hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 4, 2019 17:35:13 GMT -5
My assumption is they will close the business. I'm wondering how you make a decision to allocate earnings though. As an example, let's say the business brought to their household $200k last year (that way we can ignore whether it has other employees, etc, since it said she does payroll I assume they have some). He does some stuff for the business, she does some stuff for the business (neither is an absentee owner). How good are divorce courts at saying "well...even though you both work at the business and you both own it 50/50, let's start allocating the income more heavily to one of you over the other". How do divorce courts accurately break down "well he's much more valuable to this business because he does X, and she doesn't have the same earning power because she did the marketing and payroll"? That seems....difficult...to do when both people are involved in it (regardless of the fact that she's a SAHP...kind of...it sounds like she's clearly doing things for the business and seems to more likely be working while also taking care of the kids). Is that just something the attorneys fight out in court? It seems a lot less straighforward than other SAHP alimony calculations could be. It wouldn't be hard to sit down and say "Hoops made $X last year, wife made $Y last year, apply to the formula, boom, done". Where do you even start in this kind of scenario? Particularly if it is a successful small business that does more than just create a job for an individual (i.e. it exists as a real business with employees, who generate profit). Courts have made rulings based on earnings potential before. So it's not that far of a stretch to realize a guy that did X for the business has X skills that would make $X on average vs the wife that did Y with Y skills which is $Y. I mean, seriously, you really don't think it's hard to determine that someone that was essentially running the business was individually way more responsible for any revenue in the business and has the skills to continue to do that vs someone who just did payroll (btw, also indicating that it wasn't just a one man shop) and some accounting -- but obviously wasn't a full time job as she home schooled the kids? My question is more how you prove it. Marketing seems pretty critical to a small business. And then how you prove it if your business is actually successful beyond just your earning power to do the job individually. I think it could absolutely be difficult to prove that someone actually WAS essentially running the business all on their own, when their partner seems to have a pretty significant role in at least some aspects of it. I think that becomes actually significantly harder when you consider that it seems to NOT be a one-man shop. Easy: I'm an accountant. The average accountant salary is $50k/year in the public sector. I have my own accounting practice. The average salary of an admin in an accounting office is $30k/year. "My" accounting practice that my wife is a partner in and it's just the 2 of us brought in $80k last year. Allocate as the obvious 50/30. Hard: I'm an accountant. The average accountant salary is $50k/year in the public sector. I have my own accounting practice with numerous employees including accountants, financial planners, etc. My wife does marketing, payroll, and some other non-accounting office work. My accounting firm brought in $300k last year. Allocating me to a minimum of $50k is easy. Her at $30k minimum is easy. Who gets the other $220k allocated to them as being able to generate that level of income I think is where it gets hard. I can't necessarily go out and generate $270k without her, she can't necessarily go out and generate $250k without me...what do we do? I don't think people get to just pretend the work they did doesn't count just because they also have a big job of homeschooling kids as well. How do you allocate the income generated more by "the business" than what either individual could go out and generate on their own.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 4, 2019 17:42:34 GMT -5
He is the ‘doc’. He will keep running the business. At best it will be him buying her out.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Feb 4, 2019 18:06:58 GMT -5
Except, giving a SAHW shares of a business that relies pretty heavily on her STBX for any income in lieu of alimony is stupid and no one would agree to it. All the STBX would have to do is close up shop - making the shares worth 0 - and then open a new company doing the same exact shit under a different name and viola all the money for himself. My assumption is they will close the business. I'm wondering how you make a decision to allocate earnings though. As an example, let's say the business brought to their household $200k last year (that way we can ignore whether it has other employees, etc, since it said she does payroll I assume they have some). He does some stuff for the business, she does some stuff for the business (neither is an absentee owner). How good are divorce courts at saying "well...even though you both work at the business and you both own it 50/50, let's start allocating the income more heavily to one of you over the other". How do divorce courts accurately break down "well he's much more valuable to this business because he does X, and she doesn't have the same earning power because she did the marketing and payroll"? That seems....difficult...to do when both people are involved in it (regardless of the fact that she's a SAHP...kind of...it sounds like she's clearly doing things for the business and seems to more likely be working while also taking care of the kids). Is that just something the attorneys fight out in court? It seems a lot less straighforward than other SAHP alimony calculations could be. It wouldn't be hard to sit down and say "Hoops made $X last year, wife made $Y last year, apply to the formula, boom, done". Where do you even start in this kind of scenario? Particularly if it is a successful small business that does more than just create a job for an individual (i.e. it exists as a real business with employees, who generate profit). And to add to the complexity they may not be allocating their salaries (especially hers) fairly.
As an example, my friend's sister works for her husband's law practice. Apparently he doesn't actually pay her a salary because that would involve withholding for SS and taxes. It sounds like the arrangement has worked for them as a family because she basically works part time and the arrangement gives her lots of flexibility to deal with their now grown children. But in the long run I think it may hurt her to not have some of her own SS earnings and to simply rely on half of his. If he dies suddenly she's going to be in a tough spot as the practice is likely going to close, she'll be out of a job, and she'll have only have half of his SS. I hope they have money put away.
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Feb 4, 2019 18:10:41 GMT -5
He is the ‘doc’. He will keep running the business. At best it will be him buying her out. Do you know if he's been paying her a fair market salary?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 4, 2019 18:43:40 GMT -5
I do not. I will ask when I see her. Don't want to use text.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,377
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 4, 2019 19:10:43 GMT -5
My assumption is they will close the business. I'm wondering how you make a decision to allocate earnings though. As an example, let's say the business brought to their household $200k last year (that way we can ignore whether it has other employees, etc, since it said she does payroll I assume they have some). He does some stuff for the business, she does some stuff for the business (neither is an absentee owner). How good are divorce courts at saying "well...even though you both work at the business and you both own it 50/50, let's start allocating the income more heavily to one of you over the other". How do divorce courts accurately break down "well he's much more valuable to this business because he does X, and she doesn't have the same earning power because she did the marketing and payroll"? That seems....difficult...to do when both people are involved in it (regardless of the fact that she's a SAHP...kind of...it sounds like she's clearly doing things for the business and seems to more likely be working while also taking care of the kids). Is that just something the attorneys fight out in court? It seems a lot less straighforward than other SAHP alimony calculations could be. It wouldn't be hard to sit down and say "Hoops made $X last year, wife made $Y last year, apply to the formula, boom, done". Where do you even start in this kind of scenario? Particularly if it is a successful small business that does more than just create a job for an individual (i.e. it exists as a real business with employees, who generate profit). And to add to the complexity they may not be allocating their salaries (especially hers) fairly.
As an example, my friend's sister works for her husband's law practice. Apparently he doesn't actually pay her a salary because that would involve withholding for SS and taxes. It sounds like the arrangement has worked for them as a family because she basically works part time and the arrangement gives her lots of flexibility to deal with their now grown children. But in the long run I think it may hurt her to not have some of her own SS earnings and to simply rely on half of his. If he dies suddenly she's going to be in a tough spot as the practice is likely going to close, she'll be out of a job, and she'll have only have half of his SS. I hope they have money put away.
I thought survivor SS was 100% of the original recipient's amount at FRA?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 4, 2019 19:22:31 GMT -5
Except, giving a SAHW shares of a business that relies pretty heavily on her STBX for any income in lieu of alimony is stupid and no one would agree to it. All the STBX would have to do is close up shop - making the shares worth 0 - and then open a new company doing the same exact shit under a different name and viola all the money for himself. Which is exactly what I would do if I would have to work full time in a business I built while my ex did some part-time work here and there and considered it half his. I would offer up half the business and the day the papers were signed I would stop working in the business and go do something else. Which is why I agree that the courts probably won’t agree to something like rhat
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 4, 2019 19:27:30 GMT -5
Is this business a side-business? Or the way they make their money (or he makes his money). I guess the way I'm reading things, it sounds more like the main source of income rather than a side business. If true, would she really get alimony? Wouldn't she just get her slice of the business instead? I'm trying to figure out what income of his there is to give alimony out of...wouldn't all the business's income over the years have been attributable to both of them? Obviously if this is just a side business and he has a job as the main source of income this isn't relevant. Good questions! And why she needs professional help and not my speculation He is a med adjacent professional. So he does the majority of the work. She has maintained taxes, payroll and marketing. I’m not sure how things are split as far as ownership. Their business is that he is a professor? Or am I misunderstanding? How is he getting paid in cash for that? If he had been planning this, the slow down might have been I tr tribal. Show less earnings and it has less value.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 4, 2019 19:30:12 GMT -5
Try and tell people this though! You obviously are just not as good at choosing a mate as they are! Yes. But, it's not always as simple as "Dipshit. Pick a good mate." Perhaps the better course of action is to suggest that if you aren't interested in any risk, then you should not enter into a relationship period.
The best course of action is to never put your financial security in the arms of another. I was married and it didn’t work out. But I wasn’t crushed Gina chalky because I never gave up my ability to make a living. I didn’t have to rely on his to support me once the marriage fell apart because I was more than capable of supporting myself and my children. I grew up poor because my mom relied on my dad. In this day and age I have no idea why anyone would quit working and rely on someone else. I sure didn’t think I would be the 50-% that got divorced but I was
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Feb 4, 2019 19:43:56 GMT -5
Yes. But, it's not always as simple as "Dipshit. Pick a good mate." Perhaps the better course of action is to suggest that if you aren't interested in any risk, then you should not enter into a relationship period.
The best course of action is to never put your financial security in the arms of another. I was married and it didn’t work out. But I wasn’t crushed Gina chalky because I never gave up my ability to make a living. I didn’t have to rely on his to support me once the marriage fell apart because I was more than capable of supporting myself and my children. I grew up poor because my mom relied on my dad. In this day and age I have no idea why anyone would quit working and rely on someone else. I sure didn’t think I would be the 50-% that got divorced but I was Things happen. I never thought I would rely on my husband's earnings either. But his company relocated out of state during the dot bomb and it made sense to follow that job.
He did share his inheritance so we are fine financially but I can see how it happens.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 4, 2019 19:58:31 GMT -5
The best course of action is to never put your financial security in the arms of another. I was married and it didn’t work out. But I wasn’t crushed Gina chalky because I never gave up my ability to make a living. I didn’t have to rely on his to support me once the marriage fell apart because I was more than capable of supporting myself and my children. I grew up poor because my mom relied on my dad. In this day and age I have no idea why anyone would quit working and rely on someone else. I sure didn’t think I would be the 50-% that got divorced but I was Things happen. I never thought I would rely on my husband's earnings either. But his company relocated out of state during the dot bomb and it made sense to follow that job.
He did share his inheritance so we are fine financially but I can see how it happens.
I’m not disagreeing that things happen. I’m so scarred from my childhood that it is just not something I would do. I’ve raised my daughter to understand what would have happened if I relied on her dad for financial support if I stayed home with them (I did go part time but it was in a field that I could have jumped back in full time the next day if I needed to). I want her to always be self-sufficient. She also sees her 20 year old cousin, who had a baby way too young, basically have to beg her boyfriend for mo way to get groceries. That has impacted her in a big way
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 4, 2019 20:07:27 GMT -5
And to add to the complexity they may not be allocating their salaries (especially hers) fairly.
As an example, my friend's sister works for her husband's law practice. Apparently he doesn't actually pay her a salary because that would involve withholding for SS and taxes. It sounds like the arrangement has worked for them as a family because she basically works part time and the arrangement gives her lots of flexibility to deal with their now grown children. But in the long run I think it may hurt her to not have some of her own SS earnings and to simply rely on half of his. If he dies suddenly she's going to be in a tough spot as the practice is likely going to close, she'll be out of a job, and she'll have only have half of his SS. I hope they have money put away.
I thought survivor SS was 100% of the original recipient's amount at FRA? That is dependent on when the survivor claims benefits and if the decedent was already receiving benefits or not. You can file for survivor benefits to begin when you turn 60, but you receive only 71.5% of the decedent's PIA, or full retirement benefit. If you wait until your own FRA, the survivor benefit is not discounted. On the bright side, you are not deemed to be filing for your own benefit at the same time so can let your own benefit grow until you hit 70, but can actually switch from survivor benefits to your own any time after you hit 62.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,931
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 4, 2019 20:45:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I would get of hubs, I do know since I took benefits at 62 it will be cut by 25% up front. Then I don't know if I will only get what his would have been at his full retirement or what he actually got at age 69. Haven't had reason to inquire.
I am sorry I took it at age 62, I kept asking and didn't realize they would cut it later. Hubs kept telling me and I asked SS over and over but I blame myself. It is what it is.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 4, 2019 21:21:29 GMT -5
They had kids late and her degree is in chem, she worked lab sales before kids and while husband went to school. She might have built up credits then.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,157
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 4, 2019 22:00:23 GMT -5
Here is an article by Liz Weston about 5 divorce mistakes people make.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by CCL on Feb 4, 2019 22:03:03 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I would get of hubs, I do know since I took benefits at 62 it will be cut by 25% up front. Then I don't know if I will only get what his would have been at his full retirement or what he actually got at age 69. Haven't had reason to inquire. I am sorry I took it at age 62, I kept asking and didn't realize they would cut it later. Hubs kept telling me and I asked SS over and over but I blame myself. It is what it is. What do you mean by "they would cut it later"? You'll get less than when you started collecting at 62? How could that be?
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by CCL on Feb 4, 2019 22:06:12 GMT -5
I thought survivor SS was 100% of the original recipient's amount at FRA? That is dependent on when the survivor claims benefits and if the decedent was already receiving benefits or not. You can file for survivor benefits to begin when you turn 60, but you receive only 71.5% of the decedent's PIA, or full retirement benefit. If you wait until your own FRA, the survivor benefit is not discounted. On the bright side, you are not deemed to be filing for your own benefit at the same time so can let your own benefit grow until you hit 70, but can actually switch from survivor benefits to your own any time after you hit 62. Is that switching to your own only for survivor benefits? I thought they didn't allow that anymore, but really don't know much about survivors. Or maybe it's based on age? It's all kinda confusing to me, but I need to start learning.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 4, 2019 22:51:17 GMT -5
That is dependent on when the survivor claims benefits and if the decedent was already receiving benefits or not. You can file for survivor benefits to begin when you turn 60, but you receive only 71.5% of the decedent's PIA, or full retirement benefit. If you wait until your own FRA, the survivor benefit is not discounted. On the bright side, you are not deemed to be filing for your own benefit at the same time so can let your own benefit grow until you hit 70, but can actually switch from survivor benefits to your own any time after you hit 62. Is that switching to your own only for survivor benefits? I thought they didn't allow that anymore, but really don't know much about survivors. Or maybe it's based on age? It's all kinda confusing to me, but I need to start learning. They did change the rules for spousal benefits. You can no longer claim only spousal benefits while allowing your own to continue to grow until age 70, unless you were age-qualified under the old rule. You are now deemed to be filing for all benefits at the same time and will receive the highest one available. That is not true for survivors benefits. You can still claim on the record of a deceased spouse while not affecting or touching your own benefit at all. File for survivor benefits at 60, let your own grow until 70, make the switch then. And you can actually file for survivor benefits earlier if you are disabled or a widowed spouse caring for the minor child of the deceased, I think. At age 50 if disabled and any age if caring for the minor child if I remember correctly.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,600
|
Post by CCL on Feb 5, 2019 0:07:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I thought they had changed that option for most people. I was hoping to do that myself, but not old enough. I won't be eligible for SS for a while but want to know in advance what to expect.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 5, 2019 1:48:27 GMT -5
Good questions! And why she needs professional help and not my speculation [img src="http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/wink.png" alt=" " class="smile" src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png"] He is a med adjacent professional. So he does the majority of the work. She has maintained taxes, payroll and marketing. I’m not sure how things are split as far as ownership. Obviously I have no idea how this kind of things works. Seems incredibly complicated in my mind actually. I'm picturing a small business, where nobody is getting a W-2 because there's no reason to W-2 yourself here. So then all of your income isn't actually your income...it's "business" income that potentially you each share in equally. At the same time, only 1 of you is really qualified to keep working going forward in a similar capacity, but it's easy to see an argument for "why would I pay alimony? we both work at a family business, when the business dissolves we'll both be jobless and even". To your point about standard of living...to me the question from a logical standpoint becomes how you attribute the income prior to divorce. It's tough to say one side should pay another side alimony if both sides had equal income while married. Maybe someone on this board knows how that kind of thing works when it's a family business, specifically if it dissolves and if one partner is far more involved in the "work" while it is jointly owned. Seems like a new and interesting question, and it feels like we so rarely get new and interesting questions on here. One thing to keep in mind is that the courts do not want to make one spouse into a social burden. In that light, division of marital assets, including future earnings, may not be equal. Rather, the division may be made in a way that ensures the custodial parent can provide adequate support for the family. Even if it creates financial challenges for the non- custodial parent.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,305
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 5, 2019 8:13:58 GMT -5
Slightly off topic... what on earth is a "med adjacent professional".
Good luck to your friend, I feel for her situation.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Feb 5, 2019 8:16:27 GMT -5
They have a health and wellness type office, he is a chiro. I am giving a lot of detail. I should probably delete...
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,305
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 5, 2019 8:39:50 GMT -5
That makes sense!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 8:29:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 8:51:33 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind is that the courts do not want to make one spouse into a social burden. In that light, division of marital assets, including future earnings, may not be equal. Rather, the division may be made in a way that ensures the custodial parent can provide adequate support for the family. Even if it creates financial challenges for the non- custodial parent. True. As an example, I'd read this after I got my divorce and was profoundly grateful that I was allowed to waive CS in return for keeping the investments in my name. Courts are wary of the custodial parent turning down CS and then having to apply for taxpayer-supported programs to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Maybe the judge figured that with my $100K/year salary that was unlikely. Regardless, my Ex never worked again and wouldn't have paid CS even if he had.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,931
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 5, 2019 12:04:45 GMT -5
I will switch over to survivor benefits under hubs if he dies first, mine is about a 1/3 of his. But from what I'm reading because I took it at age 62 and that was almost a 25% cut, then his will be cut the same amount when I get it
I also do not know if I will get his benefits at age 69 minus the 25% or will only get what he would have gotten at age 66.7.
DD gets half of his now, and at his death will get 3/4's, she gets more then me now! But they figured mine and under my record I get just a bit over half of his before all the deductions. Looking at hers she is not getting half of his age 69, that's why I'm thinking there is a max on survivors if this makes sense. Ok, to be fair, she gets Medicaid so she doesn't have part B and that stuff deducted from hers and Medicaid covers her scrips, so that is why she gets more then me. Her social security pay takes care of her dental, glasses, and all the kinds of things she has no insurance for so that is a life saver for us. Also helps cover her living costs. But she doesn't get enough to live on her own, we would have to supplement it or the state at some point. She is eligible for VA but can't get it as she has Medicaid and they will not grant benefits to folks like that I don't understand because they are the ones in most need. So people who need assisted living desperately if they have Medicaid cannot get VA. VA and SS covers MIL's costs at assisted living, just barely but it does, she pays out of pocket $3600 a year for a supplement, luckily its union and it also covers her scrips. If we didn't have that, she would have to go in a nursing home or we would have to care for her in our home. That would be a nightmare.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Feb 5, 2019 12:12:40 GMT -5
This is one of those cases where they need to put aside their animosity and come up with a settlement, otherwise it's going to get really expensive really quickly.
She worked while he went to school, so his degree is marital property. They will have to hire an expert to evaluate the value of the degree and award her a share. She would also be entitled to maintenance for deferring her career to work in his. Also, the business will have a value that would be determined by an expert and she would be awarded a share of the business value.
It sounds like it could be a big win for her, however, if his business dries up, or he gets hurt and can't work, she's fucked.
Come up with some kind of buyout paid over a few years and some maintenance, and go their separate ways. Save the lawyer fees, save the expert fees, and salvage whatever relationship they can to be civil for the kids.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 5, 2019 12:22:31 GMT -5
Slightly off topic... what on earth is a "med adjacent professional". Good luck to your friend, I feel for her situation. I was reading it yesterday on my phone and without my readers (well, because I refuse to get readers!lol)….I read it as a med adjunct professor...in case anyone is wondering where the hell I came up with my comment asking if he was a professor!lol Sigh...it might be time to actually get readers :-(
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 5, 2019 12:26:58 GMT -5
This is one of those cases where they need to put aside their animosity and come up with a settlement, otherwise it's going to get really expensive really quickly. She worked while he went to school, so his degree is marital property. They will have to hire an expert to evaluate the value of the degree and award her a share. She would also be entitled to maintenance for deferring her career to work in his. Also, the business will have a value that would be determined by an expert and she would be awarded a share of the business value. It sounds like it could be a big win for her, however, if his business dries up, or he gets hurt and can't work, she's fucked. Come up with some kind of buyout paid over a few years and some maintenance, and go their separate ways. Save the lawyer fees, save the expert fees, and salvage whatever relationship they can to be civil for the kids. I never knew a degree could be considered marital property. She also has a degree. Doesn't that cancel each other out? I'm both fascinated and horrified at divorce law. Mine was easy-peasy (as far as dividing assets (we didn't)) so I now realize how lucky I was. I can't imagine giving up half of what I earned because I was married. I'm not saying who is entitled or who isn't, I'm speaking as someone who is divorced and I would have been f'n livid!lol And stories like this remind me of why it is best to cohabitate unless you have one hell of a prenup!
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,305
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 5, 2019 12:32:29 GMT -5
Slightly off topic... what on earth is a "med adjacent professional". Good luck to your friend, I feel for her situation. I was reading it yesterday on my phone and without my readers (well, because I refuse to get readers!lol)….I read it as a med adjunct professor...in case anyone is wondering where the hell I came up with my comment asking if he was a professor!lol Sigh...it might be time to actually get readers :-( Ha! I'm also waging that battle. I've been going grey since I was 20 (and colouring monthly) so I don't actually associate my grey hair with the aging process. However, I know that when I have to get readers it means I'm getting old
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Feb 5, 2019 12:38:06 GMT -5
This is one of those cases where they need to put aside their animosity and come up with a settlement, otherwise it's going to get really expensive really quickly. She worked while he went to school, so his degree is marital property. They will have to hire an expert to evaluate the value of the degree and award her a share. She would also be entitled to maintenance for deferring her career to work in his. Also, the business will have a value that would be determined by an expert and she would be awarded a share of the business value. It sounds like it could be a big win for her, however, if his business dries up, or he gets hurt and can't work, she's fucked. Come up with some kind of buyout paid over a few years and some maintenance, and go their separate ways. Save the lawyer fees, save the expert fees, and salvage whatever relationship they can to be civil for the kids. I never knew a degree could be considered marital property. She also has a degree. Doesn't that cancel each other out?I'm both fascinated and horrified at divorce law. Mine was easy-peasy (as far as dividing assets (we didn't)) so I now realize how lucky I was. I can't imagine giving up half of what I earned because I was married. I'm not saying who is entitled or who isn't, I'm speaking as someone who is divorced and I would have been f'n livid!lol And stories like this remind me of why it is best to cohabitate unless you have one hell of a prenup! Not necessarily. Say she has a degree in English, and then she went to work whle her husband was in school. She then goes to work in his office. She isn't really using her degree, she's helping build the business. Yes, her education helps her, but it's not degree specific. If she wsan't helping him and was doing her own thing, it's generally discounted. Where it usually makes a difference is when a spouse puts another through school, and then that "degreed spouse" finds another honey very soon after finishing school. This is all really fact and case specific, but yes, a degree can constitute marital property. The value and the amount to be distributed is very fluid and not subject to any hard and fast rules. In your case, you wouldn't have to give up half of what you earned, and you'd been married long enough, and not self employed, that it probably would have been a non issue.
|
|