When they're talking about increase in value of separate property during the marriage as being attributed to the marriage, what they're USUALLY talking about is the increased value of real estate that was used and maintained by BOTH parties during the marriage. USUALLY, if you have, say, a stock market account opened before the marriage, and don't contribute to it during the marriage, and it simply compounds and increases (OR decreases), the profit (or loss) is USUALLY not split by the parties in a community property state, and is USUALLY not considered "equitably" part of the jointly owned funds in an equitable property state. AND even if the equitable property state considers it jointly owned (the profit or loss), it would be rare that a judge in the case would decide that it was equitable for the profit or loss to be shared by the other spouse.
This type of law is just a guideline for how to decide what might or might not be equitable, what might be included and avaialble to divide if it seems equitable to do so, but the bottom line on what is equitable is whether or nto the judge is persuaded that this is the FAIR thing to do.
Now, there is the rare case where one spouse gets a huge inheritance and quits their job, drawing from the inheritance to create a wonderful lifestyle for the couple, and it's QUITE possible that the judges in an equitable property state might decide that it's fair to use the earnings from the inheritance as if they were joint funds, since the person who got them quit contributing earnings from employment to the joint lifestyle that they had. This would be one reason a judge might find it "equitable" to give part of the increased value of an inheritance to the other person. But even then, in an equitable state, no one is guaranteed a 50-50 split of the property even if it is obviously joint...
WHat you've got to do in an equitable state is prove that you DESERVE to get what you want out of the divorce.
I'm still waiting to hear from Hose about what were the circumstances that were used to take 100% of ALL his property from him.
There has to be more to the story. Something that would be a reason that this happened, something the judge used to justify this decision, something that made it sound equitable from SOMEONE's point of view.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: premarital assets..are they hers too?
Edit
Reply
Quote
