I Am Leaving My Husband. Help!

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
181

When you have a moral dilema, you don’t need advice from lawyers.

Lawyers represent your interests. They do so with respect to the exact word of the law. This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

You don’t really have any question about the morality of what you are proposing to do. You just want to know:

a: Are you likely to get away with this?

b: Are decent people you might know going to think ill of you if you do?

c: Don’t you wish there were a three?

The answers are, yes, yes, and yes.

Tris

182

[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I suggest to you that giving half your money to a lazy man grates a hell of a lot more than to a lazy man. Hell, people run charities for disabled people. When did you last donate money to the “Slackers of America” fund? I really think it’s offensive to say you are in a “similar situation”. Has your husband read this thread? What does he think of this situation comparison?
[/QUOTE]

I’ll go ask him.

Well, he said, “Why should I be?”

183

Triskadecamus nails it.

Anyway, this is a question you absolutely have to ask your attorney. She needs to go over your pre-nup. Since most of us aren’t lawyers, and none of us are YOUR lawyers, and none of us has read the actual wording of you rpre-nup.

It seems very likely that if you put the money from the sale of your first house into the second house, the second house is entirely your property. But you need your attorney’s advice on this. As has been said several times, you absolutely do not want the Judge to start asking questions and your ex-husband getting upset and refusing to sign anything. That would be inconvenient.

You don’t have an obligation to force him to get an attorney, but you also do not have the ethical right to keep assets a secret. If your attorney comes up with a document that discloses the value of the house, and the ownership of that house based on your pre-nup (ie, it is possible he really is legally entitled to nothing), and also stating that he gives up all interest in the house in return for $20,000, then that is absolutely moral, ethical, and legal (I hope it’s legal. IANAL).

And if your ex really is legally entitled to half the money, try getting the judge to agree to your setting up a trust for him, which will pay his child support for the next 18-X years. Maybe that will fly.

184

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Now it is my job to tell him that some where along the line it is possible that I didn’t take into consideration that the law doesn’t agree with our agreement and I may be forced to offer him more.
[/QUOTE]

Yes: it is your job to be honest with him. If you are not honest with him, then you are not the moral person that you would like to be.

You keep trying to cloud the issue, but it really is simple. Are you honest, or are you dishonest?

Daniel

185

Tell him “Because laziness and a physical disability are in no way comparable”. lol. I didn’t say “He SHOULD be offended” but I can see a few people who would. And to be honest Foxy40 could rightly be offended. You are likening giving her lay-about husband 20 grand to leaving a cripple high and dry.

186

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
I am a writer (believe it or not with this bad spelling and lousy context), he is a musician. In the prenup, we covered this. In the event of a windfall, neither party is entitled to share in the other’s financial success upon divorce. So, no I don’t think I would be entitled and would feel dirty taking a dime from him that I did not earn anyway. However, that being said, I would certainly expect him to pay child support in that case. We covered everything from inheritances to tax refunds to retirement accounts. What we didn’t cover in writing was any future property because I thought it was covered by the prenup which said all property in my name shall be mine. (Apparently unless I sold it and bought something else while married. Didn’t count on that to matter)

I am surprised that the deal we made doesn’t seem to come into play with anyone’s opinion. He agreed to sign a prenup and leave the marriage if it ended with only the things he brought into it. The joke was “a hefty bag and a bookcase and I am on my way”. Now it is my job to tell him that some where along the line it is possible that I didn’t take into consideration that the law doesn’t agree with our agreement and I may be forced to offer him more. I already offered him 20K more which thrilled him.
[/QUOTE]

well there I suppose is your answer. If it was intended to be covered by the prenup then that is that. I guess I would talk to him about it and see what he says. Maybe you mentioned that before, but if so I missed it. You didn’t expect the house to go up in value? Or am I understanding you had a house–sold it and then bought another?

See to me those are very different scenarios. In the first you had a prenup that covered what you each had coming into the marriage. So if this is the same house, then I say you can leave with all your stuff and a clear conscience.

If however you sold that house, and bought another while married then it appears that you and he bought a house together. At least minus the cost of your original house. I would say he should have half the value of the new house since it was purchased (again minus the cost of your original house). Does that make sense?

I think if he is aware that the money is his, but he doesn’t feel entitled to it, then I think you are fine keeping it. You both may have intended it to be covered, but it wasn’t.

Not a fun situation!
Hey at least be thankful you (and I) are both involved with people who are reasonable when divorce happens. I have seen the opposite and it isn’t pretty! Again I would say for you to look at it through your daughters eyes–this is her daddy we are talking about.

Good luck

187

I’ve read this thread several times looking for something I could intelligently comment on, and I keep coming back to this snippet.

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
He knows I am a moral and fair person and he will sign whatever I ask him to sign. The moral issue is what I am struggling with.
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t seen anywhere where Foxy40 has said that her husband is a “bad” person – nothing that suggests he was cruel, abusive, neglectful, drunk, or even a bad father. What he is, according to her, is lazy.

She married him because she didn’t want to have a child out of wedlock. It’s been 8 years, and she’s tired of carrying him. She wants a nice, civilized, we-tried-but-it-didn’t-work, divorce.

And it seems like he’s willing to go along with pretty much anything she suggests. So far, so good.

Why, then, while trying to do what’s right, would she want to conceal this one little detail? Why shouldn’t she disclose to her husband that he might have a claim on the equity in the house, but maybe he ought to do the right thing and either sign it over to her or their daughter.

If he’s as disinterested about money as she says he is, he probably wouldn’t put up much of a fight. Certainly, since he hasn’t even bothered to get his own lawyer, he hasn’t been putting up much of a fight before now.

If you’re “a moral and fair person” tell the truth. If there’s a problem, that’s why you have a lawyer.

188

Foxy40, I would talk to your attorney before you talk to your husband. Does your attorney specialize in family law? Ask her whether he is entitled to the equity in the house. Ask your attorney whether you can indeed waive child support and what the law says about that.

There is no point in talking to your ex until you do so. Has your attorney already started proceedings on the divorce? It seems a little late to be examining these issues at this point. By the time you file a lawsuit, you should already have as many of your ducks in a row as possible.

189

Reading over your original OP, why would you want to get married again? If you get married, there is always the chance that your finances will get enmeshed or that you will be responsible for each other’s debts. If you move, you may be subject to different divorce law. Why marry?

190

It just occurred to me that the $20,000 offer shows that you believe in your own heart that you should not be withholding information about his possible equity claim from him. If you truly believed what you have been saying about taking out of the marriage what you brought in, etc, you would not have offered him a dime. Quit lying to yourself and start doing what you know you should be doing.

191

If anybody wants to read posts in this thread that make sense, go to Rick’s two posts yesterday, and also those by Caffeine.addict.

Now, for a little something from the soon to be Ex’s angle; he’s getting to leave this marriage with:

Everything he brought into it.
A check for $20,000.
A free pass on ten years of child support and the child’s college expenses.

Hell no, he doesn’t want another lawyer! Show me one guy who wouldn’t be ecstatic to get a deal like this.

He doesn’t want a lawyer, he wants to get the paperwork signed ASAP, as would anybody with half a brain.

Hint: More than likely, if lawyers start quarreling and then a judge takes a hard look and sees that Foxy put all the equity into the new house and made all the subsequent payments, Ex will be entitled to ZILCH.

192

Good point, John, but I still think that perspective takes gender into account: that because he’s a man, he’s expected to go out and get another job; where if he were a woman, he’d get half of everything and there wouldn’t be a discussion.

That, to me, is the bottom line. If Foxy40 was a rich male homeowner, shoving a non-working wife out the door with a parting gift, taking advantage of her ignorance, we’d be incensed.

Yeah, it sucks to work hard for something and find that the law entitles someone to something that you earned. That’s how it works for men in damn near every divorce since Henry VIII, why should it be different if it’s a rich female homeowner? Does the law specifically exempt women in this way?

Here’s the skinny: Foxy40 thinks he’d turn down the hundred grand. She should give him the opportunity to do so. If he does, no huhu.

193

According to Dr.Phil a house wife or house husband works equivalent to 2 full time jobs. Phil caters to women doesn’t he. But if he kept the house up ,he did more than utilities.
Gardening,lawn, snow shoveling etc.

194

[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
Reading over your original OP, why would you want to get married again? If you get married, there is always the chance that your finances will get enmeshed or that you will be responsible for each other’s debts. If you move, you may be subject to different divorce law. Why marry?
[/QUOTE]

Good question. I will remarry because I am in love and I would like to raise my daughter in a secure home with a decent male role model. He and I have discussed this money issue to death. He feels he is getting the short end of the stick in his divorce so with our experiences, we will find lawyers that make sure this is never an issue between us.

Being married doesn’t have to involve marrying finances. Just because it is typically done in most relationships, that doesn’t mean it is right for everyone.

195

[QUOTE=featherlou]
It just occurred to me that the $20,000 offer shows that you believe in your own heart that you should not be withholding information about his possible equity claim from him. If you truly believed what you have been saying about taking out of the marriage what you brought in, etc, you would not have offered him a dime. Quit lying to yourself and start doing what you know you should be doing.
[/QUOTE]

The 20,000 was a gift so he would be okay. At that time, I wasn’t even aware of the possibility of having to give him money from the sale of the house. I am a generous person contrary to certain opinions here and didn’t want him to be out on the street with absolutely nothing and no where to go.

I have no need to lie to myself.

196

I don’t think that should make a difference and I am certainly not going to go into the problems in my marriage and point out his faults. However, I will say that I don’t think I would divorce him for just being lazy when I knew that is what I was getting when I married him.

197

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Good question. I will remarry because I am in love and I would like to raise my daughter in a secure home with a decent male role model. He and I have discussed this money issue to death. He feels he is getting the short end of the stick in his divorce so with our experiences, we will find lawyers that make sure this is never an issue between us.

Being married doesn’t have to involve marrying finances. Just because it is typically done in most relationships, that doesn’t mean it is right for everyone.
[/QUOTE]

Do I understand this to mean you are staying with the guy you didn’t want to stay with due to alimony issues? Just curious.

198

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
The 20,000 was a gift so he would be okay. At that time, I wasn’t even aware of the possibility of having to give him money from the sale of the house. I am a generous person contrary to certain opinions here and didn’t want him to be out on the street with absolutely nothing and no where to go.

I have no need to lie to myself.
[/QUOTE]

Then why aren’t you going to be completley up front with him? You seem to have, at lest in your mind, some good reasons why what you are offering is fair. Then communicate it with him. Let’s just put it this, being totally upfront and honest and trying to work things out that way is definitley not the wrong thing to do. The path you are wondering about, may or may not be, that is for you to decide.

199

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
According to Dr.Phil a house wife or house husband works equivalent to 2 full time jobs. Phil caters to women doesn’t he. But if he kept the house up ,he did more than utilities.
Gardening,lawn, snow shoveling etc.
[/QUOTE]

I had (have) a cleaning lady, landscaper and babysitter. If he even did his own laundry, that would have been amazing! I did (still do) it. In that case, according to Dr Phil I have three full times jobs.

However, I have found from an earlier question I asked that none of that would matter to most here either. I have been blasted that marriage is a “contract” and if one partner chooses to sit on his/her butt and do nothing, the other is responsible to either agree to live in filth or be the homemaker *and * the bread winner. After having enough whether it take three years or twenty, many folks agree that the law is fair; that if no prenup, half goes to the spouse who floated through life. I guess he/she will need it more because the responsible spouse will be dead a lot sooner from exhaustion.

It seems it doesn’t matter about what your private plans were when you married, the rules can change at anytime to the advantage of the spouse who still doesn’t have to take care of him/herself. Apparently it isn’t good enough that the responsible person took care of the other throughout the marriage. It **must ** continue and the worse off that lazy spouse is, the more they get because they appear incapable of taking care of themselves.

You have a good point gonzomax. However, the problem with the laws are they don’t take into consideration that Dr Phil’s may not be the scenario. Sometimes a spouse really does do nothing but contribute love and conversation and sometimes not even that.

200

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
The problem is when the laws get involved to protect the adult unwilling to take care of themselves. I resent it as a self sufficient adult. I resent that it has come up twice in the last year in my life. I resent it making me wonder if I did a stupid thing by working my tail off only to hand over money to someone who didn’t keep their side of the “contract”.
[/QUOTE]

First, I want to say that I agree with you 100% here.

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Well, don’t kill me folks but I don’t even know if he is entitled to half the equity in the house.
[/QUOTE]

When my brother got divorced, he had to pay his ex-wife half of the equity of the house, which was something like $80,000. Of course, he didn’t have that kind of cash so he would have had to sell the house to give her the money. He didn’t want to sell the house… so luckily my parents were able to loan him the money. In this situation, he paid the mortgage 100% and she contributed to the utilities… but yet she got half the equity. Doesn’t seem fair…

However, in this case, both of them owned the house. The bought it together, and both of their names were on the mortgage. In your case, you bought the house yourself. So I am very confused as to how you would still be considered half his. That doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem fair.