I Am Leaving My Husband. Help!

[D_Odds]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Trying to lowball somebody is not moral or fair just because the person doesn’t know he’s being lowballed.
[/QUOTE]
This will teach me to reply before finishing the thread…

Bullshit. She’s looking out for her own financial interests. It is his job to look out for his own financial interests, not hers.

It is wrong to lowball someone when combined with a high pressure, now-or-never type pitch. From what I’m reading, that’s not happening here. He’s entering into a financial transaction without doing an iota of due diligence. That’s HIS problem.

[D_Odds]

[QUOTE=Otto]

@Foxy40

Because there is a minor child involved, we could not do it ourselves. The attorney handled those issues, took the copy of the proposed settlement, attached my prenup and said it all seemed fine if this is what we agreed on. Absolutely the judge will have the final say.

Your lawyer has a lot to do with it. She should not be representing both of you. That’s unethical. If she is going to represent both of you then she’s obligated to tell your husband exactly what he’s entitled to. Basically your lawyer is scum.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t sound like her lawyer is representing him. Sounds like she is just filing the necessary documentation of an agreed-upon deal. If this statement is accurate, the lawyer also didn’t advise or minimally advised Foxy40 regarding the agreement.

[eleanorigby]

Whether it’s legal or not is somewhat moot. It seems to me that Foxy came here looking for approval of something she knows in her heart to be wrong. It’s a lot of money, mostly earned by her–it’s hard to see it go. Plus, it’s a house, with all those memories and bits of the past, and giving him his due means upheaval for all (more so than let’s see-divorcing one husband, juggling offspring of different dads and fighting with current BF re his alimony to his soon to be ex). The woman’s plate is full.

The argument could be made that she chose to marry him, knowing full well that he was not “ambitious”. He should be done out of his rights for her stupidity in marrying him? How is that right?

Children learn what they live, so I sincerely hope that the OP is not faced, in 30 or so years, with a daughter who tells her, “Here’s 20 grand-go live on it as long as you can, Ma.”

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=Otto]
Your lawyer has a lot to do with it. She should not be representing both of you. That’s unethical. If she is going to represent both of you then she’s obligated to tell your husband exactly what he’s entitled to. Basically your lawyer is scum.
[/QUOTE]

My husband divorced with only his lawyer. She didn’t want the divorce and refused to cooperate. She got what my husband wanted her to get because she didn’t bother to express what it was she wanted.

[A.R.Cane]

If this were a tort case, I’d agree that the morality issues were much more liberal, but there’s an emotional tie here, and the trust that once existed should not be ignored. Not to mention that the child creates a life long bond that cannot be denied.
I don’t think Foxy40 is a bad person, she’s reacting naturally, to a difficult situation, but I don’t think she’s considering the long term effects of the decision facing her.

[jimmmy]

Foxy: Add me to those who think disclosure might be in your best interests. Among the other good reasons given I add if time were to pass and situations differ it is not impossible for the EX to say in 2010, 2012 whatever “Hey Judge I got screwed” and have the judge re-do it all - with interest. Not likely but not impossible depending on the details.

What I don’t get is you saying (paraphrased) “oh well I might give him 100K that he will piss away” and, simultaneously say “He will not pay alimony and child support”.

Two things I think about that:

Certainly your Lawyer can make sure a portion, perhaps a large portion, of any money the indigent EX receives goes into an interest bearing Trust for child support for your daughter.

Perhaps, given your good relationship (given the circumstances) and non-emotional involvement with money, if you approached him and said “Look Chief, you have the right to equity in this house. The daughter you love will have to have her life turned further upside down, in this market you won’t see a dime for months and months, and when you do my Lawyer will seize whatever she can for the kid, you can pay your legal bills from what is left - or alternatively, I could give you 20K to move along now, you, me and most importantly your daughter will all walk away friends and winners.” Perhaps.

[PunditLisa]

When you get married you cannot avoid co-mingling assets. If you don’t want to co-mingle your assets (and liabilities), then don’t get married.

From this OP and the link to the other thread, it seems that FoxyLady has real issues with sharing. She doesn’t want her current lover to pay alimony to his wife, nor does she want her current husband to get what he is legally entitled to take away from the marriage.

I’ve seen this happen in so many divorces. People get so wrapped up in what is “fair” and have this imaginary ledger where everything is divided into “hers” and “his” which completely flies in the face of what a marriage is supposed to be.

The fact is that FoxyLady married this guy voluntarily and whether he is a dead beat or not, he is legally entitled to x amount of dollars. Now if he wants to voluntarily settle for less, so be it. And maybe, when he knows all the facts, he will still consider the $20k to be a nice gift and part amicably. But, morally speaking, she should be completely upfront with him, the father of her child. (And legally speaking, her attorney should make it 100% clear that she represents FoxyLady’s interests alone.)

No matter what, I think FoxyLady ought to either re-examine her “what’s mine is mine” mentality before ever entering another marriage. If she wants to keep all her stuff, then she should remain single. There’s not a thing wrong with that.

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I agree with you. There is a purpose to these kinds of marriage laws, which is that it is assumed that one way or another, each person is contributing to the household. Traditionally, one member of the household did not work, but contributed in terms of running the household, caring for the children, etc. In the case of divorce, why should that person be left literally with no roof over his or her head, because this was the arrangement made with the spouse? Presumably, if the marriage had not occurred, that person would have found a way to support him or herself, which, being married under such an arrangement, he or she did not do. The purpose of the law is exactly to protect the non-working spouse in these types of circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

I think these laws - if there aren’t children involved - need to go the way of the dodo. It infantalizes the non-working spouse, making them dependant past the point of the marriage. It creates a situation where its hard to cut ties from a spouse who is finanically irresponsible.

Rather, each situation should be looked at individually, because each marriage and the circumstances of its dissolution are unique. In some cases, the non-working spouse may be entitled to half (or more). Maybe the working spouse discouraged him/her working or getting an education. Maybe they funnelled a lot of energy into first “educational support” then “career support” (ala executive wife). In other cases, the non-working spouse should be entitled to a kick on the backside and the judge saying good riddance.

I’m not saying this is the case here, just that the generalities in the law can unfairly penalize a spouse who is married to a non-contributing jerk.

[StarvingButStrong]

So, if the figures above were worked out right, it’s a question between giving the ex $85 thou or $20 thou.

I really think the idea of “prepaying” child support/college expenses for their child out of the equity sounds fair and doable. Maybe let the judge determine the details. The judge decides that his child support should be $whatever per week times 52 times how many years to age 18. The judges gets a respectable estimate at what her college expense will come to in year whatever and take half of the total. Then subtract those two figures from $85 thousand and give him the rest – the remainder hopefully being a low enough figure you won’t have to go horribly into debt.

If the ex and she are as amicable over the breakup as she says, the guy should be willing to agree to that.

Hmmm. As a sweetener, maybe you should promise the ex that no matter how the official numbers come out, you will guarantee to give him the $20 thou.

Good luck.

[Rick]

I am not a lawyer and all that, but I am reading this different than everyone else. Flordia is not a community property state. (cite) So with that in mind

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
Prior to our marriage we signed a prenuptial agreement. I had assets, he did not. It was pretty standard, I keep mine, he keeps his and no alimony. (I chuckled at the need to put the waiver of alimony into the agreement but as things turned out, he would be eligible for it.) We have been married 8 years.

At the time of our marriage, I owned a home.
[/quote]
OK that first house is her separate property

During the marriage, I sold that one and I purchased another one. I say “I” because my husband and I have never shared finances and the property is in my name only. I have always paid 100% of the mortgage, house repairs, maintenance, taxes etc.

OK the house was purchased with the proceeds of the sale of separate property, and the payments made with her separate funds. Depending on how tittle is held, I see nothing here that would make the house community property.
About separate property

@divorce library

Separate property, on the other hand, is everything that a husband and wife OWN SEPARATELY. Separate property does not need to be divided between the spouses. In most cases, separate property is:

1. Anything owned prior to marriage,
2. Anything inherited or received as a gift during the marriage, and
3. Anything either spouse earned after the date of separation.

Separate property can also include anything that one spouse gives up to the other spouse in writing. In certain cases, separate property can become mixed with community property. In this case, it is important be able to trace the payments and show where certain money came from.

Our agreement was he was obligated to pay the utilities of the home. He has done this pretty regularly but he contributes nothing else.

I don’t see where he has contributed to anything that would give him an interest on the equity of the house.
You need to follow the money to find out who owns what.

He is using my lawyer. Since I purchased my current home during our marriage, my husband is entitled to one half of the equity. It is not unsubstantial and I would have to either sell or buy him out by refinancing and getting further into debt. He does not realize he is entitled to this. I have offered him 20,000 and he thinks I am the most generous woman alive. He will sign with no problem. My lawyer has no problem filing whatever we agree upon and has no intention of telling him about his rights as she is representing me.

Do I give him 1/2 of the equity or just let the 20,000 offer be filed? Thanks for any advice or opinions.

IMHO you need to get your lawyer to advise you if the house is community property or serarate property. My personal opinion + $4 will get you a latte at Starbucks.
If your lawyer advises you that, yes the property is infact separate, then the 20K is more than fair.
You need to quiz your lawyer about the law, and you need to educate yourself.

[Caffeine.addict]

[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
When you get married you cannot avoid co-mingling assets. If you don’t want to co-mingle your assets (and liabilities), then don’t get married.

From this OP and the link to the other thread, it seems that FoxyLady has real issues with sharing. She doesn’t want her current lover to pay alimony to his wife, nor does she want her current husband to get what he is legally entitled to take away from the marriage.

I’ve seen this happen in so many divorces. People get so wrapped up in what is “fair” and have this imaginary ledger where everything is divided into “hers” and “his” which completely flies in the face of what a marriage is supposed to be.

The fact is that FoxyLady married this guy voluntarily and whether he is a dead beat or not, he is legally entitled to x amount of dollars. Now if he wants to voluntarily settle for less, so be it. And maybe, when he knows all the facts, he will still consider the $20k to be a nice gift and part amicably. But, morally speaking, she should be completely upfront with him, the father of her child. (And legally speaking, her attorney should make it 100% clear that she represents FoxyLady’s interests alone.)

No matter what, I think FoxyLady ought to either re-examine her “what’s mine is mine” mentality before ever entering another marriage. If she wants to keep all her stuff, then she should remain single. There’s not a thing wrong with that.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure that the distribution of assets is as cut and dried as everyone is making it out to be. I don’t know what state Foxy is in but from what I recall of the Virginia statute, there are a great deal of factors that the judge gets to weigh. The judge can look at the contributions of the various parties to the marriage before he decides. Also what does the premarital agreement say with respect to any property acquired in the marriage? If there were a simple one size fits all formula to divorce then it wouldn’t be such a lucrative field to be in.

With regards to the attorney, hopefully she made it very clear to your husband that she is your attorney and that she does not represent his interests.

*Note. I am not your attorney, you are not my client. I am not licensed in your state, I don’t know what state you are in and I’d really rather not. I don’t know much about divorce law just the bare minumum I need to know. Only a moron gets legal advice on the internet. For you all you know I could be a monkey with access to a computer who is taking a break from his busy schedule of flinging feces at tourists.

[Rick]

I forgot to add you need your lawyer to give you an informed opinion of your prenup and your current situation.
If your prenup is bullet proof, you are in a much better condition than it it has more holes than a screen door.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
I think these laws - if there aren’t children involved - need to go the way of the dodo. It infantalizes the non-working spouse, making them dependant past the point of the marriage. It creates a situation where its hard to cut ties from a spouse who is finanically irresponsible.

Rather, each situation should be looked at individually, because each marriage and the circumstances of its dissolution are unique. In some cases, the non-working spouse may be entitled to half (or more). Maybe the working spouse discouraged him/her working or getting an education. Maybe they funnelled a lot of energy into first “educational support” then “career support” (ala executive wife). In other cases, the non-working spouse should be entitled to a kick on the backside and the judge saying good riddance.

I’m not saying this is the case here, just that the generalities in the law can unfairly penalize a spouse who is married to a non-contributing jerk.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, it is very very difficult to run the law in a manner that is custom-tailored to individuals…sometimes generalities are necessary. For the most part, this law protects the ability for one parent to be able to stay home with the children, which is still an important priority for many people. I am not a stay at home mom myself, but if I wanted to quit my job, I certainly would not consider it if I would be left with nothing in the event of a divorce. I would hate to have to make every decision regarding my family through the lens of how I would survive if something happened to the marriage. The point is that each partner is making a valuable contribution to the family, and that if you sacrifice your own income and career to do one part of that, you should not have to risk being out on the street.

In this particular case, both parties agreed to the situation they are in. It’s one thing if one party just quit his or her job, took no responsibilites around the house, and the other party objected to this, but couldn’t do anything about it…this was apparently an arrangement that was acceptable to both parties. I don’t see how that violates the spirit of this law. Marriage is a contract, which the parties basically draft the terms of themselves. I don’t see where he violated that contract.

[Hakuna_Matata]

Interesting question
I was in the exact opposite situation. I earned the money and paid the house payment for 8 years—got divorced and my ex-wife got 50%. And it was the right thing to do. I have no regrets, I can sleep at night and I can look my daughter in the eye and tell her I treated her mother fair and square. As I mentioned in your other thread–you have to be fair about these things. I could have screwed my ex-wife over too–she is as trusting as your husband sounds like he is. But it would have been wrong.

Your child will judge you on how you treat her father. Maybe not now, but at some point. You were a family–sounds like somewhat a dysfunctional family, but a family nonetheless. Your house earned equity while you were together–read that again…while you were together. He is entitled to half.

It hurt like hell when I gave my ex wife that big check. But it really is the right thing to do–for one it is the legal thing to do. But more important it is the moral thing to do.

If giving him the $20,000 is the moral and right thing to do–you wouldn’t be posting here now would you? You know what the right thing to do is–just do it.

[AuntiePam]

If I were you, I’d insist that my husband get his own attorney, even if you have to set up the appointment, drive him to it, and pay the retainer.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Doesn’t sound like her lawyer is representing him. Sounds like she is just filing the necessary documentation of an agreed-upon deal. If this statement is accurate, the lawyer also didn’t advise or minimally advised Foxy40 regarding the agreement.
[/QUOTE]

Per the OP:

@Foxy40

He is using my lawyer.

It sounds to me like Foxy’s lawyer has, however minimally, agreed to represent the husband in this divorce. If that is so then that in itself is a breach of professional ethics. If there is an attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and the husband and the lawyer does not advise the husband of his legal rights, then that’s another enormous breach of ethics.

If my understanding of the situation is inaccurate then I withdraw some of the virtiol I’ve directed at the OP and the lawyer, but I still find the act of deliberately screwing someone out of what they’re entitled to prima facie shady.

[eleanorigby]

Well said, Hakuna --and may I say it is refreshing to hear of someone who knows what is right and acts upon that knowledge, despite it being disadvantageous to themselves. Kudos to you.

[Caffeine.addict]

[QUOTE=Otto]
Per the OP:

It sounds to me like Foxy’s lawyer has, however minimally, agreed to represent the husband in this divorce. If that is so then that in itself is a breach of professional ethics. If there is an attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and the husband and the lawyer does not advise the husband of his legal rights, then that’s another enormous breach of ethics.

If my understanding of the situation is inaccurate then I withdraw some of the virtiol I’ve directed at the OP and the lawyer, but I still find the act of deliberately screwing someone out of what they’re entitled to prima facie shady.
[/QUOTE]

To me its still not clear. If the attorney was to represent both sides, she would make both of them sign a disclaimer, if this is allowed under her state’s law.

As I said above, I’m still not so certain that any of it is prima facie. Usually, there is a lot left to the discretion of the judge.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
As I said above, I’m still not so certain that any of it is prima facie. Usually, there is a lot left to the discretion of the judge.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder how much the judge is going to look into this, though. If the parties and an attorney come before him with a deal in place, is the judge going to subject it to any real level of scrutiny?

[Carlyjay]

Let’s ignore any of the legal implications of this, inasmuch as IANAL and so on.

Just based on the ethical issues at hand, I would say you really ought to suggest to your husband that he get his own lawyer. At least so you can live with yourself for the rest of your life without cringeing at your choices.

Consider this. You’re already protected by way of your pre-nup. You won’t be leaving this marriage empty-handed or even close to it. So now look at it this way: you’re going to start a new chapter of your life now. You’ll be leaving this part of your life behind. Why not start from a 100% clean slate?

Be honest. And I mean be honest by allowing your husband to educate himself by way of his own lawyer. Be confident that once this marriage is over, it’s over. He won’t be calling you in two years’ time, when he’s learned better, to tell you off for giving him a bum deal.

If you don’t have any respect for the man, that’s fine. But by being 100% honest, forthright, and ethical in this situation, you’ll be able to repsect yourself for being as morally sound as you possibly could.