In this case she made what she felt was a fair offer, but found out he might be legally entitled to more. Ex isn’t going to ask for more, and is happy with the original offer. As the divorce can proceed upon agreement between two parties 9the law is there for when they disagree), she has no duty, legally or ethically, to renegotiate. If anything, she should be prepared just in case he counters. There is nothing ‘untrustworthy’ in that. If ex had even the slightest interest in what he was fully legally entitled to, he would get off his ass and find out.
No. Because the salesman and I are both aware that this is an adversarial relationship. I’ll say that three more times, but that’s it.
Daniel
That and I think a lot of us are having a hard time reconciling one post to the next from foxy. In one post she seems to be some kind of ranting, diabolical shrew, and in the next she’s painting herself as a sweet, generous martyr. The inconsistency is setting off my alarm bells.
I’m not willing to go that far. I think the ethical question she proposes is interesting, and I can certainly see where she’s coming from. I just think that honesty in personal relationships is key; and if someone believes that all the cards are on the table, it’s incumbent on you to tell them the rules of the game before they place their bet. That doesn’t mean you show them your hand; it just means you make sure they know the rules.
Daniel
Except that there are disagreement on the rules. I feel the rules are that he is going through a divorce, and he can either accept the proposed settlement or find out if he has greater rights. Just because someone doesn’t walk on water, part it for others after they pass, then turn it into wine when thaty are done, doesn’t make them either unethical or untrustworthy.
And getting a divorce isn’t?
it CAN be–but Foxy has already said this is amiable. So she has already stated that it isn’t an adversarial situation.
When you are representing an interactions as different from most interactions of that type, inasmuch as most of them are ugly and evil but this one will not be, and that this one is characterized by kindness, reasonableness, and mutual agreement, then it is not unreasonable for one party to assume that it is not an adversarial situation. Naive, perhaps, but not unreasonable.
An ethical person will either refuse to engage adversarially, or will make it perfectly clear to the naive party that this interaction will be adversarial.
Daniel
From the same post–can you see how maybe he got the impression that this isn’t an adversarial process?
Daniel
What a terrible analogy. Here’s a better one: You hire an employee. You tell the employee that you will abide by all legal requirements in the course of employment. Then a couple of years later you fire the employee. You happen to know that the state requires a minimum of 4 week’s severence for a firing without cause, plus you have to pay out whatever retirement benefits he has accrued, plus whatever holiday time he has coming to him.
But you know this employee probably hasn’t studied employment law, so you tell him you’re going to be magnanimous and give him a week’s pay, and then you hope that he doesn’t bother to check what his actual rights were.
I mean really, it’s the employee’s fault if he doesn’t know the law, right? You haven’t done anything unethical, right?
Oh, and to make the analogy a little more accurate, the employee is your spouse and parent of your children.
Retirement, 401k, profit sharing, stocks,etc where all covered by the prenup. I had a good lawyer who covered just about everything that could come up. I want everyone to know that it wasn’t one sided, it was the same for him. If he got a great job, or a lucrative record contract, that money wouldn’t go into a community pot. We agreed to share a home and a family but not expenses, savings or future income.
In my heart of hearts I know that if his band had become successful, I wouldn’t be on this board whining that I wasn’t entitled to it. Although I would expect him to support his child in that case.
For those who think I came across as a “shrew”, maybe I am. Who’s to say but those who know me and not by my moral and legal conflicts? Also, keep this in mind. I am going through a divorce and with that process, there is always an underlying anger. I am trying to surpress that and do what is right for *everyone * involved. This man will be in my life as the father of my child forever. I just don’t want him to feel I was fair, I want him to leave with great
feelings that I did above and beyond. That was the original conflict when I worried that he was legally entitled to that money. Morally, I couldn’t see it. Morally, I still thought the original 20K was a “gift”. Then it all got muddled.
After sorting through the “attacks” I have read some good point in favor of giving him more. The main one goes back to what I just wrote. His view of me as we step off into our own futures. His view of me when it involved our daughter.
As for a relationship without sharing money, I don’t know why that is so strange to some. I know for a fact that John and I wouldn’t have made it 8 years if we had not left finances totally out of our relationship. That is with two people totally incompatible from the word go. Throw money fights into it and we have two people in a shot gun marriage that are at each other’s throats.
The man I am with now is a good man, a strong man of good character. He thinks that sharing money is the way to do things. This after getting totally screwed in a divorce (or not depending on your opinion). It was something I have had to convince him over time that it can work when two people are generous but cautious about protecting their futures from the unknown.
I am not saying my way is right, but I know it has worked for me in the past and I can’t see why I should do it any other way.
One last point about those who think my husband seems to be depressed. I think people need a purpose to feel joy in life and I don’t think he has ever discovered what his is. So, yes, I wouldn’t doubt for a second he is depressed. I know I get depressed when I am sick in bed for a few days. I can’t imagine living a life like that but that is just me.
Whew. Anyway, at this point, I am leaning towards taking an equity loan out for him for 50,000 with the contingency that he puts a down payment on a small house.
FWIW, the only thing I’m suggesting that you give him more of is information. If you give him information but not one penny, I think you might be acting ethically.
Daniel
Double standard, or at least the appearance of one:
becomes
The defense doesn’t seem to work when the wife is the aggrieved/discarded mate.
And Foxy, disagreements aren’t attacks. You’ve gotten a mix of concordance, discrodance and a few attacks, but when you put your query out on a board, you really have to expect that, unless you expected some sort echo chamber effect.
I still maintain that the critical thing to do here is to make sure he knows EVERYTHING that he’s entitled to. Now you’re talking about offering him 50K. Whether that’s too much or too little really depends on what he’s entitled to.
You want to do him a real favor? Pay for a lawyer for him. Demand that he get one, and pick up the tab. Make sure that his interests are protected. The lawyer can then go through your pre-nup, florida law, and explain in great detail to your husband exactly what he’s entitled to.
If it turned out that he wasn’t entitled to squat, and you decided to give him squat, I’d be okay with that. But if it turns out that he does in fact own half of a $200,000 equity, then giving him 50K or 80K without letting him know what he’s entitled to is still unethical.
Can you really draw up a pre-nup that says that you will share whatever is earned in the marriage, unless the money is parked in a 401(k)? I know nothing about U.S. divorce law, but that seems like a pretty big loophole to me. What would stop one partner from simply liquidating assets before a divorce and dropping it in a retirement account? Or taking $500/mo surreptitiously out of the family income and dropping into a retirement account so it’s ‘protected’ if you divorce?
I’ve always understood that accrued retirement assets are considered to be part of the joint finances in a divorce settlement. Otherwise, a spouse could do things like negotiate a reduced salary in exchange for a massive retirement package to avoid sharing assets with a spouse in case of divorce. Does anyone know the straight dope on that?
Apparently yes and you seem very interested so if you email me, I would be happy to send you a copy of my agreement with the specific wording that addressed future earnings and retirement. I never thought it was particularly odd but this thread has made me consider many things that I thought were perfectly normal that simply were not to many others.
That would be very unwise. First, she is not an expert in family law in her jurisdiction, so she should not give legal advice on this matter. Second, she is the opposing party, so she should not be giving advice to her opponent. Third, she opens up any settlement agreement to later dispute based on the above two points. In short, she should not say word one to her spouse about what his rights are.
I recommend that whatever settlement is drafted by her lawyer include a statement signed by her spouse stating that he was advised to seek independent legal advice, that he had the opportunity to do so but chose not to, that he understood the terms and effect of the settlement, and that he entered into it freely and without any coercion. If he is broke, give him a few hundred bucks to hire a lawyer for independent legal advice.
Disclaimer: I am not a Florida family lawyer, so don’t rely on my opinion.
Check out Belrix’s thread, where he is being actively encouraged to cut his wife off from whatever he can in their divorce by multiple posters.
While a double standard for this does exist, some of us believe freeloading spouses should be unceremoniously dumped without walking away with more than minimal assets regardless of gender.
I don’t see how these two things work together.
Daniel
Daniel: They don’t. Divorce is frequently war.
Dangerosa
A link would help, given the ginormous expanse of threads around here. Of course, I could be a non-lazy bastard and use the search facility…
I wasn’t taking the lazy slug’s side. I was pointing out that the courts do not appear to be sympathetic to the non-slug spouse in divorce proceedings, at least not in the “No Fault” model of divorce.
I do like the idea of having the slug sign a waiver.