ralper

Absolutely right. That is a very important thing to do. It is much easier for all involved if you take care of your affairs while you are still here. Make sure you have a will, and make sure it is current. Make sure your heirs know where it is. Make sure you make all of the decisions that you want made, don't put the burden on you heirs.

I've seen it the other way too often.

ralper

Uppity

I just went back and read through the divorce controversy. I have a few questions.

In the case of your friend, you say the she got half the bills and has no source of income. In addition you say her ex and girlfriend just bought a new house, cars and vacations. I assume that your friend took all of the hard assets like the house, the car and other non-liquid valuables. I also assume that ex got the cash. If that is the case, her lawyer and accountant were asleep. Someone should have known better. You also suggest that it was unfair that she got half the bills. Why? If she got half the assets, why shouldn't she get half the bills. The problem is the kind of assets she was willing to take. You haven't really given us enough information to make a judgement on this. I'm sure there is more to it than you've said (especially about the breakout of assets).

In your case, you don't say if the money that you and your husband had to pay to his ex was alimony or child-support. I suspect it was child support because alimony would have stopped when she remarried. If it was child support, as much as you didn't like it, it wasn't as unfair as you suggest. Those kids were his kids too, and he has a responsibilty to support them. Unfortunately it impacted you as well. That she was able to go to court every two years and get an increase was probably due to the increased costs of living, and increased earnings of your husband.

I am not suggesting that the court system is fair nor am I suggesting that divorce and it's impact is pleasant, but I am suggesting that there is usually more than meets the eye. And sometimes things may be more fair than they appear to be.

paS2K

I respectfully suggest that the Divorce situation should have been a separate thread. It bears serious discussion, but the continuity is lost by other conversations intermingled...

Just my 2 cents....

Warren J. Dew

Sounds like my parents.

Economically, the split was 50/50 - including the income stream, because my mother did get a competent lawyer. What people don't realize is that a 50/50 split is a lose/lose proposition: you can't really live single in the style you were accustomed to married on half the income in half as big a house, etc. Given there's a divorce, a 50/50 split is "fair" in an economic sense, but it won't seem fair to either party.

In a noneconomic sense, he got freedom and she got insecurity. In my opinion, that wasn't fair at all.

ralper

Jerry,

That's not a bad idea. Divorce is a serious topic. Why don't you start a new thread on divorce?

ralper

Warren,

Of course you're right, but how does the court come up with an equitable solution? I'm not sure that anybody ever walks away from divorce whole.

And aside, imagine how bad the situation would have been for your mother had the attorney been asleep and not gotten her half of the stream of cash.

paS2K

[quote name='ralper' date='Feb 14 2005, 10:58 PM'] Jerry,

That's not a bad idea.

Warren J. Dew

Agreed. Involving competent professionals is important.

My father actually wanted to be fair economically, since he was the one who "wanted his freedom". It's just that he hadn't done the math, so he didn't realize what a "fair", or at least even, split would look like.

I'd argue for involving one more professional: a marriage counselor. Taking this step early enough could save the marriage, and avoid the whole lose/lose divorce economics. Actually, if you involved both a marriage counselor and an accountant, the figures from the latter might get the couple to listen harder to the former.

ralper

One of the things that I always advise my clients to do, especially the wives (even at the risk of offending the husband) is to have both spouses particpate in the family bookkeeping, bill paying and investing. My point is generally because at death the surviving spouse needs to know what is going on, but the same is true in divorce.

In my parents day it was standard fare for the husband to assume all responsibility, but that never made sense to me. Besides, things have changed and the wife needs to know what the husband knows and the reverse.

I strongly advise both partners in a marriage to participate in the family finances. Not because either of you expects a death or divorce, but if it does happen you will be much better off knowing where everything is and how things are done.

uppitychick

Ralper,
First of all, yes, there is much more info to both of these situations. Those were just highlights. I would need a gazillion pages to detail it all out.

As to my friend, I felt she should have gotten most of the money (alimony, ira's and other retirement accounts, etc. (he has a military retirement)) and most of the stuff because her husband makes a large amount of money so he can always make up the cash for himself. She did not want a divorce. It was her attorney that screwed her, IMO. He steered her away from that and toward the stuff because he felt should could not get the money??? (maybe that is the law here??)

As for the child support, I completely agree you have to pay, no question about that. That is not what I was miffed about. It was the fact that she abandoned the children, then manipulated to get them back and then milked us like a cow. (The court is who really appauled me in that situation--they gave them to her knowing her husband could not even come into the state because of a warrant for his arrest for drugs We fought like crazy, but had to let the kids go there and live in that situation, horrible situation .) It was the situation in which we had to pay it that is the sore spot.

The youngest came to live with us at a very early age (he begged to). So in order for him to be able to do that, she sold him to us (really). She would not allow him to come unless we continued to pay her child support for him also. Court was not an option because it had already made up its minds --Children should be with their mother. So we bought him. He is "my son" because she cut him off after he left and so I became his mother. Today, I couldn't imagine not having him. That is just a hint of the horrors that this woman has done to her own children. Kind of a Jerry Springer episode Eeeewww)

It just seems that the wicked get off scott free (monetarily) for all the atrosities they havoc, while the innocent seem to bear the burdens. Like I said before, the only consolation seems to be far down the road the wicked reap what they sew (some of them).

Agreed P2sk, this is not really a controvery, but a discussion. Thought this topic would have brought up more controversy

SORRY FOR ALL THESE WORDS -- I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF IN THE FUTURE