It’s being reported in the press that Demi Moore is driving a hard bargain, in demanding a big payoff from Ashton Kutcher. This, despite Moore being a lot wealthier than Kutcher. I’ve not seen the justification for this, but I’m guessing that while Moore is a lot wealthier than Kutcher, most of her wealth pre-dates the marriage, while Kutcher earned a lot more money during the course of the marriage itself.
Without focusing too much on the details of the specific Moore-Kutcher situation, my question is whether this is true as a general rule in divorces. Would a situation in which the poorer spouse made more money during the marriage typically result in the poorer spouse paying out to the wealthier spouse rather than the other way around?
Generally what each spouse owned before doesn’t count. Anything earned during the marriage is a joint asset. That includes salary as well as appreciation of stuff owned before.
This is not alimony or some other arrangement designed to ensure that a spouse is financially taken care of.
This is about dividing up marital property, which is roughly defined as assets acquired during the marriage. In community property states, including California, this is usually a straight 50-50 split unless there is another legal arrangement in place.
The idea behind it is that in a marriage, partners function as an economic unit while contributing in different ways. For example, my spouse may contribute valuable childcare and household upkeep so that I am able to work full time. While I technically bring in more money, we are both working in our own ways according to whatever arrangement we have worked out to keep the household going.
It’s not practical to put an exact dollar amount on everything a person contributes to a household (“Well, I provide 45 hours a week in childcare, which in a daycare center would run $1,500 a month, but he washes the dishes and it’d cost $8.50 an hour to hire a dishwasher…”) and so it makes sense to assume that if people are staying married, they have figured out some kind of roughly equitable situation and if they should break up, they should benefit equally from whatever economic progress they made together.
Except that we’ve seen time and again that this is patently false and courts are more than happy to give half of someone’s wealth to someone they married after becoming wealthy. Especially in Community Property states.
Yes, to answer the OP, we need to know if Moore & Kutchner are domiciled in a community property jurisdiction, or a partnership of acquisition jurisdiction. I’m familiar with partnership of acquisition, and the description in the OP sounds consistent with that sort of system. If they were in a community property jurisdiction, I would think that he would have a claim on her assets, even if pre-marriage, but I’m not very familiar with community property rules.
Kutcher filed for divorce in Los Angeles, where he and Moore were married. California is a community property state, and requires equal division of community property, but equitable distribution of debts. The state recognizes separate property, with commingling and transmutation in appropriate cases. These laws can create some interesting divisions of property.
Yes, but I would think California would be the most pre-nup friendly! Isn’t that where the very first ‘palimony’ suit (with actor Lee Marvin) happened?
