Question about state laws

[thyme4change]

In a thread about divorce a couple people made the statement that whoever moves out of the house during separation has legally abadonded the family, and it is held against them during divorce proceedings.

My state does not have separation, and leaving the house is construed as abandoning your family in the eyes of the law.

Although I understand the history of this, I have a couple of questions:

First off, which state(s) are still actually using such an arcaic concept?

Second, is it always held against the spouse that moved out, or just if the fight gets dirty?

Third, how much is that held against you? I mean, does it affect custody, or assets or what?

I live in a community property state, so I always assumed if something would happen, I would take half of our net worth, and we would work out custody. That is what it seems like everyone else does. The only real nasty divorces come about when one spouse owns a business - and then they dicker about what is actually marital assets. But, legally, moving out doesn't seem to offer much clarity on what really happened.

[Wisconsin Beth]

I believe the poster was referencing Wisconsin. I've never seen a divorce lawyer so I don't know for sure.

[justme]

If you settle on your own it wouldn't matter. i.e. If you decide on a 50/50 split I don't see the judge going "nope, you moved out it's 60/40", though that's probably more that in no fault states if you settle on your own you just file with the division and a judge signs off on it so no where in it would it say X moved out 6 months ago. When my brother got divorced they settled, even though things were def skewed in his favor, it took all of 5 minutes for the judge to sign off. His lawyer listed her adultery and moving out and digging into her finances to see how much marital money she spent on the affairs if she took it to court when they sent her the papers with the "settlement" and she signed. Though she also didn't have money for a lawyer so that was probably part too.

The wording was something like it "can be used in determining the division of assets" for my state, so there was no set check these boxes, add this up, and this is how things are split. Anything gets dicey when you chose someone else to decide your fate, I'm sure some judges look down more on moving out or cheating than others.

No idea on custody, but I would hope not unless the reason for the divorce would affect the child (like addiction).

[swamp]

It doesn't matter what the state laws are, anyone who litigates a divorce or custody thinks they got screwed.

[Colleenz]

I was told it would not affect assets, but if I did not take my child and there was a battle it would affect custody. I knew XH could not afford the house and I can. I also did not want to move my son into an apartment for several months during the school year only to move back later. I literally begged XH to move, but to no avail. God I am glad that is over!

[midjd]

Nov 21, 2012 11:59:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

It doesn't matter what the state laws are, anyone who litigates a divorce or custody thinks they got screwed.

If both parties tell you they were totally screwed - that's how you know it was a success! ;D

[thyme4change]

I know several couples who divorced relatively peacefully.

Although someone recently confided in me that they finally had the guts to ask her ex-husband if he hid money during the divorce so she wouldn't get it. She believed his denial.

[Miss Tequila]

Taht is the beauty of separate finances...I can pack my crap and leave tomorrow and my money and assets are still ALL MINE!lol

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Nov 21, 2012 11:37:11 GMT -5 justme said:

Anything gets dicey when you chose someone else to decide your fate, I'm sure some judges look down more on moving out or cheating than others.

...agreed...

[kittensaver]

My brother went through a nasty and bitter divorce. He always worked (self-employed), but his now-ex was the big money maker of the family, and DB pretty much had day-to-day care of the two boys because his schedule was flexible. His CA attorney told him to quit his business and move downstairs in the house to the guest room. The lawyer was trying to angle my DB to get custody and generous child support by showing he had not abandoned his family by moving out (she wrangled financial control of the house with her attorney - her family members made the down and some other payments - loooong story). It worked for about 3 months until she lost her job and the CS stopped. Then they RE-renegotiated everything post-divorce. So staying didn't really make a difference in the end. All any of this did was cause the two of them to blow through the college funds of both boys picking bitterly at each other in court. He's now back on his feet in a rent-to-own house, has primary custody of the boys - and she lost the house because she's lost two subsequent jobs and now can't get hired in her industry because she has a "reputation" (there are definite personality issues there). So sad and so unnecessary.

[giramomma]

Nov 21, 2012 11:32:19 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

I believe the poster was referencing Wisconsin. I've never seen a divorce lawyer so I don't know for sure.

Yes, WI.

I didn't have time to talk to a bunch of lawyers (and felt that was unnecessary at that point). Most people don't consult lawyers first thing after they find out their spouse has betrayed them and lied to them during their entire (albeit short) marriage. I saw a lawyer within two days of the crap hitting the can.

My H is a recovering addict, but his addiction is not in the DSM-5. The lawyer told me to expect 50/50 custody on everything. DH is the primary care giver of our kids, and he brought a good amount of assets to the marriage. I've got the potential to completely be screwed.

And, yes, 5 years ago, a lawyer told not to leave the house, because it was considered abandonment. I've got enough strikes against me because I'm the working parent and I'm at a financial disadvantage. I don't need to add extra to that.

I'm sure if my husband really wanted to, he could argue to have sole custody of my kids. Even with his addiction. So, I must be careful.

Of course I want things to work out between MJ and her husband. But, the message to her was that if they don't, she must be careful. Divorce rarely brings out the best in people.

ETA: To my knowledge, in a community property state, any assets that you acquire in a marriage are considered joint property, with the exception of inheritances. (Inheritances are not considered joint property unless you comingle them with other marital accounts.)

I have a savings account in my name only. (Yes, H knows about it, he can even see how much is in there at any given time. He just can't access the $$). Since I've contributed martial money to that account, I'm assuming the contents are considered joint assets, even though my H's name is no where on it.

So, I don't think it's as simple as separate finances, problem solved.

[zibazinski]

DF left in Michigan. Made no difference legally. You all are assuming it gets to a judge. It rarely does.

[zibazinski]

I left in Florida with two minor children. Made no difference, either.

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2012 15:27:26 GMT -5 giramomma said:

So, I don't think it's as simple as separate finances, problem solved.

I agree- there may be an exception for $$ you brought into the marriage and never commingled, but if all assets were divided solely on the basis of whose name was on them, a lot of people would get the short end of the stick, usually the partner with less financial clout.

[Miss Tequila]

Nov 21, 2012 21:00:47 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Nov 21, 2012 15:27:26 GMT -5 giramomma said:

So, I don't think it's as simple as separate finances, problem solved.

I agree- there may be an exception for $$ you brought into the marriage and never commingled, but if all assets were divided solely on the basis of whose name was on them, a lot of people would get the short end of the stick, usually the partner with less financial clout.

In our case, we don't segregate finances. He has his money/his investments and I have mine. We split all bills 50/50. If we were to divorce, I wouldn't want his money...it isn't mine, I dind't earn it and I wouldn't feel entitled to it. I know he feels the same way about my assets. And I can say this for a fact because when we WERE separated and heading towards a divorce, neither of us went after assets...it isn't in our nature to steal what isn't ours.

[Deleted]

Nov 21, 2012 13:50:14 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Taht is the beauty of separate finances...I can pack my crap and leave tomorrow and my money and assets are still ALL MINE!lol

eh....that's not how it works in our state anyhow (MN). All money acquired in the marriage (with a few exceptions) are marital and subject to splitting equally. It doesn't matter whose name is on the account.

[geenamercile]

If DH and I divorce I would expect with him being the SAHD to be given the house and primary care of the kids, child support ect... not saying I wouldn't fight like hell for all the time I could have with the girls, but I know the dynamic we have set up with me being the breadwinner and him being the SAHD. The less disruption for the girls would be for them and DH to stay here, and from my limited understanding that is what any judgement would be based on. What is best for the children.

[Colleenz]

Custody and child support are considered for the best interest of the children. Asset division and spousal support are not.