Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 9:40:15 GMT -5
I have been informed that in the state I will file in (maybe it's all US states, I don't know) that to look at asset (paycheck and retirement) division as "50-50" is erroneous. The judge takes a look at the lesser earning spouse's education, work experience, and current income and (depending on 'formula' and each judge has a favorite), they determine how much the lesser-earning spouse should be able to earn annually, and they deduct that from the 50-50. For example, If I make 100,000 and she makes 25000, they won't award her 50,000 in annual support. It may be anywhere between 25K to 35K depending on the formula applied by whichever judge is ruling on that day. The kids are grown, my company pays for my housing, and the only assets we really have to divide up are my pay and my retirement. I've never asked any divorced friends about this because it's such a private matter, but has my legal rep given me the basic ballpark idea (for the USA)? All you ever here is "50-50" but that's maybe only if the spouse was stay-at-home with no work experience or degree? I'd go back and clarify everything with my legal consult, but I'm going to have to pay for the next visit and thought I'd ask around here first, just for a general idea. Go ahead ask your friends about their divorce, especially if they are in same state and have a similar lifestyle/income as you. A few months ago I asked a friend of mine about his. His first words were no one had asked and he felt he had to keep it to himself . He then told me every little detail he was so happy to get it off his chest and tell someone - can't shut him up now. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinkberry on Jan 9, 2017 2:20:25 GMT -5
I've seen retirements split as follows. Let's say that Joe has a career of 30 years with the federal government and earns a pension. He is married to Susie the entirety of the 30 years and so the judge orders that he pay her half of all of his retirement income when it begins to pay out to him.
Alternatively, let's say that Mike has a 30-year government career, but was only married to Mary for 10 of those years. Mary would be more likely to get awarded one half of 1/3 of the retirement payout annually. Presumably, she contributed nothing to the other 20 years of his career, legally speaking.
I've also seen people argue successfully to keep all of their own retirement for a variety of reasons, but typically if the other spouse works, then they should presumably be getting their own retirement income, whether by pension or by investment. They arguably had the opportunity if they were working.
|
|
