Financial Support to OW

[Fallen Angel]

OK, let's put it this way. 100% of the pie belongs to the marriage. It only becomes a 50/50 divide when the marriage is no longer a factor. Your math works only if he gets divorced. As long as they are married, any money he spends outside the marriage is "their" money and she has a right to 1/2 of it if they were to get divorced or she were to find out about you and decide she wants her piece of the pie back. She can choose to get it from him, or sue you for it. That is her choice. BTW, that is the way the court will see it. In most cases, the MM will just give more to his exW to make up for money spent on an affair (or gambling or whatever his vice may be). But, if the BW wants to sue the OW, that is an option she has.

 

FA you won't win this one.

 

Put the shoe on the other foot. How would you like to be married to your sweetheart and find out he's paying another woman's cell phone etc?

 

If you are in a community property state and if you're not, then it's probably a fault state, any monies that were spent on the AP are going to become a part of the divorce settlement if the betrayed party has evidence. Marital monies are not to be spent outside the M, to the detriment of one of the persons under the contract. Your sweetheart and his W are under a legal contract and if she has proof of money spent on you, he will get it deducted from whatever settlement they agree to. Now maybe she doesn't know, doesn't care enough to collect evidence. I think that even less BS's care enough to sue the OW (I mean honestly, most BS's don't even acknowledge them as a player in their M).

 

But it doesn't matter if you agree that his half should not be spent on you. The rule of law agrees. And considering that that is law of the land (and honestly it should be that way anyway) that is what stands.

 

GEL

 

I agree that the law does read as you both describe. I just think she would be hard pressed to get a jury to agree with that rationale. I think that any lawyer worth his salt would be able to argue MY case sucessfully if it were to come down to it.

 

By the same token, then he should be able to sue her church for all of the funds which she donated over the years that he did not agree with, after all half of that money was his, and she gave it away to someone else (the church entity) without his permission, and without the authority to do so as 100 percent of the maritial pie would mean that every penny spent should be discussed and agreed to prior to being spent.

[GreenEyedLady]

I agree that the law does read as you both describe. I just think she would be hard pressed to get a jury to agree with that rationale. I think that any lawyer worth his salt would be able to argue MY case sucessfully if it were to come down to it.

 

By the same token, then he should be able to sue her church for all of the funds which she donated over the years that he did not agree with, after all half of that money was his, and she gave it away to someone else (the church entity) without his permission, and without the authority to do so as 100 percent of the maritial pie would mean that every penny spent should be discussed and agreed to prior to being spent.

 

FA I really like you. You gotta get a better argument than that.

 

Funds spent on charities are TAX WRITE-OFFS. You can't write off funds spent on an EMA.

 

GEL

[Fallen Angel]

FA I really like you. You gotta get a better argument than that.

 

Funds spent on charities are TAX WRITE-OFFS. You can't write off funds spent on an EMA.

 

GEL

 

lol.. no you can not write off funds spent on an EMR.

 

And if they were both contributing equal shares of their income to the household then i would agree that he shouldn't spend a dime on me, but as that is not the case, then I refuse to be made to feel as a prostitute for accepting his assitance in making my life more comfortable. (as some here would like to have me feel.)

 

Note* I said equal shares, not equal monies. If both were contirbuting the same percentage of what they earned then I would agree that 100 percent of the "pie" belongs to the marriage. But one can not rightfully expect for one partner to contribute 95 percent and another only five percent and call it fair that 100 percent of that pie is equally shared between the two.

[jj33]

FA I think your situation is perfectly fine. The law may go the other way, if I were a W I would feel differently, but as a practical matter, it makes sense.

 

He loves you. He cares about you. So it makes sense that he wants to help you out. How many MMs spend money taking their OWs to dinner, on vacations, buying them gifts etc etc. from the Ws perspective there is no difference, it is money spent on another woman. I dont see that this is any worse.

 

And the morality to the W aside - lets face it from a Ws perspective none of this is acceptable, its not even a matter of degree, I dont see anything wrong with the MM buying expensive gifts like a car. Some men are like that. They like to spoil the women they are with. It is one of many ways that they express their love. If someone can afford it why is that wrong? Again Im not saying ANY of this is right from a Ws perspective. But the A itself is almost never going to be acceptable from a Ws perspective so I see that as splitting hairs.

 

2sure where are you when you are needed?

[GreenEyedLady]

lol.. no you can not write off funds spent on an EMR.

 

And if they were both contributing equal shares of their income to the household then i would agree that he shouldn't spend a dime on me, but as that is not the case, then I refuse to be made to feel as a prostitute for accepting his assitance in making my life more comfortable. (as some here would like to have me feel.)

 

Note* I said equal shares, not equal monies. If both were contirbuting the same percentage of what they earned then I would agree that 100 percent of the "pie" belongs to the marriage. But one can not rightfully expect for one partner to contribute 95 percent and another only five percent and call it fair that 100 percent of that pie is equally shared between the two.

 

 

FA, if you end up married to your sweetheart, you won't feel the same way.

 

And I don't think you should feel like a prostitute. The bottom line is that it's on your sweetheart, not you, in my opinion. But what he's doing is not cool to his W, but everyone already knows that, including you.

 

And as you know, in M, there are never equal monies. It all goes in the pot. If someone is a SAHM, it doesn't matter. She contributes to the M in a non-monetary way providing daycare, housecleaning etc. I get it.

 

And I know you "get it" too, but you feel you have to defend him. I understand. I will defend mine til my dying day. Because I love him even though I don't always love the choices he made.

 

GEL

[Bootsie]

My sweetheart pays for all our "dates".

 

... is simply something that a man does when he is in a relationship with a woman... (or is it that he and I are hopelessly stuck in another era?? And have antiquated ideas about the male/female roles in a relationship?)

 

This sounds all very reasonable, but what about his wife and children? How do these antiquated ideas about male and female roles translate to his marriage?

 

The modern view seems to be that both parties in a marriage contribute to the household and family and thus all finances and assets jointly belong to the marriage/family. Even a SAHM contributes by taking on much of the workload. While he was soothing your fevered brow recently, she presumably was taking care of their household and family.

 

The antiquated view was that wife and children were virtually owned by the man of the house and that he had autocratic and complete control. This often extended to old fashioned mistresses. Is that how you and he view it? Because that is the way it looks as you describe it.

[Ellin]

FA I think your situation is perfectly fine. The law may go the other way, if I were a W I would feel differently, but as a practical matter, it makes sense.

 

He loves you. He cares about you. So it makes sense that he wants to help you out. How many MMs spend money taking their OWs to dinner, on vacations, buying them gifts etc etc. from the Ws perspective there is no difference, it is money spent on another woman. I dont see that this is any worse.

 

And the morality to the W aside - lets face it from a Ws perspective none of this is acceptable, its not even a matter of degree, I dont see anything wrong with the MM buying expensive gifts like a car. Some men are like that. They like to spoil the women they are with. It is one of many ways that they express their love. If someone can afford it why is that wrong? Again Im not saying ANY of this is right from a Ws perspective. But the A itself is almost never going to be acceptable from a Ws perspective so I see that as splitting hairs.

 

2sure where are you when you are needed?

 

You hit the nail jj33.

[califnan]

I agree that the law does read as you both describe. I just think she would be hard pressed to get a jury to agree with that rationale. I think that any lawyer worth his salt would be able to argue MY case sucessfully if it were to come down to it.

 

.

 

-------------------

 

You've got to be kidding ... I was there ... The jury is being given LEGAL guidelines - given to them by the Judge..

 

The judgement would be for the W and against the MM for monies he spent on the OW ... Wife gets half ..

 

You have no case.. Entitled to nothing from MM's community assets..

[Fallen Angel]

This sounds all very reasonable, but what about his wife and children? How do these antiquated ideas about male and female roles translate to his marriage?

 

The modern view seems to be that both parties in a marriage contribute to the household and family and thus all finances and assets jointly belong to the marriage/family. Even a SAHM contributes by taking on much of the workload. While he was soothing your fevered brow recently, she presumably was taking care of their household and family.

 

The antiquated view was that wife and children were virtually owned by the man of the house and that he had autocratic and complete control. This often extended to old fashioned mistresses. Is that how you and he view it? Because that is the way it looks as you describe it.

 

She is not a SAHM. She has a career.

 

As to her presumably "taking care of their household and family", I will not go into detail as I already tend to be too open and give up too much personal information, but it suffices to say that at this stage of the marriage (the advanced age of the child remaining in the home) there is not much work required in order to "care for the household and family."

 

Having old-fashioned views of the roles of men and women in a relationship does not mean that either of us feels that he should have "complete control" in either our relationship or in his marriage. It simply means that I enjoy the more natural roles (in my opinion) that men and women used to enjoy rather than women having to not only be "women" but also now being expected to take on traditionally male tasks (roles).

 

In case no one has noticed, the sexes are not more equal these days. Men have not taken on more traditionally femine roles and counter-balanced woman's move into a more traditionally male world. It is simply that women are expected to perform as both a woman and a man. I like that he treats me like I think a woman should be treated, and I appreciate him allowing me to treat him as I think a man should be treated.

 

But now we have moved way off topic... sorry.

[pureinheart]

I am quite confident in saying that if my sweetheart's wife were to sue me for any monies that were spent on me during our relationship, my sweetheart would be glad to pick up that bill for me as well.

 

 

It seems to me like she would have to have hard evidence...is this correct?

 

Like receipts and such...I think it would be difficult to prove...

[GreenEyedLady]

It seems to me like she would have to have hard evidence...is this correct?

 

Like receipts and such...I think it would be difficult to prove...

 

Unless he paid cash, bank statements or receipts would suffice.

 

It's not difficult to prove when you have a BS on a mission.

 

Thank god, I did not. Although, he didn't spend much on me anyway. And I thought he was cheap at first.

 

What you don't know, may hurt you or others.

 

GEL

[vanilla chai]

I am quite confident in saying that if my sweetheart's wife were to sue me for any monies that were spent on me during our relationship, my sweetheart would be glad to pick up that bill for me as well.

 

Well it won't be a problem for you when she does now will it.

[Fallen Angel]

Well it won't be a problem for you when she does now will it.

 

Nope!

 

(ten characters required)

[pureinheart]

What about the assets that are not community property? Such as inheritances? He could use these monies as he chooses to support his OW.

 

My exH and I had our own separate monies to do with as we pleased...he was quite generous with me as I him...I feel that it is his or her money to do with as they please.

[pureinheart]

Unless he paid cash, bank statements or receipts would suffice.

 

It's not difficult to prove when you have a BS on a mission.

 

Thank god, I did not. Although, he didn't spend much on me anyway. And I thought he was cheap at first.

 

What you don't know, may hurt you or others.

 

GEL

 

Thanks GEL:), this is interesting...man, it sure would cost a lot of money though to prove it...exDM just got done with one of those types of D's...I guess the state would make a big difference also.

[califnan]

What about the assets that are not community property? Such as inheritances? He could use these monies as he chooses to support his OW.

 

My exH and I had our own separate monies to do with as we pleased...he was quite generous with me as I him...I feel that it is his or her money to do with as they please.

 

-----------------------

 

Inheritances and monies from before the marriage are set aside..

 

But even if husband and wife have separate monies Within the marriage - they are still considered as community assets here.

 

Supposedly, in a divorce everything from within the marriage is split down the middle as far as property and assets .. If a spouse has spent community assets on a personal collection, that is considered.. If a spouse has spent community assets on another partner, that should be considered.

 

If a spouse conceils community monies spent outside of the marriage, I would think that would be fraud.

[Fallen Angel]

-----------------------

 

Inheritances and monies from before the marriage are set aside..

 

But even if husband and wife have separate monies Within the marriage - they are still considered as community assets here.

 

Supposedly, in a divorce everything from within the marriage is split down the middle as far as property and assets .. If a spouse has spent community assets on a personal collection, that is considered.. If a spouse has spent community assets on another partner, that should be considered.

 

If a spouse conceils community monies spent outside of the marriage, I would think that would be fraud.

 

Attempting to conceal assets in a divorce would be fraud.

 

I just wonder if you would feel the same about how unfair your exhusband was to you if he had left YOU all his worldy goods rather than leaving them to his (obviously hypothetical) first wife and any children from a prior union.

 

You seem to think that all maritial assets should be split in half in a divorce, but yet you decry the fact that his wife got his assets when he passed away. Whether you like it or not, she was his WIFE!!! So was she not entitled to all she was given by him? (You can't have it both ways, ya know?)

[califnan]

Attempting to conceal assets in a divorce would be fraud.

 

I just wonder if you would feel the same about how unfair your exhusband was to you if he had left YOU all his worldy goods rather than leaving them to his (obviously hypothetical) first wife and any children from a prior union.

 

You seem to think that all maritial assets should be split in half in a divorce, but yet you decry the fact that his wife got his assets when he passed away. Whether you like it or not, she was his WIFE!!! So was she not entitled to all she was given by him? (You can't have it both ways, ya know?)

 

---------------------

 

Legally community assets are to be split down the middle.. Should have been easy enough in a first marriage as when we started marriage in our early 20's we didn't have anything..

 

After the 22 yrs there were assets build up such as a home and a business.. The even balance should have been that I get the home, he to keep the business & building.. Since there was so much fraud in areas of the divorce, that didn't happen..

 

And yes she did alright - as her $150,000 home (with our downpayment) blossomed to $760,000 when she sold a few yrs ago.... and the $300,000 life ins passed down to her when he died 15 yrs ago..

 

What I objected to was that prior to his going in for a bone marrow transplant.. she took him to her attorney to disinherit his only children. This denyed our sons of at least sharing with her their grandfather's estate which had been held in a living trust for H's stepmother.. (step mother died about five yrs ago) ..

 

I think when men remarry, many times they are expected to turn their backs on their offspring in diff ways.. financial and otherwise..

 

I feel that my priorities are better, in this manner ..

[NoIDidn't]

I've always read it that Calif was upset that his OW-turned-W disinherited his children, not her. I do agree with her that her children were entitled to something from their father. The same thing happened to my H when his dad died after remarrying, and the woman was an OW. Its unforgiveable to claim what is not yours, what you did not work for (what my MIL helped accrue over nearly 50 years of marriage before she passed) and keep after only 1.5 years of marriage. But that's another sorry.

 

Anyway, this is an interesting conversation. I have been approached by wealthy MM many times (married and single) and they have always offered some sort of financial incentive to be with them in some way. I did not know about the laws that their Ws could come after me to get back half if I did agree to see them. I wasn't tempted to do it to begin with, but glad I didn't since those laws would have really hurt to have to deal with.

 

I am not estate lawyer, but even a house put in the OWs name will be subjected to half to the W in a divorce. The OW will have to pay up, like it or not. And regarding inheritances, the minute the MM monetizes it and mixes it in any way with marital funds, it becomes community property to the M is my understanding (quite a few estate lawyers are friends and see this stuff all the time).

 

If I were the OW, I would keep my own records of what he spent if its substantial. Most guys that can afford to really "keep" the OW, can also afford to do the same for the W. And the W in these instances only go after the OW, to get back at the H (and a little to get back at the OW) to tell him that he wasn't exactly entitled to do what he did with their money (at least that's my take on it).

 

One of the first things I asked my H when I found out about his EA was if he spent any money on her. Her BF asked the same, but in reverse wanting to know if he was being played a fool by having another man taking care of his woman under his nose. Its insulting, in both cases. I had children to take care of, and the BF had his pride to consider. But there was no spending of money, except for a McDonald's trip one day. I don't care about something like that.

 

Money is such a touchy topic, though. No matter how you look at it. Many Ms breakup behind money troubles whether an OW/OM is involved or not. Add the OP, and you've got a LifeTime Movie in the making.

[Fallen Angel]

I've always read it that Calif was upset that his OW-turned-W disinherited his children' date=' not her.[/quote']

 

The OW turned W did not disinherit anyone. Nan's exhusband did that.

 

Perhaps he did not like the way his children treated his wife?

 

Perhaps they limited their contact with him after the divorce due to feeling they would be betraying their mother to show love and loyalty to their father? And their father's feelings were hurt, hence the disinheritence?

 

We do not know the whole story.

 

But I still am curious to how Nan would feel if she had been wife number two in the situation?

 

I am sure that monday morning quaterbacking she will say that she would feel the same way. But I seriously have my doubts as to the validity of any such statement. IMHO.

[califnan]

And to add NID, probably most W's don't even know to the extent that the MM spends on the OW - (if she even knows about the OW).

 

But nevertheless, the monies spent are still considered community funds under the law .. Even if minimal, I would think the monies could add up over a period of time..

 

Also, to add to my story above.. Because the fraudulent discovery was made late - there was a great deal of loss as far as valuable real estate, a decent property tax rate .. and attorney fees ..

[pureinheart]

---------------------

 

Legally community assets are to be split down the middle.. Should have been easy enough in a first marriage as when we started marriage in our early 20's we didn't have anything..

 

After the 22 yrs there were assets build up such as a home and a business.. The even balance should have been that I get the home, he to keep the business & building.. Since there was so much fraud in areas of the divorce, that didn't happen..

 

And yes she did alright - as her $150,000 home (with our downpayment) blossomed to $760,000 when she sold a few yrs ago.... and the $300,000 life ins passed down to her when he died 15 yrs ago..

 

What I objected to was that prior to his going in for a bone marrow transplant.. she took him to her attorney to disinherit his only children. This denyed our sons of at least sharing with her their grandfather's estate which had been held in a living trust for H's stepmother.. (step mother died about five yrs ago) ..

 

I think when men remarry, many times they are expected to turn their backs on their offspring in diff ways.. financial and otherwise..

 

I feel that my priorities are better, in this manner ..

 

 

Thanks for the reponse CN:)...I think that was CRAP that he disinherited his kids...mine mostlikey have done the same...they don't have anything anyway so they can bite me...lol...

 

Should I get M'ed again I have my kids name on everything, and that WILL NOT change:)

[califnan]

The OW turned W did not disinherit anyone. Nan's exhusband did that.

 

Perhaps he did not like the way his children treated his wife?

 

Perhaps they limited their contact with him after the divorce due to feeling they would be betraying their mother to show love and loyalty to their father? And their father's feelings were hurt, hence the disinheritence?

 

We do not know the whole story.

 

But I still am curious to how Nan would feel if she had been wife number two in the situation?

 

-----------------

 

Wife number two? I stand Firm FA - I would Never deprive another man's family their rightful inheritance.. Upon remarrying, residue from the marriage to go to his children upon his death - and the same to mine upon my death..

[TinaniT]

He gave me a substantial amount of money for me, that is really quite a little in terms of the actual size of his estate.

 

I appreciated it. It was hard at first, but I had to recognize it was not a lot for him, for me to give the same percentage to someone I love would be fine, and he wanted to help me and minimize my stress because he loves me.

 

He is in divorce right now and he is giving most (97%) his estate to his wife, and substantial payments each month beyond what the court would ordered, and so I don't think the little (though a lot for me) he gave me is going to be an issue.

[silktricks]

Not to get to far of topic but first I have worked my whole life, I pay my own bills, always have, always will. But your statement about one being married, bothers me.

If I was married and had young children and my husband worked while I stayed home and took care of the kids, would that be wrong in your book?

 

I'm sorry what I said was unclear. I meant if one of the people dating was married (to someone else). In other words an MM/OW relationship.