4 ms·

That's almost exactly my terms. In my case, not so much as a harsh word between us--ex just decided she deserved it, and that's the way the law works. My curr

That's almost exactly my terms. In my case, not so much as a harsh word between us--ex just decided she deserved it, and that's the way the law works. My current gross doesn't even cover alimony. (And alimony isn't deductible while you're unemployed, nor can you make qualified withdrawals from retirement accounts to pay for it.) Still pretty happy to be rid of her. Be careful out there...

ta3216 8y ago
I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
- DannyBee 8y ago
  Depends heavily on the state (community property vs not) They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, community property doesn't affect alimony, it affects division of assets acquired during marriage (that is a community property state, generally assets acquired during marriage are treated as shared 50/50 in divorce.) Though I suppose a settlement of divorce could trade off one for the other, and having more claim on marital assets to trade could lead to higher average alimony when settlements are considered.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway5250 8y ago
      Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers). One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      I agree, i'm not aware of a state where it does (except by settlement agreement, as you say). I think i misunderstood the question. I thought they were asking whether there was a standard way alimony is calculated, and whether there is a standard way to do asset division. I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state. These are two unrelated things, as you say.
      - ta3216 8y ago
        I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.
        throwaway5250 8y ago
        Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future. The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth. From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment. As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half? Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
  - throwaway5250 8y ago
    This figured for me. FAANG income, but only for a couple of years, so going to court would have burned up our entire net worth. (Lawyers and consultants are very expensive.) I was fine with mutually assured destruction for she and me, but not with the harm that would have been done to her kids, who I loved/love. A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true. Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic. Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks. Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Three options: 1) OP is just straight up lying 2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him 3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum. Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
  - closetohome 8y ago
    I'm guessing #1 but based on a secondhand story that happened to an older relative.
  - throwaway5250 8y ago
    Sympathies. I might have written that myself ten years ago. Godspeed. (Never hit a million, and falling fast these days.)
  - ta3216 8y ago
    I assume he had significant income in previous years, switched jobs for whatever reason, makes significantly less, but alimony is based on past few years income. That must hurt but I think is done to protect the other person since some people might purposefully quit etc in order to have alimony be set at a lower amount, then get a new job after divorce to match what they were making previously.
ricardoreis 8y ago
In my case, not so much as a harsh word between us-- and yet: Still pretty happy to be rid of her.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Friend of mine found himself in such a situation. His mistake was thinking that all the arrangements were done by formula so he didn't have to pay for his own attorney. Whoops. He ended up having $400/month after alimony and child support. That was supposed to pay for a place to live and transportation to his job. Amazing, but the judge really didn't care that the terms were onerous enough to risk the very employment that would allow him to pay anything at all. Moral of the story, always get a lawyer if you're going through a divorce. The best one you can afford.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  > The best one you can afford. I'd actually go as far as 'The best one you can't afford.'
  - skookummmm 8y ago
    And that’s really the salient concept underlying the forces at work here: Now thrive the armorers. The key feature of prevailing marriage statistics is that there are exploitative forces operating a narrative, to profit from both sides of the conflict. Legal representation for divorce is a volume-oriented practice. The more, the better, and anything to fan the flames of strife from both directions. “Make sure everyone falls into the trap, and make sure at least someone is making money off these morons, so we can all play golf together, after we rip them apart, and rifle through their wallets, and get our cut of the profits from whoever might win. Make sure the guys are paranoid and fearful of getting taken to the cleaners, and make sure the girls are salivating at an early retirement. Then either version of clientele will pay through the nose for our services.” Basically, what tech recruiters do, except lawyers do it to families, while recruiters do it to companies.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
      The Prisoner's Dilemma shows that individuals will always act in their being interest. Watch Divorce Corp Inc. to see the most fucked up shit happening to people getting divorced.
gamblor956 8y ago
Alimony is adjusted to your current salary. While some judges have tried to force the alimony-paying ex-spouse remain in/take higher-paying jobs to justify continuing higher alimony payments, most of those decisions were reversed on appeal. EDIT: I see from a comment below that you were your own lawyer for your divorce. That explains the outcome.
- throwaway5250 8y ago
  Had a lawyer. If money were the only thing I was going for, what you say probably would have worked. Unfortunately, life is complicated.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

ta3216 8y ago

I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?

DannyBee 8y ago
Depends heavily on the state (community property vs not) They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, community property doesn't affect alimony, it affects division of assets acquired during marriage (that is a community property state, generally assets acquired during marriage are treated as shared 50/50 in divorce.) Though I suppose a settlement of divorce could trade off one for the other, and having more claim on marital assets to trade could lead to higher average alimony when settlements are considered.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway5250 8y ago
    Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers). One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    I agree, i'm not aware of a state where it does (except by settlement agreement, as you say). I think i misunderstood the question. I thought they were asking whether there was a standard way alimony is calculated, and whether there is a standard way to do asset division. I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state. These are two unrelated things, as you say.
    - ta3216 8y ago
      I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.
      - throwaway5250 8y ago
        Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future. The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth. From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment. As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half? Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
- throwaway5250 8y ago
  This figured for me. FAANG income, but only for a couple of years, so going to court would have burned up our entire net worth. (Lawyers and consultants are very expensive.) I was fine with mutually assured destruction for she and me, but not with the harm that would have been done to her kids, who I loved/love. A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true. Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic. Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks. Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Three options: 1) OP is just straight up lying 2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him 3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum. Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
- closetohome 8y ago
  I'm guessing #1 but based on a secondhand story that happened to an older relative.
- throwaway5250 8y ago
  Sympathies. I might have written that myself ten years ago. Godspeed. (Never hit a million, and falling fast these days.)
- ta3216 8y ago
  I assume he had significant income in previous years, switched jobs for whatever reason, makes significantly less, but alimony is based on past few years income. That must hurt but I think is done to protect the other person since some people might purposefully quit etc in order to have alimony be set at a lower amount, then get a new job after divorce to match what they were making previously.

ricardoreis 8y ago

In my case, not so much as a harsh word between us-- and yet: Still pretty happy to be rid of her.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Friend of mine found himself in such a situation. His mistake was thinking that all the arrangements were done by formula so he didn't have to pay for his own attorney. Whoops. He ended up having $400/month after alimony and child support. That was supposed to pay for a place to live and transportation to his job. Amazing, but the judge really didn't care that the terms were onerous enough to risk the very employment that would allow him to pay anything at all. Moral of the story, always get a lawyer if you're going through a divorce. The best one you can afford.

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
> The best one you can afford. I'd actually go as far as 'The best one you can't afford.'
- skookummmm 8y ago
  And that’s really the salient concept underlying the forces at work here: Now thrive the armorers. The key feature of prevailing marriage statistics is that there are exploitative forces operating a narrative, to profit from both sides of the conflict. Legal representation for divorce is a volume-oriented practice. The more, the better, and anything to fan the flames of strife from both directions. “Make sure everyone falls into the trap, and make sure at least someone is making money off these morons, so we can all play golf together, after we rip them apart, and rifle through their wallets, and get our cut of the profits from whoever might win. Make sure the guys are paranoid and fearful of getting taken to the cleaners, and make sure the girls are salivating at an early retirement. Then either version of clientele will pay through the nose for our services.” Basically, what tech recruiters do, except lawyers do it to families, while recruiters do it to companies.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    The Prisoner's Dilemma shows that individuals will always act in their being interest. Watch Divorce Corp Inc. to see the most fucked up shit happening to people getting divorced.

gamblor956 8y ago

Alimony is adjusted to your current salary. While some judges have tried to force the alimony-paying ex-spouse remain in/take higher-paying jobs to justify continuing higher alimony payments, most of those decisions were reversed on appeal. EDIT: I see from a comment below that you were your own lawyer for your divorce. That explains the outcome.

throwaway5250 8y ago
Had a lawyer. If money were the only thing I was going for, what you say probably would have worked. Unfortunately, life is complicated.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]