[QUOTE=jimmmy“Hey Judge I got screwed” and have the judge re-do it all - with interest. Not likely but not impossible depending on the details. [/quote]
Can a judge really do this?
well I wish I could be all noble and say it was easy–but it wasn’t! 
Really the driving factor for me was looking through my daughters eyes. No matter how I cut it–my ex is the mother of my daughter. I owe her more respect then to try and screw her out of what is truly and rightfully hers. I truly believe that if more divorced people would step out of ‘themselves’ and see what it is doing to your children, maybe there wouldn’t be so much anger and hatred. Just my opinion–it won’t change anything. But like I said–I can sleep at night knowing I did the right thing.
By law, he or she must subject it to at least enough scrutiny to ensure that the best interests of the minor child of the marriage are being met. To this end he or she is granted broad discretion. The actual amount of scrutiny is, of course going to depend on the judge in question. Some are more zealous about this than others. However, as I mentioned earlier, this situation already has some earmarks of fraud (even if no fraud is intended or actually takes place, the fact that there is unequal representation and that the spouse with the money has the representation just whiffs of fraud no matter how upfront everyone is. It’s a red flag - even though it might be a harmless one.) Those earmarks will quite likely cause the judge to take a harder look than he or she might otherwise with an amicable divorce with two parties in agreement.
Having the judge ask questions about the settlement provisions is just so not a good time for the husband to find out he was entitled to half the equity in the house. Much better if he can nod and say “Why yes, I know that, Your Honor, but we decided this was in everyone’s best interests” rather than “Holy crap! I’m entitled to half? Nobody told me that! What the hell?!?”
And, because there’s a minor child involved, this will have to go in front of a judge - no matter how cursorily.
Again, I’m not Foxy’s lawyer, nor am I licensed in her state. Taking legal advice over the Internet is almost as foolish as the classic blunder of starting a land war in Asia. We here at Aangelica Industries do not endorse this product nor do we wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I’m with the Karma Police. Settle this per the terms of the original agreement, and stop trying to wiggle around it. The the break will be clean, with no future blowback. If you really want this to be cleanly over, wiggling about might expose you to future litigation.
Fuck being reasonable. Litigation is about what can be done within the letter of the law. If you fail to meet, or knowingly skirt, the pre-nup, you’re exposed for litigious blowback. Your attorney has an interest in this, as he/she/it is likely a weaselly shark, and more litigation means … more billable hours. Lawyers like to "game: the system.
The ethical collatoral damage from screwing over the father of your child is also noteworthy.
I do suspect that the responses here would be different if the genders were reversed.
Meet the initial obligation, in letter, form and spirit.
Wait, you suspect that most of us would be telling a man to screw over his SAHM wife and mother of his child in a similar case? I just can’t fathom that. Most Dopers, in my experience, are pretty ethical, letter of the law types in these situations - even overly moralizing, in many cases.
Most of the replies here are saying the same thing you are: follow the law, be upfront about what he’s entitled to and *don’t *screw over the father of your child.
I’m referring to the posts that are enabling her via the “screw the lazy, stupid bastard/lack of due diligence” people.
I have heard this over and over and I must respond to this uninformed nonsense. It is certainly not unethical for one attorney to handle a divorce. It happens this way most of the time when two people are getting along and don’t have anything to fight over. Why pay two attorneys? We used one for the prenup (mine) and he seemed to have made out okay with that deal.
That being said, I never told him not to get an attorney. He is well aware that she is my attorney as I am cited as the plaintiff and she as the representative. The judge isn’t going to question that at all. As I said, it is done often. Actually, I wish I could just download the paperwork myself but the courts frown on that when a child is involved.
My thoughts are that the judge is going to question my waiving child support a lot more than my keeping the family home. That was the onlly thing the attorney said would be a problem with our mutual agreement.
I don’t need legal advice (do what is “legal” That was never the question here) I wanted advice on what was the **right ** thing to do. If there were no mandate entitling him to this money, should I give it to him anyway?
Since you say you are focused on moral issues, let me tell you that you are focusing on the wrong thing (to give or not give the money). The focus should be on whether to openly discuss everything involved and come to an agreement together, vs. making the decisions by yourself in isolation.
No, what I need to do is get a better prenup next time.
The what’s mine is mine mentality is the perfect way to run a relationship. Partner in love, in emotional good times and bad. Share in the beauty and successes of life as well as the failure. Keep money out of it.
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”.
I don’t mind sharing my stuff btw. He can take anything he wants out of the house. His list is quite impressive and I don’t give a hoot. That’s just stuff. It is the financial security I have worked so hard for that is difficult to give up. It is the fact that the law says he won the lottery by doing nothing but getting me to agree to marry him. Honestly, I doubt he will fight for this money but at least I know that the masses feel “morally” (which is all I cared about on this thread) I should tell him.
Would ya blame him?
I’m confused, then. I agree that many couples use one lawyer in a divorce. But that lawyer is supposed to tell each person what the law is and what they are entitled to, as the lawyer is representing both of them. If this is what you guys are doing, then how come your husband doesn’t know that he is entitled to 1/2 the house? Sounds to me like what is really happening is that you have a lawyer, and he doesn’t, and the only way your lawyer is “representing” him is by filing the paperwork on behalf of both of you.
But in your case the attorney is clearly acting as an advocate for only one party. That is where she is crossing the ethical boundary. You cannot accept someone as a client and then act contrary to their interests. It is most certainly unethical, if not illegal.
Well, don’t kill me folks but I don’t even know if he *is * entitled to half the equity in the house. My attorney didn’t tell me. It was something that was brought up by another attorney I know socially. He may not be from some of the links I have review from this thread.
My attorney has told me this morning that yes, we need to tell him and yes, we will probably get it if he decides to fight for it. I didn’t want the “fight” and I hope it doesn’t come to that. I may just give it to him. Geez, I don’t KNOW what to do which is why I am here amongst you fine folks. (a bit of schmoozin).
Even in amicable divorces there are feeling of resentment a betrayal, it’s human nature.
I agree that uncontested divorces are often done using one attorney, but that attorney is still representing the person who asked them to file. I went through a divorce this way. I was aware that I could have gotten more out of it than I did and it was my choice to agree to the settlement. I still loved the woman and I had no desire to hurt her out of vengence or greed. I had two step children and even though we had agreed on no child support, it was very difficult to get the judge to allow that. The fact that the children received Soc. Sec. from their father, who had died on active duty in the military, was the only thing that convinced the judge not to impose chlid support on me. I did stay in the childrens lives and helped with their needs, both financial and emotional.
I think you’re going to run into problems trying to forgo the child support issue.
As far as the home equity goes, if you present it to him in the right way, you can satisfy yourself that he’s been fully informed and still get him to agree to the $20K, or whatever figure you arrive at. I don’t think a second attorney is necessary and it would probably just cost more money and set both of you back to the start. As long as he understands the entire picture, I think you can leave this w/ a clear conscience.
Nope.
I would be interested in both your and your lawyer’s response to what I brought up in posts #110 & 112 in this thread.
The attorney is not representing them both. Foxy’s attorney is representing Foxy. The soon-to-be-ex does not have representation because he is ‘using’ Foxy’s attorney in the sense that he is going to show up and sign whatever he wants because he has chosen, as an adult of majority age and minimally legally accepted intelligence, that he will not get his own (both accounts assumed by me).
Foxy is not responsible for driving him to his own lawyer and paying to retain someone to look out for ex’s best interests when ex isn’t even willing to do that himself. If he doesn’t care, why should she?
As far as gender reversal: there is a girl in my office that is being served with ‘post-nup’ papers from her rich husband. I advised her (as a friend, not in any official copacity) that she should take money from her paycheck and retain her own lawyer to look over anything before she signs, and not to have her husband pick and pay the lawyer. If she did anything differently I would think she should expect to get about as much out of it as she was willing to put effort into it.
It isn’t her husband’s responsibility to hold her hand through it, just as it isn’t Foxy’s responsibility to carry her husband through the divorce.
Foxy strikes me as a woman that has made her own money and is protecting what is hers. Why is she resented for that?
And I *really * make my point by f-ing up coding!!
Actually your posts had me googling like a maniac last night to find out if he was even legality entitled. I really don’t have any idea if my lawyer even knew that John wasn’t aware that he could fight for the house. As I said, I didn’t ask her much advice, just presented her with the prenup and the agreement and she said it looked ok (Other than the waiving of support). The "GASP" she is being unethical people are just silly. It isn’t HER job to tell him what his legal rights are. He was sent a letter with the disclosure paper work advising him to get representation to review everything. It was his choice.
However, I have taken your advice and just sent a faxed request for my attorney to review the prenup and issues to see if he is or is not entitled. Whether he is or isn’t, I am still at the same place with my conscience, however.
I don’t mean to speak for others but I think their argument is that what I have earned while he sat on his butt and strummed his guitar is no longer mine when I married him. Everything I have worked for during the last 8 years became “ours”. That is how I am interpreting it anyway.