NationStates Jolt Archive

My husband and I started talking about winning the lottery, and it ended up in an argument about 'who takes more in a divorce'. (We'd each been joking that we'd run off to Cuba with the winnings and not tell the other one...teaches us to make jokes like that!) My husband made the statement that "everyone knows the woman gets half of what the man has...at least!". I said, "at least? You're saying they always get 50% of the man's assets...and usually more?" He laughed in this sarcastic way and said yes. The gloves came off. (We both had to suck it up and apologize later, 'cuz it got ugly!)

Now, this is a topic that comes up often in conversations about divorce...the idea that the woman automatically gets half of everything. Now, I want to know how much of that is based in truth! Help me out here!

A few points to consider:

1. If the woman is a homemaker, that means she works at home, and the husband works outside the home. One is paid work, the other is not. Nonetheless, the work that the woman does in the home is essential, and should be counted for something. If you were to hire a maid, a cook, and a nanny, you'd probably be broke...a wife does it for free. How much do the courts take this into account where you're from?

2. The discussion is often phrased as though everything belongs to the man, and not to the woman, despite the fact that they are in a relationship together that (theoretically anyway) means they share their possessions...regardless of who purchased them. If a woman buys all the things, and the man pays the rent, do you just split things up by 'who paid for what'? Is that even what people would want?

3. As well, when people talk about 'taking half of everything he owns', it sounds like they're saying, "She keeps everything of hers AND gets half of his". Is that the impression you get?

4. It's very common these days for both partners to work. You would assume in these circumstances that assets would be divided evenly...yet no one ever talks about a man 'taking half of everything SHE owns'. Plus, what if the man is the one who stays home? Does he get 'half of everything' too?

5. Children. It always comes down to the kids, and people love to argue that the woman ALWAYS gets the kids and that the courts are biased in favour of the mom just because she's female. In most of the cases I've seen personally, the man doesn't WANT the kids after the divorce, and they also don't bother to pay child support. Rather than go after him for it (and then have him visiting the kids all the time) the woman doesn't press the issue. Stupid on both sides, I think. Anyway, what are the actual stats in your area? Who gets custody (not opinions please, just facts) more often, and on what are the decisions based?

6. Aren't laws on splitting up assets different from place to place? That 50-50 split everyone talks about...is it across the board now or is it just in some jurisdictions?

7. How does it work with civil unions (common-law)? If you have kids, you still have to pay a lawyer to figure out custody, and it costs about as much for a divorce as it does to end a common-law relationship...but how does it work when it comes time to divy up the assets?

In short (too late!) since divorce is so often brought up as an issue where women get the 'better deal', I'd like to know the reality. The woman is usually made out to be a rapacious, cheating gold-digger who just wants the kids so she can get child-support....even women (who haven't been divorced) seem to hold this view. Why? Why is this such a one-sided issue?

It all depends on the laws in place where you live. Typically, a marriage creates a new legal entity, and from the point you are married on every asset one of the members of the marriage acquires is actually acquired for both of them. Therefore both partners are entitled to half of everything that was acquired during the marriage. Different countries and states have different laws, and in some cases what you brought into the marriage doesnt get divided between the two, and in other places it does. This is, of course assuming that the divorce is not a hostile divorce based on a condition such as cheating. In those cases, you forfeit your claim to all of the assets by breaking your marriage vows. Most of the time, however, divorces are due to irreconsilable differences, and in those cases the assets are divided evenly.

I've been through a divorce in Virginia and another in Maryland. In each state, joint property (that is, property that was purchased in both names) must be divided or some agreement should be reached. For property that is not explicitly joint, even if the wife is a homemaker, she is still contributing substantially to the household, and therefore may still claim a share of property that is in the husband's name.

Alimony is becoming a thing of the past, especially in Maryland. Only appears in cases where one spouse is fabulously wealthy, or the wife spent the last 50 years as a homemaker and needs a year or two of alimony to get on her feet. Judges will give you that frown when you ask for it.

Child support is done in Maryland according to a formula. No negotiation. In Virginia, there's a formula, but it can be negotiated - upwards.

Piece of advice from a man who has custody of his children from both marriages:

1. Get a lawyer long before she leaves.
2. Draw up an agreement before she leaves.
3. Get her to sign it before she leaves the house.
4. Under no circumstances abandon the primary residence.
5. Be the one to take care of the kids in the primary residence through the initial separation.
6. Be nice. It really pays to be nice.
7. Be generous with letting her have the property, and you taking the debts.
8. If she's been committing adultery, let her know that you're going to parade all of her men through the court to illustrate the nature of her character in a child custody hearing.

Both ex-wives gave up the children without a fight - in fact, without so much as a word of protest.

It all depends on the laws in place where you live. Typically, a marriage creates a new legal entity, and from the point you are married on every asset one of the members of the marriage acquires is actually acquired for both of them. Therefore both partners are entitled to half of everything that was acquired during the marriage. Different countries and states have different laws, and in some cases what you brought into the marriage doesnt get divided between the two, and in other places it does. This is, of course assuming that the divorce is not a hostile divorce based on a condition such as cheating. In those cases, you forfeit your claim to all of the assets by breaking your marriage vows. Most of the time, however, divorces are due to irreconsilable differences, and in those cases the assets are divided evenly.

If you break your marriage vows, you can be left with nothing? Or is that only the case with pre-nuptial agreements? So you're saying, generally, assets are split fifty-fifty.

It's much better to come to an agreement on the division of property and assets than try to wait until the court hearing and fight it out.

Try not to get emotional, and think about what you really won't give up. I can replace property and assets.

I don't know of any woman who have been living large off a divorce, but I don't run in Donald Trump's circles, either. I think that 'gold-digger' image is a load of crap in most cases, frankly.

Most people I know, when kids are involved, work out some kind of joint custody, or at least visitation. I have no idea what the stats are, and certainly there are enough deadbeat parents out there to fill a few cities, so I'm just talking from personal experience, which is admittedly a very small slice of the whole picture, but I think most family courts or court appointed mediators these days really work to make it most fair for the kids first, then deal with what's fair for the parents.

New York is an equitable distribution state, meaning that they start from the ideal of a 50/50 split of all the assets and liabilities, and then factor in all the variables to make it as equitable as possible. And yeah, if a woman makes more than the man, or if he's a stay-at-home dad, he can 'get her stuff.' If a woman has been a homemaker or a stay-at-home mom, she might get more of the liquidated assets up front, but she still gets screwed in the long run, beacuse her long-term earning potential is going to be considerably less than the guy who's been in the workforce all along. Certainly there are exceptions to this, but each situation has it's own differences anyway.

If people who were planning on divorcing simply went into the process with the idea that they are trying to be as fair as possible, it's so much easier for everyone. All in all, everyone loses. :(

I really don't know much about divorce laws - but the general idea is that it is up to the judge to decide the particular circumstances. If a man and woman agree on a split - whether it is 50-50 or not, the judge is generally going to sign off on it.

Meanwhile: I can describe one situation I know of - my parents' divorce.

My mother drew up the papers, keeping our house and custody of us kids (my father was an alcoholic about to go to court and possibly jail for DUI, so this would've been a given anyways). She split the bank accounts in two, gave him the rental house and one of the vehicles. Etc. She actually did not ask for any child support.

Now, my father did not bother to show up for the court proceedings. As such, the judge informed my mother that she could keep *everything* on the basis that he did not show up. She did not do so and kept to the papers she had already drawn up. The only difference was that GA law apparently requires that a minimum amount of child support be paid (not that it ever was, at least not with a check that didn't bounce).

*shrug* It probably comes down to how amicable the divorce is. If its simply irreconcialable differences, and the people are mature about it - things probably get divided up fairly. If people want to have a fight - things get ugly.

If the divorce is an ugly one, the only real reason that people on either side ask for, or fight over money, is not the gold-digging (as you pointed out).

It's an attempt to hurt the other party. Pure and simple, it's putting barbed wire in someone else's shorts at every opportunity.

I made it clear to my ex-wives that I would be meaner, nastier, and more persistent for the next 20 years in making their lives a legal living hell.

The alternative is to calmly and quietly work out an agreement with me without the intervention of an army of lawyers (some of whom encourage this fighting to prolong things and run up their hours).

Make your choice. We can do this the hard way, or we can do this the easy way.

All I know is that my mother would be dead now if she hadn't she had gotten custody of my sister and I for the child support.

What I hear is that divorces these days are actually becoming more agreeable. THis is due to "no-fault" divorces, where people are not forced to think of why they hate the oter person for a divorce. My parents split up in 1987 and almost started World War III. They ended up doing some "shared parenting" agreement that frankly needs to be used more often, and my dad forked over $300 a month in child support, and that was that.

My question for all the twenty-something, or perhaps older than twenty-something, is this - before the advent of no-fault divorce, did you become a product of a nasty divorce in which the parents not only fought tooth-and-nail for everything but used you as a pawn in their divorce proceedings? Is it to the point where you just don't want to hear your parents talk about the other parent anymore?

Frankly, for me, I can hardly bear to listen to my parents talk about the divorce. I know dirty deeds were committed. I know that my first car once had a block of wax placed on the engine, so when my dad drove home in it in 1987, it melted and screwed up the car or something. (I didn't get the car until 11 years later, so it's all good.) Frankly it's nothing I need to concern myself with. I no longer much care. Frankly, if it were much worse, I don't even know if I would still talk to my parents. I don't know if this is common among those in the same situation, but that's how it was for me.

I'm still single, so I have no personal experience with any of these kinds of messes.

That said, I have two things to say:

First, draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. Both spouses-to-be should read it carefully and understand it.

Second, and more importantly, when choosing a mate, go with someone with whom you can work out differences and arguments amicably. There are going to be arguments, no matter what, so you should be able to resolve them without hostility. If you can't work out differences with your mate without always hurting each others feelings, then he or she is the wrong person for you.

Don't wait until years after you've said "I do" to figure out that the correct answer was "I don't".

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

I think it's much better nowadays. I think it's also less ugly if the people get divorced as soon as both realize things are going into the toilet.

My parents were married for 27 years, most of which was spent in World War III mode. The trouble is that the divorce proceedings took eight years of constant battle, during which all the grown children would get phone calls with news updates on the War. I don't speak to either of them because of that. Now they actually LOVE to fight, and periodically go back to court for the entertainment value - there isn't anyone else in the world who would fight or even talk to them.

Should have stayed married, IMHO. If you both love the fights, stay married. Because you'll just keep fighting if you really love it.

First, draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. Both spouses-to-be should read it carefully and understand it.

If you really feel the need to do this, you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.

If you break your marriage vows, you can be left with nothing? Or is that only the case with pre-nuptial agreements? So you're saying, generally, assets are split fifty-fifty.

Yes, you can be left with nothing. Again, it varies by jurisdiction and this may not be true where you live. But it is still accurate that in most places if the cause of divorce is adultery, abandonment, or other such cases you can be left with almost nothing (they wont ever throw you out on the street with absolutely nothing, but youll get far less than half). The problem is that such cases are very difficult to prove. The most common way of proving it is to hire a Private Investigator to obtain photographic evidence of the adultery. If you can get that, you can keep most of your assets (in most jurisdictions).

My question for all the twenty-something, or perhaps older than twenty-something, is this - before the advent of no-fault divorce, did you become a product of a nasty divorce in which the parents not only fought tooth-and-nail for everything but used you as a pawn in their divorce proceedings? Is it to the point where you just don't want to hear your parents talk about the other parent anymore?

When my parents divorced, the years of the separation leading up to it were mericfully peaceful, it wasn't until after they divorced, and I became the running messinger between them (since they couldn't talk to each other without behaving like children) that I started to resent it. I was nine when they divorced and it wasn't till I was in my 20s when they were bickering about come stupid crap over a house that I finally got a backbone and said 'You know, I've been a relay operator for you two for too damn long. I'm done. I'm not talking to either of you about the other one. Ever. If you need them to know something pick up the phone and do it yourself." I'm in my mid-30s now and I still don't. (Of course, they've stopped asking. Well conditioned, they eventually learn.) Maybe it was immature, but it made my life so much easier.

It is, I think the most unfair part of divorce for a kid to be put in the middle of that crap. It has made a big impact on how I parent my own kids through the bad times.

If you really feel the need to do this, you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
With all due respect, I disagree. I draw an analogy between pre-nup agreements in a marraige and crash protection (such as seatbelts and airbags) in a car*. When I do learn to drive, I intend to drive carefully. I'm not planning on getting in an accident, but I want protection in case of an accident, anyway. If an accident occurs, I want to be uninjured enough to be able to walk away. Similarly, when I do get married, I'm going to choose a woman with whom communication and conflict resolution isn't a problem. I'm not planning on getting divorced, but I want protection in case of divorce. If a divorce ensues, I want to be able to end the relationship without getting shafted in the process.

* I also have no experience driving. So, amusingly enough, I'm comparing one thing with which I have no personal experience with another thing with which I also have no personal experience.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Interestingly enough, I have not seen any of the rather inflammatory arguments in this thread yet that proclaim, "Women get it all, and the men get shafted in a divorce". I'm amazed! It's such a common argument for how women supposedly 'have it better' than men in today's society (in the West). (In every feminism thread I've begun or participated in it has been, anyway.)

I'm glad that people who have actually BEEN through divorce are responding. I'm flabbergasted by the one comment that the two ex-wives didn't want the kids (or weren't up to fighting for them)...I personally would fight tooth and nail to keep my girls...visitation just wouldn't be enough. I feel really sad for the parents who only get visitation rights and not full custody...someone has to lose in that one I guess...even if you share custody, it will never be the same.

Sigh...one more reason to never let things get that bad between myself and my husband...

With all due respect, I disagree. I draw an analogy between pre-nup agreements in a marraige and crash protection (such as seatbelts and airbags) in a car*. When I do learn to drive, I intend to drive carefully. I'm not planning on getting in an accident, but I want protection in case of an accident, anyway. If an accident occurs, I want to be uninjured enough to be able to walk away. Similarly, when I do get married, I'm going to choose a woman with whom communication and conflict resolution isn't a problem. I'm not planning on getting divorced, but I want protection in case of divorce. If a divorce ensues, I want to be able to end the relationship without getting shafted in the process.

* I also have no experience driving. So, amusingly enough, I'm comparing one thing with which I have no personal experience with another thing with which I also have no personal experience.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

There is a difference. Cars are going to have problems, period. There will be accidents.

However, you should not marry someone you do not trust. The only reason to draw up a pre-nup is distrust for your future spouse. As such, you shouldn't even be marrying them.

(I have never been married, but am damn near engaged. =)

It's a shame we even have to talk about this. I have to admit, I've been through a divorce. Largely my choice because I got myself into a situation I never should have and didn't have the courage to face the consequences of my actions like a man. That's not to say I was totally responsible for the problems in my marriage. My wife was even physically abusive, though on very rare occasions. Still, it was me that gave up on the relationship and didn't want to work on it in the end. Something I'll always be ashamed of.

The divorce was fairly amicable. The State of Michigan is a "no fault" State and property divisions are a matter of negotiation, and the way they get settled can be all over the place.

In mine, there weren't many assets and no children. Basically, I told her to take whatever she wanted. I kept the joint debts we incured minus the car payment for the car she was taking, which was nearly paid off anyway. If it had been disputed, I probably could have gotton out of half of the debts, but I just didn't want to fight about it.

Don't know if that adds anything to the discussion or not.