What was your divorce settlement?

[jstobo]

Anyone care to share highlights of their divorce settlement? I'm asking because I feel really screwed. My STBX, who had an affair and left, seems to be getting everything. I'm in a no fault state, so the affair and who left has no bearing. She never worked a day in her life and our marriage was over 10 years. I have 50% custody, yet I am paying her about 45% of my income for the foreseeable future. My state has a formula, but I feel she should be required to get a fricken job and try and support herself and the kids in some way. Oh, and guess what, her Daddy is rich and rented her a house.

 

I'd love to hear from both men and women here about their experience.

[kaleidoscope]

This is an interesting topic.

 

45% of your income for the foreseeable future? Seems really high.

 

Does the money go direct to her or can you pay to the children?

[carhill]

Tough economy; you could lose your job at any time.

 

I love being self-employed

 

Child support in our state, when awarded, is payable to the custodial parent.

 

Our settlement was amicable. ExW's net worth increased about 550%; mine decreased about 30%. She made more income than me (beauty of self-employment) so no alimony. No children. Done and over.

[Steen719]

Uncontested and papers were completed together. In no-fault state so XH's cheating, lying ways did not matter. He is on disability post liver transplant (Dr. said he could go back to work..he has not) and I get retirement and work 2 other jobs. We pretty much split the belongings, although he got more. I keep my son on my health and car insurance (he is 21 and in college) and I pay for XH's health insurance (separate from mine as he would no longer be eligible on mine) for one year @ about $600 a month. This was my suggestion so as not to have to pay alimony if he got an attorney. When the house sells, he gets the first amount to pay his credit cards down to mine and then we would split the amount (won't be much) left. This was also my suggestion so as not to pay him alimony. This is despite the fact that I took care of him before, during and after the transplant and had to take a 3rd (equity line) on the house to pay to stay in another city while he waited for surgery and paying expenses for two households when he had to stop working. I also got to take back my entire annuity instead of keeping him on it so that he could also have an annuity if I died first.

 

I was determined not to have to pay him any alimony. I was so pi**ed that he was online trying to set up an affair with his old gf that I decided one year of paying for health care and losing on some of the profits of the house was worth it (he had also had a PA 14 years ago and dd other crappy stuff). I had attorneys tells me that if we went to court and he had an attorney, I might have to pay him alimony and I just could not stand that thought. I would have to work forever.

 

I am helping my son with college expenses and insurance any way I can. As soon as we sell the house, I will buy something else as I can qualify for a USDA loan with no money down, so I will be OK.

 

I am sorry you got screwed. It happens when you have young children and it is not fair.

[jstobo]

This is an interesting topic.

 

45% of your income for the foreseeable future? Seems really high.

 

Does the money go direct to her or can you pay to the children?

 

Darn right it seems high. Kids are 9 and 6, so the money goes directly to her and she can use it any way she wants. I have no control over that.

 

I would like to know if any women were required to provide for themselves in some way or were they allowed to just keep things the same? My STBX has not had to change one thing about her lifestyle. My lifestyle has decreased in every way since I'm required to pay her.

[jstobo]

Uncontested and papers were completed together. In no-fault state so XH's cheating, lying ways did not matter. He is on disability post liver transplant (Dr. said he could go back to work..he has not) and I get retirement and work 2 other jobs. We pretty much split the belongings, although he got more. I keep my son on my health and car insurance (he is 21 and in college) and I pay for XH's health insurance (separate from mine as he would no longer be eligible on mine) for one year @ about $600 a month. This was my suggestion so as not to have to pay alimony if he got an attorney. When the house sells, he gets the first amount to pay his credit cards down to mine and then we would split the amount (won't be much) left. This was also my suggestion so as not to pay him alimony. This is despite the fact that I took care of him before, during and after the transplant and had to take a 3rd (equity line) on the house to pay to stay in another city while he waited for surgery and paying expenses for two households when he had to stop working. I also got to take back my entire annuity instead of keeping him on it so that he could also have an annuity if I died first.

 

I was determined not to have to pay him any alimony. I was so pi**ed that he was online trying to set up an affair with his old gf that I decided one year of paying for health care and losing on some of the profits of the house was worth it (he had also had a PA 14 years ago and dd other crappy stuff). I had attorneys tells me that if we went to court and he had an attorney, I might have to pay him alimony and I just could not stand that thought. I would have to work forever.

 

I am helping my son with college expenses and insurance any way I can. As soon as we sell the house, I will buy something else as I can qualify for a USDA loan with no money down, so I will be OK.

 

I am sorry you got screwed. It happens when you have young children and it is not fair.

 

Wow Steen, that is a bad story. I guess the big difference here is my STBX is a very healthy 38 year old woman with a masters degree. I am very hopeful that the judge will not stand for her to sit around and take money from me for years and years. Her attorney has her convinced she will not have to do anything to try and support herself.

[Steen719]

Yeah, that does not seem fair at all. She should have to work at least part time. I guess she did not work while you were married?

 

I know my situation seems bad and I guess it is, but I am healthy and have a great son, family, wonderful friends and the ability to work (I teach online for a university) and have another part time job. He is an idiot. I am so sick of people who feel entitled. Sheesh! So, I don't feel too bad. I will come out OK. I could have some of the other problems people have on here and be working to give my earnings to someone who won't work, like you are (not permanently anyway). I won't say that my attitude came easily, but I work on it every day. I am determined to be as happy as I know I can be. His loss (and he knows it).

 

Best to you.

[Damia]

Works both ways guys,I have 3jobs and full child care.

My STBX does not have our children at all ,lives in our family home with his skank AP and thinks he is going to get away with just giving me enough to buy a house because that is all HE thinks I deserve.

We own 3dairy farms but they are tied up in trusts so he thinks he is safe.

we were married 20 years I intend to fight tooth an nail for a fair "equal" share

[jstobo]

Works both ways guys,I have 3jobs and full child care.

My STBX does not have our children at all ,lives in our family home with his skank AP and thinks he is going to get away with just giving me enough to buy a house because that is all HE thinks I deserve.

We own 3dairy farms but they are tied up in trusts so he thinks he is safe.

we were married 20 years I intend to fight tooth an nail for a fair "equal" share

 

Thanks Damia: I know it works both ways. I'm not trying to create a man versus woman situation. I'm more trying to hear whether or not people were told to try and earn a living after deciding to get a divorce versus just taking their ex spouses money. If my STBX was working 3 jobs, I wouldn't be complaining. She isn't working 1 job and both our kids are in school. And I struggle to provide for them on what is left. It just doesnt seem right.

[RecordProducer]

Had a postnuptial agreement for $125K, married 3 years to a wealthy man. Got such a good deal because he cornered me and threatened me, so I got really mad and hired the best divorce lawyer in town. The lawyer did nothing for me (except draft the postnup as per my instructions), but he served as a "speak softly and carry a big stick" message. I negotiated my own deal with the ex.

 

OP, if you don't have a lawyer, I absolutely urge you to get one ASAP. Lawyers have saved my ass and my money several times and then at other times, I have lost time and money because I didn't hire a lawyer. My moto is: save your money, hire an an attorney.

 

Your lawyer will negotiate with your wife's lawyer a fair and equitable settlement. The deal may be slightly better for one side or the other, but it will be more or less fair and no one will get screwed. If she doesn't work, then I guess you're supposed to pay for her lawyer, too? That's how it is in my state. Please, do not take any of this as legal advice. Your lawyer is your best source of information.

 

The 45% you're paying now I assume is only until the divorce is finalized. No, your wife will not be looking for a job now, it'd be a bad move on her part. In my state, it's the earning power, as opposed to actual earnings, that counts. So, for example a chemical engineer who decided to attend med school would be considered as having the earning power of an engineer, e.g. $70K so s/he would have to pay child support accordingly. But, this is for child support, because the state reasons that your duty to support your kids comes before your dream to be a doctor.

 

It's really based on a case by case basis and depends on a lot of things, but I don't believe that anywhere in the US a person can have a zero earning power unless they're disabled or too old and uneducated. Your wife has never worked, which is not good for you. Work experience is a major factor. Another factor is education: if she doesn't have a college degree, that's not good either. Finally, the length of marriage is pretty significant, ten years, plus you have kids. I don't know how her father's help counts in, but if she's living with a man, his income may be counted, too. I think a court would have to recognize though that she is not spending money on housing. Note, even though you likely wouldn't go to court, for negotiation purposes, you argue as if you would, because the court's potential decision is what encourages (or discourages) the parties to firmly fight for a certain position.

 

How old is your wife? What was your living standard prior to the separation? Does she live with a man? Can she go back to school? The kids are of school age, so she has free time, plus there's after-care available probably.

 

I would like to know if any women were required to provide for themselves in some way or were they allowed to just keep things the same? My STBX has not had to change one thing about her lifestyle. My lifestyle has decreased in every way since I'm required to pay her.

Of course it has, sorry to hear that. On top of all pain, you didn't need this crap.

 

To answer your question, I never really had much from my ex's big money, so my living standard remained the same. After we split, my budget was about $3K a month and I took up student loans and went to grad school. His standard didn't change; in fact, after the separation, he rented out the crappy, old, little house we lived in as a family, and he bought himself a huge, brand new house. I used to envy him on that, but now I totally don't understand why. Your situation though is really unfair because she cheated and you have to pay her for that - and her daddy rented her a house. You need a seriously great attorney to represent you. I've heard of cases where women who had been married for 10 years live on alimony and child support for a long time after the divorce.

 

Works both ways guys,I have 3jobs and full child care.

My STBX does not have our children at all ,lives in our family home with his skank AP and thinks he is going to get away with just giving me enough to buy a house because that is all HE thinks I deserve.

We own 3dairy farms but they are tied up in trusts so he thinks he is safe.

we were married 20 years I intend to fight tooth an nail for a fair "equal" share

Good attitude! Do fight and have a lawyer - don't trust your ex. Edited December 2, 2011 by RecordProducer

[Damia]

Thanks recordproducer I fully intend to fight .

I think it may come as a shock to my exH ,as normally I would back down in a confrontational situation like this.

Hopefully my lawyer is as good as her reputation Says she is.

 

Good luck jstobo I hope things work out better for you as your situation does seem unfair.

[debtman]

jstobo,

 

My stbx gets about 1/2 of my monthly income (after taxes & health care) as child support. She has her own business, but only makes about $20k/yr. so, she wouldn't be able to survive without the CS and, even though I see her spending the $ on dates with new men, buying new TV, car, etc. I know that it's better for the kids to have her not stressed about $ all the time, like she was when we were together. I have to be extremely frugal (and take freelance jobs and work 2-4 nights/month as a bartender) to be able to keep the house, pay my bills and pay CS.

 

The way I figure it, it's a small price to pay to not have to deal with her insanity anymore other than at pick-up/drop off.

 

I have the kids about 50% of the time, except for my son, who starts kindergarten next year, so she watches him during the day. If I had to pay for day care, it would probably be close to what I'm paying for CS and I'd rather have him be with her than in day care.

 

It's not fair. I went through several scenarios with her to explain how the system could be "messed" with (I could quit my job and just take under the table work, she could get remarried to a rich guy and not work at all and still take $, etc) and she just thought I was trying to "explain" my way out of paying CS, so I dropped it.

 

Fact of the matter is, it's the law. I'm glad my kids are able to go do things when they're with her, maybe it will make things easier on them. I don't mind that I can't afford to do things with my kids. Maybe they'll learn the value of $, and, we come up with LOTS of ways to have fun without paying for it.

 

It's not fair. For either parent or the kids. Divorce sucks for everyone, but, you can't put a price on happiness. My stbx has asked me several times (since OM left) if I would consider reconciling, which would save me lots of $, BUT I won't ever put myself back in that situation again...

 

Good luck and keep posting...

[jstobo]

RecordProducer: thank you so much for writing. I'm guessing you are in CA like me. I definitely want to do what is fair, but I'm feeling this just isn't fair. I hear countless stories of women needing to go to work and the husband actually seeing a lifestyle improvement. I'm not sure why mine is going the opposite. Again, this isn't about men versus women. More about the higher incomer versus the lower. This is helping me get a feel for what a judge might rule if I decide to really push this.

 

DebtMan: you have a great attitude. Your story and my story are very similar. I know you posted several times on my original post and I have read your comments on others. I know you're much further along and my STBX is still with her OM, so she hasn't experienced really being alone. I'm not sure she ever will since their relationship has lasted a year now. I absolutely want to make sure my kids are always taken care of. That is my #1 priority. I just don't feel the system is allowing me to take care of them equally while they are with me. Any money I save, will have a direct impact on their time with me.

 

Thanks everyone for sharing your experience. Keep them coming.

Edited December 2, 2011 by jstobo

[RecordProducer]

RecordProducer: thank you so much for writing. I'm guessing you are in CA like me. I definitely want to do what is fair, but I'm feeling this just isn't fair. I hear countless stories of women needing to go to work and the husband actually seeing a lifestyle improvement. I'm not sure why mine is going the opposite. Again, this isn't about men versus women. More about the higher incomer versus the lower. This is helping me get a feel for what a judge might rule if I decide to really push this.

I am not in CA. You never know what a judge would rule, get a lawyer to fight for you and negotiate the best deal possible. Good luck!

[jstobo]

I am not in CA. You never know what a judge would rule, get a lawyer to fight for you and negotiate the best deal possible. Good luck!

 

I did forget to answer your question. She is 38 and has a Master's Degree. She is a very talented artist; both graphic design and painting. She could get a graphic designing job in a heart beat. She chooses not to. She was selling about 2 or 3 paintings a month when I was marketing for her. When I stopped, the sales stopped. She has not made any effort to pick up the marketing, even though I taught her everything I was doing. I know she has no incentive to do anything and that is what does not seem fair. I do have a good lawyer and I am very knowledgable as well.

 

Debtman: I am paying Child Support and will continue to pay that, even though the kids are with me 50% of the time. It's the alimony that is really eating at me.

[Trimmer]

Jstobo - is the 45% you are paying designated as child support, or spousal support, or some combination? In my state those are two distinct things.

 

Here, child support is very much based on "the formula" which is relatively inflexible - however, in our case we also share parenting exactly 50/50, and declared roughly equal salaries, so it worked out to no child support either direction. I think that even sharing the parenting 50/50, if our salaries were significantly different, then there would have been a net child support responsibility in one direction or the other, which makes sense, objectively and mathematically.

 

However, I believe there is also a concept of something along the lines of "willful underemployment" or something like that - when someone who COULD work and support themselves to some degree chooses not to. In my case, since we agreed that we both have the capability to work to roughly equal salaries (even though we weren't, necessarily, at the time of our divorce) that's why we declared them equal to make the child support come out to net-zero. I can't tell you how or whether that could factor into a settlement calculation in some way in your state; I completely agree with the poster above who encouraged you to consult a lawyer if you are not doing so already.

 

For us, spousal support was a non-issue, because neither of us had any desire to go after it. In my state (not CA), there's no formula or requirement to consider it in the dissolution proceedings if nobody brings it up.

 

Edited to add: I just saw your last posting, which crossed with mine. Good to see you are consulting a lawyer - that's your best source of information specific to your state and situation.

 

What proportion of the 45% is designated for Child Support vs. Spousal Support? And is this already set in stone in a final court order, is this a temporary order until the dissolution is finalized, or is it an agreement that has been worked out but not entered as a court order yet?

Edited December 2, 2011 by Trimmer

[debtman]

jstobo,

 

Good to hear you've got a lawyer, they'll be able to answer your questions better than any of us.

 

In my state, there's no alimony since ours was a relatively short marriage (6 years), and child support is set according to a very specific formula (33% of salary for 2 kids, although, after taxes & insurance, that works out to about 50%).

 

It kills me that the laws seem to have swung so far in the opposite direction (as they used to be unfair to the women years ago), but, there's not much that can be done about that and you'll only stress yourself out.

 

Remember, it's a temporary situation...you still get to spend time with your kids, and life will go on. Focus on yourself and your kids. Money is just that...

 

Good luck and keep posting...

[jstobo]

Jstobo - is the 45% you are paying designated as child support, or spousal support, or some combination? In my state those are two distinct things.

 

Here, child support is very much based on "the formula" which is relatively inflexible - however, in our case we also share parenting exactly 50/50, and declared roughly equal salaries, so it worked out to no child support either direction. I think that even sharing the parenting 50/50, if our salaries were significantly different, then there would have been a net child support responsibility in one direction or the other, which makes sense, objectively and mathematically.

 

However, I believe there is also a concept of something along the lines of "willful underemployment" or something like that - when someone who COULD work and support themselves to some degree chooses not to. In my case, since we agreed that we both have the capability to work to roughly equal salaries (even though we weren't, necessarily, at the time of our divorce) that's why we declared them equal to make the child support come out to net-zero. I can't tell you how or whether that could factor into a settlement calculation in some way in your state; I completely agree with the poster above who encouraged you to consult a lawyer if you are not doing so already.

 

For us, spousal support was a non-issue, because neither of us had any desire to go after it. In my state (not CA), there's no formula or requirement to consider it in the dissolution proceedings if nobody brings it up.

 

Edited to add: I just saw your last posting, which crossed with mine. Good to see you are consulting a lawyer - that's your best source of information specific to your state and situation.

 

What proportion of the 45% is designated for Child Support vs. Spousal Support? And is this already set in stone in a final court order, is this a temporary order until the dissolution is finalized, or is it an agreement that has been worked out but not entered as a court order yet?

 

Hi Trimmer: it is not court ordered yet. The figures are based on a formula CA uses and is simply my income versus her income. Child support is roughly 2/3 of the monthly amount, with alimony being 1/3. The combined amount is about 45% of my income. Me and my attorney feel the formula should factor in her earning potential and her attorney feels she should keep doing nothing. That is our cross roads. I'm not sure what a judge would rule. We have gone 3 months at a total stand still. Of course, I think she should be honorable and not take a dime of alimony since she cheated and wanted a divorce. But CA law is on her side with that one.

[kaleidoscope]

Wow, this whole concept of alimony is interesting.

 

When I got divorced, we didn't split anything really because we didn't own anything jointly and that was the end of it!!

 

We were both reasonably healthy and had the ability to find a job. (We both didn't have jobs then).

 

Personally, even if I was with a wealthy wife, I wouldn't want be after her money after a divorce. I personally feel a sense of dignity for not doing that. I think of Madonna and Guy Ritchie. I think he just wanted to hurt her because she cheated - I mean he is already wealthy.

 

Splitting the house, selling the car and sharing profits on tangible things ok. But I wouldn't take someone's money.

 

Interesting history of alimony here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony

 

Taking care of the children is another matter though. Its ok as long as the money goes to the children.

 

Just my naive view on divorce......

 

But I'm sure there are many many scenarios where alimony makes seems "fair".

 

Mindblower!

[kaleidoscope]

What if you can prove that she cheated to the courts?

 

Does that make any difference at all?

 

I mean it wasn't your fault after all.

 

Maybe people would think twice about cheating too if it mattered!!

Edited December 2, 2011 by kaleidoscope

[Trimmer]

Hi Trimmer: it is not court ordered yet. The figures are based on a formula CA uses and is simply my income versus her income. Child support is roughly 2/3 of the monthly amount, with alimony being 1/3. The combined amount is about 45% of my income. Me and my attorney feel the formula should factor in her earning potential and her attorney feels she should keep doing nothing. That is our cross roads. I'm not sure what a judge would rule. We have gone 3 months at a total stand still. Of course, I think she should be honorable and not take a dime of alimony since she cheated and wanted a divorce. But CA law is on her side with that one.

Understood - thanks for the clarification. The law is "on her side" in the sense that you can't use her cheating or initiation of the divorce to influence the financial outcome. However, even if you set those completely aside, you still have an objective case to make that she has earning potential that she chooses not to take advantage of. That stands on its own with no connection to the cheating.

 

Now, I don't know how CA treats that situation, if its codified in law or in case history, or if it's just completely up to the judge you happen to get, but that point is one you can plead, without having to get into the cheating and initiation of the divorce, etc. It's also (to me, anyway) a more compelling argument, and importantly: it's something that you can quantify to some degree, i.e. work out specifically how much she might be expected to earn if she worked - for someone working this many hours with her education, experience, etc. - and use that in the support formulas as a basis of negotiation, or as the basis of a plea if you have to take it to a judge to decide.

 

Edited to add: Interestingly, the 50/50 parenting split could help you here again. A spouse might respond to a plea of willful underemployment with the response "yes, but I have the kids to take care of..." But if you are splitting parenting duties 50/50, that works equally on both sides, so it shouldn't be a compelling defense for remaining underemployed.

 

I guess I should feel lucky to have an ex who is proud enough to want to provide for herself...

Edited December 2, 2011 by Trimmer

[Trimmer]

What if you can prove that she cheated to the courts?

 

Does that make any difference at all?

 

I mean it wasn't your fault after all.

 

Maybe people would think twice about cheating too if it mattered!!

 

That's the basic idea behind the "no-fault" laws in many states - the court doesn't want to hear it, and doesn't want to get into judging issues of moral right and wrong and "who did what" around dissolving marriages. In a no fault state, the court can stay with more objective issues of dividing up assets and liabilities, and watching out for the welfare of any children involved.

[RecordProducer]

I did forget to answer your question. She is 38 and has a Master's Degree. She is a very talented artist; both graphic design and painting. She could get a graphic designing job in a heart beat. She chooses not to. She was selling about 2 or 3 paintings a month when I was marketing for her. When I stopped, the sales stopped. She has not made any effort to pick up the marketing, even though I taught her everything I was doing. I know she has no incentive to do anything and that is what does not seem fair. I do have a good lawyer and I am very knowledgable as well.

What did your lawyer tell you about her earning capacity and how it reflects on alimony? With her age and education, she is far from being unable to earn. By the way, selling paintings IS work experience, so don't say she hasn't worked a day in her life. She has sold her work successfully and those skills are probably transferable onto something else, like graphic design, which is her chosen profession. Also, ask your lawyer about her decision not to work,as someone suggested "wilful unemployment."

[kaleidoscope]

LOL about the court "doesn't want to get into judging issues of moral right and wrong".

 

I thought that's what courts do but I guess I'm sadly mistaken.

[RecordProducer]

LOL about the court "doesn't want to get into judging issues of moral right and wrong".

 

I thought that's what courts do but I guess I'm sadly mistaken.

 

This is a question the legal system is trying to answer, too. On a holistic level, courts are trying to do what's right and correct wrongs. But there's a myriad of social policies to balance, as well. In the context of alimony, courts don't want to force people to play games, pull out dirty laundry, spend kids' college money on attorneys, and decide whether one person was worse than the other - just to split marital assets.