SIGforum
Divorce finance hypothetical question

This topic can be found at:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/6320001124

March 17, 2017, 09:36 AM
Fly-Sig
Divorce finance hypothetical question
quote:
Originally posted by LDD:
I've seen Option 3 proposed and it was rejected by the judge in that case. As in your hypothetical, the value of the couple's house was roughly equivalent to the value of their retirement savings.

The judge's explicit reasoning for his rejection was that the spouse who got the house got an immediately usable asset while the spouse who got the retirement either had to wait to cash out or cash out w/ severe penalty.


Why was it the place of the judge to decide the spouses' agreement which was entered into voluntarily wasn't right for them? Or was there some disagreement between the parties still?

Honestly, I was worried the judge in my case would do something like that. Our judge has a reputation of being a social justice warrior, much favoring the wife. On paper our agreement looking unequal, and it was. And, my ex was legally entitled to lifetime alimony but asked for none. Note that my ex was the one who filed for divorce against me, and I agreed to all the terms.

But there are factors which the court is not aware of because they don't consider it relevant. Like a multi-million dollar inheritance in my ex's near future. Like her mom having moved into ex's house and paying much (all?) of the current expenses.

Fortunately, after I'd sweated out the mandatory waiting period, she signed off on the decree as it stood.
March 17, 2017, 09:42 AM
Fly-Sig
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:

I recall one where the judge was a friend of mine, and she was so relieved when I was hired. The parties didn't need to do anything complicated from my point of view, but they had no idea how to do it, and had just fumbled around. It only cost my client about $1000, which, spent earlier, could have saved them weeks of fumbling and several appearances at which they got nothing done.


People think they are experts because they can search the internet! My ex was adamant we not use lawyers due to the high cost. So I just didn't tell her I had consulted with an atty. The cost of having him prepare a few documents was quite reasonable, and knowing it was done properly is priceless.

Ditto doing a will, trust, medical power of atty, etc. The atty covered bases and closed loopholes I had no idea were relevant. Cheap/free legal documents on the internet are dangerous.
March 17, 2017, 11:39 AM
Tonyny
So true...I'm glad I got one fighting for me!


*************************************************
NRA Life Member

Capital punishment means never having to say, "You again?"
March 17, 2017, 12:10 PM
chongosuerte
I hope I never, ever, have to do that shit again.

And I'm glad I consulted a lawyer before the schism kept him through the mess. I didn't "win" (nobody did), but I at least knew when and where to apply the lube.



Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here.

Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard.
-JALLEN

"All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones
March 17, 2017, 12:18 PM
jhe888
quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
quote:
Originally posted by LDD:
I've seen Option 3 proposed and it was rejected by the judge in that case. As in your hypothetical, the value of the couple's house was roughly equivalent to the value of their retirement savings.

The judge's explicit reasoning for his rejection was that the spouse who got the house got an immediately usable asset while the spouse who got the retirement either had to wait to cash out or cash out w/ severe penalty.


Why was it the place of the judge to decide the spouses' agreement which was entered into voluntarily wasn't right for them? Or was there some disagreement between the parties still?

Honestly, I was worried the judge in my case would do something like that. Our judge has a reputation of being a social justice warrior, much favoring the wife. On paper our agreement looking unequal, and it was. And, my ex was legally entitled to lifetime alimony but asked for none. Note that my ex was the one who filed for divorce against me, and I agreed to all the terms.

But there are factors which the court is not aware of because they don't consider it relevant. Like a multi-million dollar inheritance in my ex's near future. Like her mom having moved into ex's house and paying much (all?) of the current expenses.

Fortunately, after I'd sweated out the mandatory waiting period, she signed off on the decree as it stood.


Judges where I practice would generally not interfere with a property settlement agreement unless they had a pretty good idea there was fraud or duress. Absent that, the parties' agreement on property will stand.

Now, child support is a different matter. Most courts will look at child support and make an independent assessment that it conforms to the requirements of the law. The state has an interest in protecting children, and the children may not be being adequately represented independently.



The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
March 17, 2017, 12:27 PM
Ryanp225
Lawyers get a bad rep because they often have to tell their clients facts and truths that they don't want to hear.
March 17, 2017, 05:08 PM
LDD
quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Why was it the place of the judge to decide the spouses' agreement which was entered into voluntarily wasn't right for them?


Judges gonna judge. This judge was the senior family court judge in the county with, IIRC 40 years on the bench.

The option was proposed, neither attorney objected (that I know of), the judge just stated up front that he wasn't going to slice the pie that way.

quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig: Or was there some disagreement between the parties still?


Not that I am aware of.