as a wedding photographer. My wages are garnished, and if I ever have a change in circumstances, I will have to go through a lengthy court process just for a shot at that. In the meantime, I would be responsible for the original amount plus interest until such time as the court saw fit to change it. I'm a good father. I love my kids and want to support them. The way the system is currently structured, if you made more money than your spouse during the marriage, you have to provide the same "lifestyle" as you had during the marriage to your children, regardless if they are in your care or not. I struggle to make ends meet, while my ex is able to live comfortably, take them on numerous expensive vacations, etc. because so much of my income is given to the other party as child support, but can spent as they see fit.
patmcc 8y ago
>>unless both parties are very, very agreeable This is the real problem, I think - people can't seem to split agreeably. If you have a good solution for that I'm sure we can clean up all the messy divorces. Until then though...not sure what options we have.

pm24601 8y ago

Hmmm try again. Here are some more common barriers. Notice that these are 'assets' that are not controlled by the couple: * Social Security with survivor benefits * Pension payouts * Health Insurance coverage (1 person's job has HC, the other doesn't)