|
Post by GeekGoddess on Nov 19, 2016 0:01:19 GMT -5
Quoting you here Sister warmways - "Almost called the lawyer and realized what's holding me back is lack of funds" - In my jurisdiction, the initial lawyer consult is invariably free. - Do you have a reasonable idea of what you and your spouses net assets are ? If you divide that figure by two, then there is an approximation of how much money *you* would get out of a divorce. Does your position of "lacking funds" still hold good ? Posted by warmwaysyesterday at 9:56am
Good point Baz. I'll ask hot how much and when she needs to be paid. I know what are net assets are. My concern was that I wouldn't be able to pay her until after the divorce when I believe she'd need compensation throughout the process.
Warmways is right. Baz is correct that in almost all jurisdictions, there would be a 50/50 split in marital assets, we all know this. But what to do for that initial payment, after the 1/2 hour (or whatever) free consultation. It's very common here in the states that the attorney want's $1000 to $1500 payment up front for uncontested and up to $3000 to $4000 for contested divorces, before they will lift a finger. That's a lot of money up front....and usually pretty hard to hide that it's been spent. Also, a lot of women can't necessarily get a loan because their biggest assets....vehicles and homes, are joint owned and it takes both owner's signatures to secure a cash loan on that asset. I see this as a very difficult issue when it comes to initiating a divorce. On top of that, there is the concept of penalties for pre-filing misappropriation of martial funds for the benefit of only one spouse. These rules are intended to keep a spouse from hiding money, or spending large amounts just prior to filing for a divorce in an attempt to keep a larger share. But a wide number of courts have ruled that a spouse spending money on a divorce attorney falls under these rules and laws, as it only benefits the filing spouse!!! WTF!! So? Where do you get the money to initiate a divorce. You can't get a loan. You can't use marital funds. you can't even use your own paycheck that you set aside because.....50% is the other person's as marital assets! A horrible catch 22. I have seen a lot of people, mostly women, get trapped by this inequity in securing the services of an attorney. I imagine a lot of people here are held back by this issue. Worthy of discussion....... I put my $1500 retainer fee on the credit card. Started paying it off as I was able. Lawyer refunded me - like $600 I think - after it was all done. That check then when to the credit card company. I know it's different for a non-employed spouse. But if you work, then you can pay it off easier than it seems like. For me, this was a huge victory to wrest control of my finances from him, bet on myself, and make good on that bet when the house FINALLY sold. I haven't ever looked at how much interest this "loan to myself" cost because truth is, I would still pay more if I had to in order to be as free as I am now. My life has a different, more direct feeling to it than before. It is mine - finally- to do with as I see fit. That is priceless.
|
|
|
Post by warmways on Nov 19, 2016 0:24:00 GMT -5
Thanks itsjustus and geek goddess. This is really useful. I do work but I'm unable to save it because of his spending. He wastes the money and so what I try to save has to go towards gas and food. Also I make a lot less than he does. It's going to take some creativity and planning but as gg says having your own life and "wresting control of finances" is "priceless". If I want to do this (which I do), I'll find a way.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Nov 19, 2016 0:28:52 GMT -5
My jurisdiction is Australia and divorce law is the same in every state, it was enacted in 1975, and is a "no fault" deal. - My lawyer did not want a bean up front. And her advice to me was to negotiate a settlement under an instrument called a "Binding Financial Agreement" under which the divisible assets can be divided whilst you are still nominally married. She (the lawyer) then examined the agreement (warned me that I could have gotten more, and accepting the negotiated settlement was against legal advice) My missus' lawyer then examined the BFA to make sure she wasn't getting dudded. We (me, missus, her lawyer, my lawyer) signed it off. Then we effected the transfers of property, money, retirement funds, share portfolio etc, and it was done. - All up, my costs were a touch under $1,200 Aussie dollars. Main expense was my lawyer translating the BFA in to "legalize" language, and her time in so doing. That was payable 7 days after she drew it up. My missus said hers were a bit over $ 800 Aussie dollars. - There were some disbursment costs (stamp duties and suchlike) as well, but they were not "legal costs". - About 12 months later, my missus petitioned for divorce. I had to sign one court document, and that was that. It cost $ 270 which I graciously paid on our behalves. - "If" it had been a contested divorce, my lawyer reckoned I'd be due a 50/50 share (the BFA I agreed to was about 38/62) and I wouldn't have had too much trouble raising the necessary $10 to $15k to do that from friends family, and I probably would have ended up in front of what I settled for. - So there is my experience, in my jurisdiction. It was "fairly" painless (in so far as that's possible) I was mentally and financially prepared for way way worse.
|
|
|
Post by solodriver on Nov 19, 2016 2:08:27 GMT -5
I haven't gotten a hug or a kiss from my wife in 4 years now. It's so very sad to know that I will never have those things as a part of my life with her again.
|
|
|
Post by JonDoe on Nov 19, 2016 8:07:46 GMT -5
The following is one quote I received:
$150 consultation fee $2500 upfront retainer $300 per hour $10,000 uncontested estimate (6 month separation) $50,000 contested estimate (12 month separation)
Naturally, I need a few more estimates, but the contested route may be financially prudent if there is a chance of achieving significantly less spousal support. At 50, I have to consider possibly paying spousal support for 25+ years, which adds up to a large sum of money, above and beyond splitting assests.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Nov 19, 2016 8:29:22 GMT -5
JonDoe ... yeah, the math is painful. Approaching 50, and after 25+ years of being sole provider, the alimony would total more than my half of the assets. So, at best it's financially like starting over at 50 with absolutely zero. That doesn't look very promising for retirement. (And the point isn't lost on me that I'm the only one who gets shafted in this equation; her retirement will look even better with a divorce.) As someone who has always lived below his means and planned for the long-term, it's crushing to consider decades of diligence being wiped out. While people like to say the money shouldn't matter, it's not just money - it's quality of life for the rest of your life, and weighing whether poor intimacy (one facet of quality of life) outweighs other facets. Among many other decision points. Certainly, for some folks the relationship is so acrimonious that the financial devastation is worth it. But where "everything's great, bar the sex", the decision is much, much harder.
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Nov 19, 2016 8:38:41 GMT -5
DryCreek surely if you are splitting the retirement plan then the alimony should stop when you finish work?
|
|
|
Post by JonDoe on Nov 19, 2016 9:46:55 GMT -5
JonDoe ... yeah, the math is painful. Approaching 50, and after 25+ years of being sole provider, the alimony would total more than my half of the assets. So, at best it's financially like starting over at 50 with absolutely zero. That doesn't look very promising for retirement. (And the point isn't lost on me that I'm the only one who gets shafted in this equation; her retirement will look even better with a divorce.) As someone who has always lived below his means and planned for the long-term, it's crushing to consider decades of diligence being wiped out. While people like to say the money shouldn't matter, it's not just money - it's quality of life for the rest of your life, and weighing whether poor intimacy (one facet of quality of life) outweighs other facets. Among many other decision points. Certainly, for some folks the relationship is so acrimonious that the financial devastation is worth it. But where "everything's great, bar the sex", the decision is much, much harder. Have you investigated "Rehabilitate Alimony"? Unless there is a medical condition, your wife should not have the option of not working after divorce while you continue to fully support her. The divorce laws are absolutely terrible. This is not the 1800s where divorce would leave a woman homeless in almost every case. I don't care what financial standard of living a spouse was accustomed to during marriage, the other spouse should not have to guarantee that same financial standard of living indefinitely. The marriage is over as are the benefits that came with it. I think it should be a max of 5 years, which gives the other spouse ample time to adjust to a new financial lifestyle. Adultery has a financial penalty associated with it regarding alimony, but emotional abandonment via refusing physical intimacy isn't considered a real thing in the eyes of lady justice. My wife, as have many women like her, have stated unequivocally that she will not remarry. So she will eventually meet another partner, perhaps even a woman, enter into a new relationship, but maintain two residences thus continuing to collect alimony indefinitely. So I'll have to pay her several thousand dollars each and every month, enough to pay for a nice vacation every month if she wanted too. The ex-wife of a friend has been jettsetting the globe with her new lover for years on this very plan. If he doesn't pay, his wages will be garnished, and eventually could possiblly go to jail, while in my eyes she is the one committing a crime. So if you are the bread-winner in a sexless marriage, have sex outside the marriage, and your spouse can prove it, then you get penalized financially after divorce, possibly indefinitely. However, the refusing spouse is never financially penalized, period.
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Nov 19, 2016 10:12:44 GMT -5
warmways, have you looked into a Divorce Recovery Group in your town? When I went to mine I had not filled for divorce yet. The crowd there was loaded with people who already had made that decision, with plenty of good and bad stories about it. Some where in the same spot as me.
Attorneys, councilors, realtors, authors, would come and speak to our crowd. People would have all kinds of questions.
This is where the poop hits the paddle. You hear about taxes, claiming children, people still in the military, benefits being cut, moving costs, who paid to much, for an attorney, and who paid less. Drinking problems, affairs not mattering in court, refusing to pay alimony, hiring new attorneys, hidden accounts, etc... lots of factors to get advice about.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Nov 19, 2016 14:43:45 GMT -5
DryCreek surely if you are splitting the retirement plan then the alimony should stop when you finish work? Well, the mechanics of it would be a split of assets, including retirement funds. But then due to the length of the marriage I'm on the hook for a solid 15 years of alimony, which is not far from other states that have "lifetime" alimony that runs until retirement. (Which essentially reduces money I have to rebuilt the lost assets and retirement funds, let alone grow them as needed.) On the practical side, no matter how you slice it, when I turn 70 what I'll have accrued for retirement is comparable to being bankrupt at 50 and starting from zero.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Nov 19, 2016 15:00:26 GMT -5
JonDoe, there is (conservatively) a 5:1 gap in our earning potential that no amount of rehabilitation / education will resolve. So, standard of living is very much a part of the formula. On one hand I see the logic. Someone has made life decisions on the basis of their spouse being the breadwinner, and they shouldn't be left destitute. There should be enough of a "hand up" to enable self-sufficiency. But self-sufficiency seems to have translated to an extended entitlement to the same standard of living, even if it impoverishes the former breadwinner. I've known guys who ended up in an apartment with a used car while the ex got the big house with a pool plus a healthy alimony.
|
|
|
Post by JonDoe on Nov 19, 2016 17:51:30 GMT -5
JonDoe , there is (conservatively) a 5:1 gap in our earning potential that no amount of rehabilitation / education will resolve. So, standard of living is very much a part of the formula. On one hand I see the logic. Someone has made life decisions on the basis of their spouse being the breadwinner, and they shouldn't be left destitute. There should be enough of a "hand up" to enable self-sufficiency. But self-sufficiency seems to have translated to an extended entitlement to the same standard of living, even if it impoverishes the former breadwinner. I've known guys who ended up in an apartment with a used car while the ex got the big house with a pool plus a healthy alimony. It should never be that unbalanced, unless the husband agrees to let her keep the big house for the children until the youngest child graduates from high school. Most states use a formula something similar to the following, although the percentages may vary by region and other factors, such as child support, mental or physical handicap, etc: Monthly Alimony = ((0.3 * H) - (0.5 * L)) / 12 where H = Higher annual earning potential L = Lower annual earning potential So if a couple has been married for 25 years, has no minor children, and one spouse has an earning potential of $250,000 and the other spouse $50,000 annually, then Monthly Alimony = ((0.3 * $250,000) - (0.5 * $50,000)) / 12 = ($75,000 - $25,000) / 12 = $4,1667 The alimony awarded is $50,000 annually. Thus, adjusting the annual incomes to $200,000 and $100,000, respectively. Same 5:1 ratio using smaller values of $100,000 and $20,000 results in an annual alimony of $20,000 thus adjusting incomes to $80,000 and $40,000, respectively. Neither of these scenarios results in the spouse receiving alimony doing significantly better than the one paying alimony, unless you factor a new partner into the equation. Of course, this is a simple example and does not include child support or other mitigating factors. As I mentioned in an earlier post, adultery and other factors could impact alimony. The duration and amount of alimony awarded is also impacted by the length of the marriage, other factors, and local laws. Texas law sets the maximum duration of alimony to 7 years for a 25 year marriage, while other states may set the duration to 25 years or indefinitely.
|
|
|
Post by warmways on Nov 20, 2016 1:20:51 GMT -5
warmways, have you looked into a Divorce Recovery Group in your town? When I went to mine I had not filled for divorce yet. The crowd there was loaded with people who already had made that decision, with plenty of good and bad stories about it. Some where in the same spot as me. Attorneys, councilors, realtors, authors, would come and speak to our crowd. People would have all kinds of questions. This is where the poop hits the paddle. You hear about taxes, claiming children, people still in the military, benefits being cut, moving costs, who paid to much, for an attorney, and who paid less. Drinking problems, affairs not mattering in court, refusing to pay alimony, hiring new attorneys, hidden accounts, etc... lots of factors to get advice about. I haven't but that's a good thought. Thanks, I'm going to see what I can find here.
|
|
|
Post by warmways on Nov 20, 2016 1:24:03 GMT -5
That's interesting.. a few years ago I kind of liked the hug but mostly I detested it because It felt good for 30 seconds or less and it made me realize what I'm deprived of. The kiss I haven't liked for a really long time. It was always a big deal - he made a big production if it because he has OCD and would complain if I had lipgloss or lip balm on. He'd get really mad I had put it on. He got over that through going to therapy. I used to always ask for the hug and now I only do if I have a really bad day. Now he's always asking for the hug and kiss (but only in the morning). He worked from home today so didn't approach me. Now kissing on on the lips feels way too intimate for a almost non existent physical emotional is sexual etc etc relationship. It makes no sense to me. It's just a perfunctory act that feels comfortable to him with no thought about how I might feel. He gets really irritated if I'm not into it. I'm going to woman up and just tell him that as I feel like we're friends it just feels weird. Finally, a big win for therapy. After years of it he finally got over his aversion to your lip balm. (Please excuse any literary license I may have taken and now /sarcasm off) I stopped kissing and hugging my STBX too. Yes, it was just weird at so many levels ... But then it may not have been my idea to stop. I'm pretty sure I put in at least 10 years without a hug or kiss or any other affection. Thanks for making me laugh. "Finally, a big win for therapy."
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Nov 20, 2016 1:33:52 GMT -5
JonDoe, your example makes for easy math, so I'll use those figures to explain what I mean... Let's say assets are $1M - each spouse takes $500K. Now take your example of $50K/yr alimony for 10 years = $500K. The higher-earning spouse has paid out as much as the assets they received in the settlement. Yes, it actually gets paid over 10 years and they keep the original assets - but that's $500K that never makes it into their retirement. This is why I say it's comparable to being financially wiped out at 50 and starting over. No matter how the cash flows, the maintenance payments can be huge and essentially consume a large amount that would have become retirement savings. The person in this example would see retirement income cut by more than $2500/month as a result of divorcing at 50 - that's nothing to sneeze at. Bottom-line, my point isn't about the money. It's about the long-term impact of decisions. And making an informed decision whether it's worth sacrificing one quality-of-life attribute to gain/preserve another. But the above isn't a universal formula. Not everyone will have long/expensive spousal maintenance. Some will have enough assets that retirement will be comfortable regardless. Most will have a tough retirement either way. For each, the long-term impact is different.
|
|