hose
Bronze
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 30
|
|
Divorce trial was earlier this week. She got all savings, 401, stocks, car, and furniture. All I had before marriage. The kicker is the judge still gave her 120 days to move out of the house he gave me. Then says now is the time to start our lives over. How am I to do that? Neither one of us can till she is out and I am in. Just venting.
|
liberated
Platinum
Reged: 10/02/07
Posts: 558
|
|
I can't imagine having to wait 4 more months after that...what kind of reasoning did he give? Is this standard? I am just at the beginning of this process, having filed 9-14 and wishing I could get my husband to moveout, but he is making no efforts...Why would the judge give so long when she should have been at least preparing to need to find a place long before this?
--------------------
Kimberley
|
hose
Bronze
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 30
|
|
My lawyer says she has so long because we have a new judge with no or very little exspriense in divorce.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
Did the "savings, 401, stocks, car, and furniture" (and anything else) equate to the equity you got in the home? Was this in addition to (or in replacement of) alimony? Either way, the 120 day thing is pure BS. Divorce heightens everyone's emotions, but it sounds like the judge is trying to really rub salt in your wounds, whether they realize it or not.
|
hose
Bronze
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 30
|
|
Yes I take it as the equitable thing. There sure is no such thing as separate property I found out the hard way.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
Technically, personal items acquired before the marriage should not be considered for the divorce (unless, perhaps, the items continue to appreciate in value during the marriage, and then only the appreciated difference should be considered). I *think* the judge weighed making a long analysis of the assets, including the house, and figured splitting it this way would have saved selling the house.
Ironically, a friend of mine went through something similar last year, where he was awarded the (paid-off) house, but had to give his ex half the amount of the equity in CASH. He ended up cashing-in all his retirement, stocks, etc. in the end anyway, so it sounds a lot like your case, only the judge went ahead and "cashed-in" your retirement assets for you.
|
WhatNext
Platinum
Reged: 10/11/06
Posts: 222
|
|
[quote]Yes I take it as the equitable thing. There sure is no such thing as separate property I found out the hard way. [/quote]
If there is no such thing as separate property then why did you get to keep your house? Sorry to hear about the bullsh!t you are going through. Going through sh!t myself.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5052
|
|
Actually, this guy is probably better off than having to cash in retirement, because the present value of a retirement account gets pretty low, once you look at the taxes & penalties for early withdrawal.
Though that doesn't solve this guy's issue of the fact that he owned all this before the marriage!
Isn't there some way to ask for a new trial on the issue of separate property versus joint property?
|
theanswerguy
Platinum
Reged: 04/12/07
Posts: 2190
|
|
Not suprising at all . You had separate property with value meaning you needed less marital property . That's , unfortunately , equitable distribution .
Hopefully , she'll actually move out in 4 months .
--------------------
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1015
|
|
===========================================================
Not suprising at all . You had separate property with value meaning you needed less marital property . That's , unfortunately , equitable distribution
===========================================================
Is this America? If the object of property distribution in a divorce is simply to add all property owned by both parties together, then to divide it according to the needs of the parties, then this is not "equitable distribution" but classic Communism.
If all assets are to be lumped together and then redistributed--without regard to any such inconvenient questions such as that of seperate vs. community property--then the test of what is to be awarded to whom is one which must be decided by the degree of work performed by each party, and the capital contributed by them, in creation of the assets! This would be an "equitable" form of distribution, with any question of "need" totally irrelevent!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
