ronis108
Bronze
Reged: 12/13/07
Posts: 25
|
|
My wife and I are divorcing after 25 years of marriage. The guidelines for spousal support and alimony are vague to say the least, so I am looking for an educated opinion regarding if our plan is likely to be reasonable in the eyes of the law, or in accord with what the court would decide if they were to dicide for us.
I own a business that I started after we were married. For many years she stayed at home with no income and "enabled" me to run the business by taking care of pretty much all domestic things. About 10 years ago she went back to school for about 4 years and then became a dental hygenist. During her education I supported her financially and took on other "enabling" activities and after she was working, we both just worked and enabled each other. (It was wonderful!) So now, the kids are grown and we plan to basically split our income for the next 12 years. We own 2 houses and a pension. If I were to give her everything it would still be short of the dollar amount of 12 years of support that I would pay. I am going to give her the pension because Since I am self employed I can put a high % of my income into a new pension where as she cannot as an employee. Also my SS will be greater due to having paid in more. In a divorce people often trade things like pensions or houses for support I guess, and at any rate I want her to have a good retirement. What I really want to know is considering the above info, is it reasonable to figure splitting combined income (the amount over and above our needs) for the next 12 years (subtracting out her 1/2 of the pension) likely to be a reasonable obligation to me from the courts perspective? Maybe to make it simple, If everything else is equal is splitting income for 12 years in a 25 year marriage normal? Personally I feel at her age (54) she should not be required to work more than the 3 days a week that she does now. The dental work is hard on the body and also would not in my opinion be keeping with the "maintaining past standard of living" In the end though I really just want to do what the law sees as just.
Thanks
|
melanie14
Platinum
Reged: 03/11/06
Posts: 3057
|
|
you can pretty much do whatever you want...it's creative divorce management. You are being extremely fair, so if she has a lawyer beware they may want to take more from you. Are you two getting along and is she okay with the divorce. Watch your back! Sometimes being Mr. Nice Guy, screws you in the end. When divorce strikes people can get really vindictive and angry--when you least expect it!
|
ronis108
Bronze
Reged: 12/13/07
Posts: 25
|
|
We are both in mediation, and on good terms. We joke at how we wouldn't trade our marriage for her brothers. :-)We can do whatever we want, but figuring that out is the hard part. In the end what is most important for both of us is the disaster management of each of us "maintaining our standard of living". CA law has never come up with a way 2 people that were living as a unit can live as 2 for the same money. Then there is the tax break for filing as married. For some reason tax law really favors marriage.
She is not likely to be vindictive. She wanted out of the marriage and feels badly how much I was hurt. It was a change she just couldn't stop.
The reason I am looking to what the law would likely decide is that as much as I would like for her to not be at a financial disadvantage to end the marriage, I do not want to be at a disadvantage either. At least I want it to be equal. There still is this resistance I have to her in effect saying "I want out of this marriage in every way except for continuing to share your earnings." She enabled me to build and run the business by taking care of the house and stuff and I shared my earnings. Now she does not want to enable but still wants the money. Since the courts figures that the enabling is worth something that warrents spousal support, I must need to pay someone to replace her if I am going to continue as I have. However the court does not assign money to the non tangible. At least she really did work hard and not just spend all day shopping! Since that's just life, and the law, I can live with it, but I would like to keep it at a minimum and balance what the law would see as reasonable with what our actual situation is. If the law would say split assets and liabilities and equalise income for 1/2 the duration of the marriage, that is pretty much what we are doing. I would be paying a little less than that but giving her the pension. At the end of 12 years it would pretty much have beem equal AND we both will have money in retirement. Its almost worth it just to out smart the laws regarding retirement savings. And no litigation is a nice savings too.
So anyway, after reading family law sections on all that the courts figure into coming up with a settlement, I am still looking for a real life guidline as to what they would be likely to do with our situation as it would help me to negotiate this myself. The mediator encourages us to just work it our ourselves rather than pay her $350/hr to referee a case where the 2 of us get along well and relate to finances easily.
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 345
|
|
IMO, what you are proposing is extremely fair, almost to a fault. FYI, here is what the court in CA. MUST consider when ordering permanent spousal support.
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 4320-4326
4320. In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall
consider all of the following circumstances:
(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is
sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the
marriage, taking into account all of the following:
(1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market
for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported
party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop
those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to
acquire other, more marketable skills or employment.
(2) The extent to which the supported party's present or future
earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were
incurred during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote
time to domestic duties.
(b) The extent to which the supported party contributed to the
attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license
by the supporting party.
(c) The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support,
taking into account the supporting party's earning capacity, earned
and unearned income, assets, and standard of living.
(d) The needs of each party based on the standard of living
established during the marriage.
(e) The obligations and assets, including the separate property,
of each party.
(f) The duration of the marriage.
(g) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful
employment without unduly interfering with the interests of dependent
children in the custody of the party.
(h) The age and health of the parties.
(i) Documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as
defined in Section 6211, between the parties, including, but not
limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from
domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the
supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence
against the supporting party by the supported party.
(j) The immediate and specific tax consequences to each party.
(k) The balance of the hardships to each party.
(l) The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting
within a reasonable period of time. Except in the case of a marriage
of long duration as described in Section 4336, a "reasonable period
of time" for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the
length of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is
intended to limit the court's discretion to order support for a
greater or lesser length of time, based on any of the other factors
listed in this section, Section 4336, and the circumstances of the
parties.
(m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be
considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support
award in accordance with Section 4325.
(n) Any other factors the court determines are just and equitable.
4321. In a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal separation
of the parties, the court may deny support to a party out of the
separate property of the other party in any of the following
circumstances:
(a) The party has separate property, or is earning the party's own
livelihood, or there is community property or quasi-community
property sufficient to give the party proper support.
(b) The custody of the children has been awarded to the other
party, who is supporting them.
4322. In an original or modification proceeding, where there are no
children, and a party has or acquires a separate estate, including
income from employment, sufficient for the party's proper support, no
support shall be ordered or continued against the other party.
4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in
writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party
is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a
determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify
or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.
(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person
with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute
cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.
(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying spousal support.
(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification or
termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.
If you want to KNOW what a court would decide, then consider ALL these factors. Also consider this, the long term GOAL is for each party to be self supporting. Personally, I do not think a court would be much different than what you have proposed, which is adding up both incomes, then dividing it in half. The property settlement is a separate issue and the retirement accounts are factored there, as are houses, businesses, personal property, savings, etc.
|
ronis108
Bronze
Reged: 12/13/07
Posts: 25
|
|
Thanks allthumbs. I am thinking that the court may look at being self supporting as a no issue due to her age and the length of the marriage. Also she will be earning 24K a year from my business, thus lowering my income before spousal support. That will pretty much put her at her maximum reasonable earning potential.
In a way it makes it all harder when I try to consider What is "fair". Its like basing what is right for me based on what is right for her. As much as possible it makes more sense to just figure what I want. It comes more naturally to do that as the payee than as a payor. She pretty much worked this out since she has accounting experience, and she can easily just figure out what she needs or wants. Rather than me figuring out what I want I am relating to it as what do I want to give rather than what do I want. It is a subtle spin but it is relavent.
|
Qweenee
New
Reged: 05/02/08
Posts: 11
|
|
I think any ex wife would like to have you as an ex husband. Most ex husbands aren't so concerned how their ex wife is going to be financially. Whether it was your decision or hers. You are being extremely fair! I was married for 22 years I only get $400. SS until I remarry or die! I work but only make 1/2 of what he makes.
|
ronis108
Bronze
Reged: 12/13/07
Posts: 25
|
|
[quote]IMO, what you are proposing is extremely fair, almost to a fault. FYI, here is what the court in CA. MUST consider when ordering permanent spousal support.
If you want to KNOW what a court would decide, then consider ALL these factors. Also consider this, the long term GOAL is for each party to be self supporting. Personally, I do not think a court would be much different than what you have proposed, which is adding up both incomes, then dividing it in half. The property settlement is a separate issue and the retirement accounts are factored there, as are houses, businesses, personal property, savings, etc. [/quote]
thanks for the answers everyone. So if the court would pretty much dicide what we already came up with, that is good to know. Now it is just a matter of getting used to it. I do want this to be fair, but I am in the delema of probably every payor in my position. Today I was doing some shopping for a few things for my room I am moving into, and setting up the phone service, and looking into rental trucks for my move this weekened. I remembered how for many years my wife did these kinda things and and I split my income with her. Now she is not going to do these things anymore, but I will continue to splt my income with her. I would like to know how the court sees this as fair so that I can feel better about it. Right now it seems wrong. I really do appreciate all she did in our marriage, and she was definately not one of those spouses that sat around doing nothing. Just due to the kind of people we are we have alot more to show for MY work than if I had been on my own. I was good at my business, but she was really better at making the money go far. But now she is done doing the support thing for me, but I am not done supporting her. I know ss laws were to protect one spouse from being abandoned with no marketable skills in an extreme situation of disertion, but with all that the court takes into consideration, this is not feeling fair inlight of the above.
So, in short, What am I not seeing here that the court sees so it all makes sence? I know the courts position may be arguable, but I think if I saw the reasoning I could accept it easier. Can someone chime in with a word on her behalf? its like I must be stuck on not seeing something that I owe her for, that she can quit the marriage and much of her contribution but I will continue to provide the same as I have all along.
BTW in my opening post SS stood for social security not spousal support.
thanks
ron
Edited by ronis108 (05/22/08 09:50 PM)
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 345
|
|
" But now she is done doing the support thing for me, but I am not done supporting her. "
_______________________________________________________________
The old double edged sword. When spouses divorce, not only do they rid themselves of the other's bad behaviors, but also of the good things as well. Courts understand this but it is NOT considered as courts are to make decisions based on the laws passed by the legislature of their state. Your ex will be denied some of the good things you brought into the marriage as well. She didn't marry you ONLY because you could provide. There's more to it than that. If you're feeling it is unfair, it really isn't. It is an adjustment going from being half of a couple to being a single person again. If you'd rather not pay SS (alimony) and want to fight it, then do so. You will end up paying some, IMO. How much and how long depends on the quality of argument you put before the court and the judge.
|
ronis108
Bronze
Reged: 12/13/07
Posts: 25
|
|
It has been a while, but I thought I would revive this thread due to it containing some history about my situation.
I have put a hold on the mediation process because as we get close to agreeing on a plan that will spell out a significant part of my life for a long time to come, I start feeling differently about things. What is comming up is just a flat out resistance to what feels like staying married. My wife wants out of every aspect of the marriage except for the sharing income and current assets part. I know many people in my position complain about the same thing, but the law is the law. One way or another I am accountable for making sure she is getting the financial benefits of being my wife even if she is not. So, my job is to figure out how to do this in a way that I can live with. I am thinking I might be happiest in the long run if I can just buy her out.
If we were still married and I wanted to quit my construction business and go back to school or something, I would be able to do that. Now I am in a situation that my business is not something I really want to continue. It served me well in providing for my family. That was my only reason for having this business. Now the family is gone. My daughter and son both have their education taken care of.
Financially, we have 2 houses, and about 500K in retirement. 2005-2007 My income averaged 225K per year. The economy in construction is so bad now that this year looks like it will be about 60K. If the court were to base alimony on the 2005-2007 earnings, we would split assets and I would be paying alimony of about 82K per year for about 12 years. So, to buy her out, theoretically I would need to give her all the assets, and still be forced to at least try my best to earn enough money to pay some amount of alimony. I am sure the court would take into consideration my fluctuating income due to being in an up and down business.
Now to get to the point: Am I held hostage by my marriage? :) It gets back to the point I made earlier about in the marraige I was allowed to change careers, go back to school, or just plain retire now if we just wanted to live modestly. I know the courts would frown upon me dropping out just to avoid alimony, but that is not the issue. I honestly just do not want to have to stay in the construction business anymore. I want to be free to take up a new life if I want. I would be happy living on much less than "maintaining the standard of living" as the court puts it, and doing volunteer work for a good cause. Maybe I would like to scale back and do 1/2 and 1/2. What are my options here? If I want to change my livelyhood in this way what is the court likely to say it will cost me? I am doubting the court would say I can't change my career now that my wife left me. I mean its not unreasonable...people get in their 50s, kids are grown, life is reassesed (my wife sure reassesed hers)values change and we change our lives accordingly. My wife is aggreeable to me making less and reducing alimony even if we split the assets 50-50 because she knows the business can fluctuate. I doubt she would be aggreable though to a 50-50 split if I don't want to keep the business.
thanks
|
allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 345
|
|
"My wife wants out of every aspect of the marriage except for the sharing income and current assets part. "
_____________________________________________________________
Umm, this is normal. This is what divorce is about. Some divorced couples are able to remain friends afterwards, many cannot. She wants to be rid of you and still get supported. I'm afraid there is nothing you can do to change that.
"One way or another I am accountable for making sure she is getting the financial benefits of being my wife even if she is not. So, my job is to figure out how to do this in a way that I can live with."
____________________________________________________________
That's a odd way of saying it. However, it's not "your job" but the court's job, to find an amount. They will listen to input and testimony from both parties.
"If the court were to base alimony on the 2005-2007 earnings, we would split assets and I would be paying alimony of about 82K per year for about 12 years. So, to buy her out, theoretically I would need to give her all the assets, and still be forced to at least try my best to earn enough money to pay some amount of alimony. I am sure the court would take into consideration my fluctuating income due to being in an up and down business.
_____________________________________________________________
Not so sure I agree with this. The court MAY take into acct. that your income has been reduced involuntarily. But they don't HAVE TO. You need to convince them with excellent arguments. Yo could consider a "buy out" option in lieu of lifetime alimony. She gets half of everything now anyway. So all you can give away is some of your half.
"Am I held hostage by my marriage? "
_____________________________________________________________
Well, perhaps. She could easily insist on half of everything your both own, including the business and lifetime alimony. And the courts would not consider that unreasonable. BTW, 82K for 12 yrs. is nearly a million bucks. You got that to give her? From your half? The court doesn't care if you want to quit your occupation and do something else. They only care if you disobey a court order, like a spousal support order. How you get the money to pay your STBX her support is your problem. IMO, you need a good attorney IF your STBX will not work with you re: your after divorce lives and what you both want.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
