Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)

[Freedom2016]

I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.

I like "completed". Just because something ended, doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing while it lasted.

You mean like Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's "conscious uncoupling"? ;-)

[HappierAtHome]

I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.

I like "completed". Just because something ended, doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing while it lasted.

You mean like Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin's "conscious uncoupling"? ;-)

Nah that's just wanky :-P

[Mrs.FamilyFinances]

This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.

[AJ]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). Plus, the divorce rate for first marriages in the US is a bit over 40%. That means almost 60% last - across the board. Graduating college reduces the risk of divorce by 25%. Making over $50k reduces it by 30%. Waiting till you're at least 25 year old, another 25%. If you don't want to marry then don't, but please don't let the horror stories scare you away from something so thoroughly and wonderfully awesome :)

[megalo]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). ...

Even though my marriage ended, I still think it was great! Sure, the last bit wasn't so fun, but I wouldn't do anything differently given the chance.

Um, except that I learned an awful lot and see better in hindsight and think I would do much better at marriage if I had a do-over with current knowledge. But I'm happily single and that's ok too. :)

[bikebum]

Some couples live like they are married but don't actually make it legal. That's what my lady and I are doing. We are getting rings as a sign of commitment to each other.

As far as I can tell, the only downside to not making it legal (assuming you aren't interested) is if one wants to get on a health care plan from the other's work. And some people may judge you. For other things you can fill out easy forms that give power of attorney for health care and financial stuff.

Anyone considering this should check to see if their state recognizes common law marriage; mine doesn't.

I don't think there is anything wrong with legal marriage; it's just not for everyone :)

[Letj]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

This is terribly sad. I don't want to start waxing poetic about marriage in a thread where people are wanting to vent about their divorce, but there is nothing that beats a happy marriage (not even FIRE ;) ). Plus, the divorce rate for first marriages in the US is a bit over 40%. That means almost 60% last - across the board. Graduating college reduces the risk of divorce by 25%. Making over $50k reduces it by 30%. Waiting till you're at least 25 year old, another 25%. If you don't want to marry then don't, but please don't let the horror stories scare you away from something so thoroughly and wonderfully awesome :)

+1 I have been extremely happily coupled for the past 28 years. We met when I was still a teenager and later had two wonderful children.

[DoubleDown]

As far as I can tell, the only downside to not making it legal (assuming you aren't interested) is if one wants to get on a health care plan from the other's work. And some people may judge you. For other things you can fill out easy forms that give power of attorney for health care and financial stuff.

Another big one is survivor benefits, such as in Social Security, military, or certain pensions. Without a legal marriage, a partner could be left with nothing vs. significant lifetime benefits for a spouse.

[FrugalZony]

Even though my marriage ended, I still think it was great! Sure, the last bit wasn't so fun, but I wouldn't do anything differently given the chance.

Um, except that I learned an awful lot and see better in hindsight and think I would do much better at marriage if I had a do-over with current knowledge. But I'm happily single and that's ok too. :)

Thank you for that! That's what I am hoping to be able to say in a couple of months from now.

[Spartana]

Ex-hubby and I had a very harmonious divorce after 17 years of marriage (20 years together). Both working full time, both with government pensions in our future, no kids, and no debts other than a house we purchased a year before we divorced. I bought him out of the house (and kept the 6 pets), he moved onto our (paid for) sailboat and we split any joint non-investment money we had 50/50. I kept my pension and investments (IRAs, 457, bonds) and he kept his.  He got cash from me for the house, I got a couple of roomies to help with the mortgage and bills, and we both ended up happily ever after. I consider both my marriage and my divorce great successes, but after reading some of the stories here I think I'll stay single forever :-)!

[pablo suarve]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

[warfreak2]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.

[bikebum]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.

I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.

[Zamboni]

^In any case make sure you have a will (a real one, drawn up properly by an attorney) so there are not lingering doubts about who gets what.  Yes, I KNOW you don't want to think about dying or who "gets" you kids or your money or your stuff when you kick off, but you need to get that done this week anyway.  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.

I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended."

I agree with this sentiment as well.  The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

[ak907]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!

[Insanity]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!

Like everything, there is a risk and reward.  In our group of friends, five of us are married.  one has one what I would call a great marriage.  Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working).  they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.

 two have ok marriages.  they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.

one has a marriage where they hardly see each other.  so they are more just existing.

and then there is us.

[MissStache]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

I have to agree on the effect of reading threads like these!

Like everything, there is a risk and reward.  In our group of friends, five of us are married.  one has one what I would call a great marriage.  Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working).  they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.

 two have ok marriages.  they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.

one has a marriage where they hardly see each other.  so they are more just existing.

and then there is us.

:(

[CommonCents]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.

I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.

Actually, I don't think power of attorney would affect the hospital visits.  A power of attorney just lets you have the right to make certain legal decisions on behalf of the person, such as medical decisions about their care if incapcitated.  That said, most hospitals probably wouldn't keep you out, even though you have no right to insist to be there.

Re inheritance, eeks, what state do you live in?  A number of states have lower thresholds than the federal one.  My state the threshold is $1 million.

The rights from marriage include: survivor's benefits, social security/medicare/disability benefits, tax-free employer provided health care benefits, possible better tax treatment (this really depends where you fall on the marriage penalty/bonus chart), additional rights to transfer inherited retirement benefits to an IRA or retirement plan (deferring taxation and not requiring miniumum distribution), right to take FMLA for an ill partner, right to petition for immigration (likely not a problem for you), right to extend COBRA to a partner, certain life estate trusts are only open to married couples, legal protections such as marital communications privilege (which means a court can't force the person to testify against you...although if they're pissed they can opt to do so anyway.  This is likely why Hernandez was trying to marry his fiance...).

This is just a quick summary, you can google for more.  It may not still be for you, but you should be fully aware of the rights and obligations.

[Insanity]

Like everything, there is a risk and reward.  In our group of friends, five of us are married.  one has one what I would call a great marriage.  Two happy kids, a wife that works part time, supportive set of grandparents that live close, they travel, spend money and have saved a crap load (while they spend money they are smart about it by spending below their means and have two very high salaried parents working).  they have arguments, but trust the other one without fail.

 two have ok marriages.  they have one set of supportive grandparents (one has two), do trips, support each other, but have numerous arguments.

one has a marriage where they hardly see each other.  so they are more just existing.

and then there is us.

:(

I should clarify that - I think the two marriages are good and the arguments are not knock out drag out ones.  They are just a lot of difference of opinions.  I think one of the two has learned to deal with it a lot better than the other. Of course, they have been married for almost 10 more years :)

The one that hardly see each other are due to work schedules but when they are together they are happy. There's just a lot going on (one set of grandparents is deceased and the other set really isn't helping out that much so they are struggling with time management) which is impacting how often they can do things they want.  I think if their schedules were more in line, they'd be much happier than they are.

[Bigote]

*Runs screaming from this thread*

This makes me never want to get married.  Never ever ever!

It makes me want to not get divorced!   

[bikebum]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.

I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.

Actually, I don't think power of attorney would affect the hospital visits.  A power of attorney just lets you have the right to make certain legal decisions on behalf of the person, such as medical decisions about their care if incapcitated.  That said, most hospitals probably wouldn't keep you out, even though you have no right to insist to be there.

Re inheritance, eeks, what state do you live in?  A number of states have lower thresholds than the federal one.  My state the threshold is $1 million.

The rights from marriage include: survivor's benefits, social security/medicare/disability benefits, tax-free employer provided health care benefits, possible better tax treatment (this really depends where you fall on the marriage penalty/bonus chart), additional rights to transfer inherited retirement benefits to an IRA or retirement plan (deferring taxation and not requiring miniumum distribution), right to take FMLA for an ill partner, right to petition for immigration (likely not a problem for you), right to extend COBRA to a partner, certain life estate trusts are only open to married couples, legal protections such as marital communications privilege (which means a court can't force the person to testify against you...although if they're pissed they can opt to do so anyway.  This is likely why Hernandez was trying to marry his fiance...).

This is just a quick summary, you can google for more.  It may not still be for you, but you should be fully aware of the rights and obligations.

Thanks for listing these topics for me and others to think about. I have already looked into a lot of them and decided for our situation they would not be a big benefit; I'll look into the ones I haven't yet. I have very little of the benefits that you can only leave to a spouse. We are fairly young (mid and late 20's) and we may change our minds as we get older. Unmarried couples can change their minds and decide to get married anytime.

I live in CA; no estate or inheritance tax from the state.

I think you are right about the health care power of attorney. From what I found it is up to the hospital's visitation policy. I think there is a new law that puts some limits on federally funded hospitals restricting visits. Seems weird that you can give a person the authority to make all your health care decisions, and that person may not be allowed to visit you in the hospital. I may asks our local hospitals about their policies.

[CommonCents]

I think you are right about the health care power of attorney. From what I found it is up to the hospital's visitation policy. I think there is a new law that puts some limits on federally funded hospitals restricting visits. Seems weird that you can give a person the authority to make all your health care decisions, and that person may not be allowed to visit you in the hospital. I may asks our local hospitals about their policies.

Yep, that's a good call to know.  From my doctor friends, they've said they wouldn't kick out non-family, but I can see rare circumstances it might happen (and it's probably nurses enforcing it not doctors).  Also forgot to mention bereavement leave, not usually granted for unmarried couples (for not just the partner, but also the partner's relatives).  Before engagement, DH couldn't take time off to travel with me to my cousin's funeral.  He just started a new job and didn't have the option of using vacation days either.  I never thought my cousin would pass away early (low 30s).

[Wolf_Stache]

Makes me glad I put stipulations on when I said 'yes' to ex-boyfriend asking me to marry him three years ago. Ex-boyfriend had lots of debts and was a bit of a spendthrift, so I told him he had to have a positive net worth (ie, take care of the debts) before I would marry him.

I think even then I had started to see the signs that we were not right for each other, but couldn't admit it to myself. But I knew that the idea of marrying him made me very nervous with the way his finances currently were.

It took me a while, but I finally broke up with him a few months ago. SOOOO glad we never married, especially after reading this thread!

My parents divorced when I was 12, and it was long, drawn out, and bitter. I don't think they stopped fighting about money until I was well into my 20s, so I am leary of marriage by default.

[RetiredAt63]

@GamerGirl
One advantage of not marrying young (or at the end of undergrad, like we did), is that you can get an idea of the other person's financial style.  And smart of you to show that financial responsibility is a priority for you.  My condolences that he didn't manage his money better, and it ended.

[momo]

@ All, wondering are there Mustachians who do not combine their incomes and keep their finances separate?  This could be the property or assets brought into the relationship, incomes and adding into a shared account for expenses, etc.

If you separate finances, how did you raise the topic and come to an agreement with your partner?  Also, interested if you don't mind sharing what motivated you to want to keep finances separate?  Thanks for sharing!

My fiance and I have been together 7 years now and will be getting a prenup before we get married this summer. We've always kept our finances separate and didn't want that to change when we get married. I'm not sure who will benefit the most in the long run (she has more inheritance, my future earnings are likely higher) but the main thing is the peace of mind it brings now. She's not a crazy spender (saves roughly 25%) but she does have certain spending habits that would really bug me if it was "our" money she was spending rather than "her" money. Right now I can maybe poke her a bit about it and help her question if she REALLY needs it or whatever, but at the end of the day it doesn't really impact me much so I don't care. Having it separate has reduced the potential for conflict about money significantly.

As for how we got there... when we started dating we both had our own income stream and always kept it separate. When we started talking about getting married, we discussed how we wanted to do finances going forward and we both liked the fact they were separate and wanted to keep it that way. The house will be 50/50 but food, utilities, etc are calculated and split and the person who paid less that month transfers money to the other person to make up the difference. There was a period I was going to school and had insufficient income and she loaned me a bit of money to help me through the last bit rather than taking out a school loan and we tracked that as a 0% loan that I paid off once I finished.

It might sound a bit cold but I think it has been a great way to remove a potential stressor from the relationship. We ARE in it together so if something did happen such that one person couldn't work or something we'd revisit this approach. But until something like that happens, we are two working adults that are happy to avoid the potential stress/arguments/whatever that can result from merging finances.

@ Vilgan:  Thanks for sharing your story.  Wondering do you ever hear from others how keeping your finances separate shows that you do not care about each other?  Or that you do not trust each other completely?  Curious to how you and anyone else willing to share has address these concerns when asked by family or close friends.

@ All: If you previously wanted to merge finances but later decided against it, do you mind sharing why?  Would love to hear more about your mindset and how the decision to go either way affected your relationship too.  Thanks!

[wtjbatman]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

[marty998]

@wtjbatman I hope you explained to her all 17 pages of size 6 font terms and conditions appended to that agreement.

[Cpa Cat]

But, I personally don't see having a pre-nup as being all in.  If you are going to have one, why bother getting married? (and I'm not saying that be condescending to those who do believe in them, I understand some like to have the protection).  But then again, I also waited until I was 21 to drink, never did drugs, and my wife is the only women I've been with.

I have a prenup. When I met my husband, I was still in college and he had a start up that was just starting to do well. Because ours was an international romance, we knew that we had to make a decision early on about whether we wanted to give it a go, get married and have one of us emigrate. We chose to get married. I left Canada for the USA, dropping out of school and leaving family, stuff, scholarships in my dust.

A prenup seemed like a reasonable and intelligent decision. It had nothing to do with being "all in" - just the realization that life isn't a fairy tale. The worst case scenario in my case was that I was stuck in a foreign country with no money, no options, no job and no way to get back home or recover the lost time/money.

The worst case scenario for him was that I would own half his business and claim alimony.

Our prenup protected his premarital assets and also gave me a lump sum settlement to return home.

In the first few years of marriage, we had a perfect exit route. If either one of us was unhappy with our choice, we could leave and take an eraser to the whole thing. But we didn't. Why? Because we took our marriage seriously. We both wanted to be there 100%.

I don't really understand the mentality that being "all in" means you create a marriage that is a trap for your finances. Why does there need to be some kind of financial punishment in place in order for a person to be 100% invested in the marriage? If the only thing keeping a person in the marriage is the idea that they will lose 50% of their assets, then that's not "all in."

These days, my husband has sold his business and comingled the funds. I make more than he does, but we both gave up alimony in the prenup. Circumstances changed - the prenup that was in his favor early on is now to his detriment. I've offered to amend it with a postnup, but he doesn't want to. So maybe you are right in a way - in his mind, when we signed the prenup, perhaps he wasn't "all in" - and now he is, and can't imagine needing a postnup.

[Bigote]

Interesting perspective, cpa-cat. 

[SnackDog]

A buddy of mine has been divorced five times. The fifth time he helped his wife get an apartment and lent her his credit card for a couple weeks. No attorneys. When I asked how he managed five divorces he said "I made it a point to never marry a girl I couldn't amicably divorce!"

I'm more old fashioned. Too many people seem to think the grass is greener on the outside of a marriage. It is hard, hard work and can be a lot of grief, but you just have to work it out.  For every marriage I have seen end for a supposedly good reason, others have survived the same drama and come out stronger.  Humans are frail. They screw up.

[lifejoy]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

Great idea! I love it! :D

[Gin1984]

I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.

But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.

As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.

* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.

Some states, if you keep the assets completely separate do not include inheritances as martial property even if the asset is inherited while married.
Though I do have to ask why you would think that if a couple chose to have one partner stay home and the other support them, if after 10-20 years the SAHS should not get alimony?  Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.

[wtjbatman]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

Great idea! I love it! :D

I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)

[Gin1984]

This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.

I'm with you MrsFF.  My husband deserves something special. 

[Gin1984]

Count me as another who will never marry.  At least in Western society, there are way too many associated legal consequences.  So I happily spend time with the SO unmarried :-)

Up to you, but I would welcome most of the legal consequences: for example, hospital visiting rights, and neither of you will pay inheritance tax on the "other half" of your combined wealth if one of you dies before the other.

I think a Power of Attorney would take care of hospital visits. In the US, there is no tax on the first ~$5 million of the estate, no matter who inherits it.

Not for private hospitals.  There have been lawsuits over it where a legal power of attorney was not allowed in the hospital because the couple was gay and it was a Catholic hospital.

[Zamboni]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

Make sure you point out the option to renew when the contract expires!  That will seal the deal ;-)

Then again, the Dutch are not known as great romantics and most of the people I know in the Netherlands also think our diamond engagement ring tradition is just silly (which is quite ironic, when you consider which company got it all started in the US . . . .)

[quilter]

I have read of instances where family have barred a gay or unmarried partner visiting rights to a hospitalized SO.  Check your state laws.  When money, religious beliefs or prejudice comes into the equation people can be unbelievably cruel.

[Mustache Fatty]

This thread makes me incredibly grateful for my marriage, and my husband. I'm going to bake him some muffins.

This one made me laugh.  Awesome quote!

[limeandpepper]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

Great idea! I love it! :D

I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)

The funny thing is, asking someone to marry you is almost the same thing. Just substitute "indefinite" for "fixed".

[iris lily]

I read an article the other day with a sentiment I generally agree with. It expressed the opinion that we shouldn't call marriages that are over "failed", but rather "ended." They used an example of a marriage that lasts 35 years, produces several children, and goes through a whole life of its own as a success, and one that eventually ran its course and ended. I like the idea of a marriage that can last 50+ years, but that may be a kind of quaint idea that doesn't exist too often in reality, at least not nowadays.

See, I agree with this.

I've seen some marriages at my age that just end, they kind of peter out. The couple has their children raised, they've completed that work, and are ready for a different stage of life. I guess that sometimes the partner who is a decent parent isn't the partner you want to take into the next phase of your life.

And frankly, in more than one case it was a Mustachean partner wanted more out than the other one: he  retired early while the spendier, working partner kept slaving away at the 9 to 5. That ball and chain limited where they could go, adventures they could have as a couple.

[DoubleDown]

Though I do have to ask why you would think that if a couple chose to have one partner stay home and the other support them, if after 10-20 years the SAHS should not get alimony?

I think every situation will have circumstances that dictate what is equitable. In general I favor rehabilitative alimony, but lifetime alimony is unfair in many cases (and it's often applied arbitrarily, which is infuriating).

For example, should a 40-year old woman with a JD and PhD, married for 20 years and then divorced, receive lifetime alimony from her high-earning former spouse simply because she was a SAHM for the last 5 years or so of the marriage? I'd say no, but it could easily happen in my state. At the same time, should a 65 year old woman be expected to enter the workforce after being supported entirely by her husband their entire 20+ year marriage? Again, I'd say no, that person deserves lifetime alimony.

Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.

I agree. But that's sometimes easier said than done. For example, what if your spouse won't go to work? Isn't that alone ample reason to end a marriage, and now you're dealing with divorce and its consequences, including paying alimony to a non-working spouse. That's what mine did. Even though she was a capable professional, with a degree, lots of experience and high earning potential. Not only would she not go back to work, once our separation started, her attorney of course insisted that she not even try to find work, in order to secure the most favorable custody and alimony decision they could get. Like I said, it's infuriating.

[CommonCents]

For example, should a 40-year old woman with a JD and PhD, married for 20 years and then divorced, receive lifetime alimony from her high-earning former spouse simply because she was a SAHM for the last 5 years or so of the marriage? I'd say no, but it could easily happen in my state. At the same time, should a 65 year old woman be expected to enter the workforce after being supported entirely by her husband their entire 20+ year marriage? Again, I'd say no, that person deserves lifetime alimony.

So work to change the laws in your state rather than complaining here!  In my state, what you describe is what would happen.  Alimony is limited to not more than a fixed percent determined based on the length of the marriage:
Under 5 years: <50%
5-10: <60%
10-15: 70%
15-20: 80%
20+: Court discretion

This means that my ex, who moved to London for a few years with his wife before coming back to the US, might be obligated to pay out for the fact that she couldn't really work there and advance her career.  But, since he cheated on his wife with his best friend's wife when they returned to the US but before the 5 years were up, the alimony (if any is granted) would be limited to no more than 50%, or no more than 2.25 years (married ~4.5 years when the wife filed).

Don't chose to have a SAHS if you would not, is my attitude.

I agree. But that's sometimes easier said than done. For example, what if your spouse won't go to work? Isn't that alone ample reason to end a marriage, and now you're dealing with divorce and its consequences, including paying alimony to a non-working spouse.

Or another takeaway is that if someone just won't go back to work, to start the divorce sooner rather than waiting several years to see if they might magically change their mind.  If you've only been out of the market for a year, then the court will look at it very differently (in my state, but I would surmise in other) very differently than a 20 year hiatus.  And if the issue is that you agreed they'd take time off for the kids before school-age, but now now 5 years later are refusing to go back, then it is just a matter of being unhappy at when the bargain was called off, at the end of the 5 years when it might, depending on how the state handles it, favor the SAHS.  (I can't believe lifetime alimony wouldn't be the exception here, though, rather than the rule.)

But also consider whether you've actually shown your SAHS you'd step up to the plate to help out with the kids, or whether you'd be expecting the SAHS to pick up a job and run frontline on the kids as well.  Saw a post where the wife was expecting she'd still need to cook all the meals, take care of laundry, do all of the cleaning, get kids off to school and homework etc, while holding a job.  And I do mean show before the job comes around, rather than waiting until after the job is started.

[zhelud]

But also consider whether you've actually shown your SAHS you'd step up to the plate to help out with the kids, or whether you'd be expecting the SAHS to pick up a job and run frontline on the kids as well.  Saw a post where the wife was expecting she'd still need to cook all the meals, take care of laundry, do all of the cleaning, get kids off to school and homework etc, while holding a job.  And I do mean show before the job comes around, rather than waiting until after the job is started.

This.  Also keep in mind that many women become SAHMs, with the full support of their husbands, without either of them really understanding what happens to one's job prospects after being out of the work force for 10 years.

[bluecheeze]

I think one thing that can help anyone is to understand how certain life choices would play out in the event of a split. A prenuptial agreement can certainly help, particularly if there's an imbalance of assets or earnings/pensions entering the relationship. Same is true if there are children from a previous marriage, as already noted. I insisted on a prenup for my second (current) marriage, as I had kids' interests to protect, and I was not interested in splitting my wealth in half a second time.

But perhaps equally important is understanding how your shared wealth and future earnings would be split in the event of a divorce. In almost all cases, unless it is spelled out otherwise in a prenup*, anything acquired during marriage will be split equally, regardless of who "earned" it. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything acquired during the marriage should be evenly split, you have no worries. If you anticipate being a high earner compared to your spouse, or inheriting, or having a pension, etc., then you need to think carefully before commingling finances.

As an example, understand the ramifications of having one parent stay home to raise children while another is employed. There is no distinction in who "earned" the money and all the assets -- both parties contributed equally to the family in the eyes of the law, and it will all be split -- assets, earnings, pensions. The employed spouse could end up continuing to support that arrangement for life through alimony payments. Imagine, you have adult children who left home long ago, and you're continuing to support an ex spouse who doesn't work, and sits at home, for the rest of his/her life on your continued earnings (you still have to go to work), because that is the arrangement you set up 20 years ago when you were still married with babies! Oh, and your spouse left you? Doesn't matter, you still pay. There will be no early retirement for you, because your alimony payment will never be reduced, and certainly not by you choosing to retire early.

* Even with a prenup, you may be unlikely to keep things separate. As soon as an asset or earnings are commingled in any way, it's now marital property to be split equally. And a prenup likely will not be upheld if there's a gross imbalance.

Ouch. I think if I ever had to pay alimony to an ex to live like that I would just move to the Caribbean and tend bar to make barely enough to survive. Live the rest of my days on the beach instead of supporting a freeloader. Mai Thais and live in a bamboo shack on the water.

[bikebum]

The Dutch even like to use fixed term cohabitation contracts instead of marriage.  This seems like a good idea.

*wtjbatman gets down on one knee in front of his beautiful girlfriend*

"Kathy, I love you with all of my heart, and have ever since I laid eyes on you. Will you sign a fixed term cohabitation contract with me?"

"Yes! Oh yes!"

*doves fly into the air while rays of sunshine beam down on our tears of joy*

Great idea! I love it! :D

I'm going to try it out! If you never hear from me again, you'll know she wasn't impressed ;)

The funny thing is, asking someone to marry you is almost the same thing. Just substitute "indefinite" for "fixed".

It doesn't seem the same to me. With a cohabitation agreement, the couple sets the terms. With a marriage, the couple gets whatever terms the state has decided, unless they make a pre-nup. That seems like a huge difference.

[Insanity]

Okay, this is going to come off very wrong...  But... Why does being a SAHP automatically make it difficult to enter the workforce?

Q) What is the toughest task you have had to deal with at your last position?
A) One of my previous associates suffered from lack of experience and had a real knack for questioning authority.  It was my job as his (or her) manager to ensure timely completion of tasks.  Unfortunately, reward based practices proved to fail so I had to switch to disciplinary actions.

Q) How did you deal with an underfunded budget?
A) Our team was always funded minimally due to the corporations desire to eliminate long term debt and prepare funding for future endeavors.  As such, we analyzed purchases carefully always looking for the best overvalue for the desired outcome.  This required strategic planning. 

Etc...  Just look at being a SAHP as a job, list yourself as self employed until you re-enter the workforce.  At least you'll get through the door at most places.

(and yes, this is partially in jest and partially from true belief).

[zhelud]

Okay, this is going to come off very wrong...  But... Why does being a SAHP automatically make it difficult to enter the workforce?

Q) What is the toughest task you have had to deal with at your last position?
A) One of my previous associates suffered from lack of experience and had a real knack for questioning authority.  It was my job as his (or her) manager to ensure timely completion of tasks.  Unfortunately, reward based practices proved to fail so I had to switch to disciplinary actions.

Q) How did you deal with an underfunded budget?
A) Our team was always funded minimally due to the corporations desire to eliminate long term debt and prepare funding for future endeavors.  As such, we analyzed purchases carefully always looking for the best overvalue for the desired outcome.  This required strategic planning. 

Etc...  Just look at being a SAHP as a job, list yourself as self employed until you re-enter the workforce.  At least you'll get through the door at most places.

(and yes, this is partially in jest and partially from true belief).

These are all great answers, but unfortunately they don't actually work with hiring managers.

[CommonCents]

Insanity, have you triead that tactic yourself?  That sounds great on paper but I bet manager would not be amused if you seem like you are trying to hide the gap.  In real life, a gap DOES cause issues.  First from not have direct current experience (stale skills) from being out of the workforce, second from the "career gap" (you miss out on seniority raises/job positions).

I say this from personal experience of unemployment.  I had plenty to talk about because I worked a part-time job in a different field (teaching ethics & business law) I could translate experience to the jobs for which I was applying (practicing health care law), but it still was a huge hurdle and I wasn't out all that long.  Furthermore, your direct skills weaken and you require additional education/training to stay current.  No matter what the fancy words, budgeting and dealing with cranky ones is not the same as researching and writing legal memos, and being current on ACA changes (or the equivalent in other fields).

[Insanity]

That is why I said partially in jest, and partially in true belief.

I had a career counselor who actually told me to use that approach when I was laid off.  She told me to put that I was self employed and to actually try to keep up on things the best I could and use real world things to show that I can still manage tasks.

I realize this doesn't work for all fields.

[DoubleDown]

So work to change the laws in your state rather than complaining here!

Not complaining, just answering the question that was posed to me. I don't have the motivation to attempt to change the laws here (Virginia). Might as well say, "Work to change the good ol' boy Southern culture to love gay marriage, gender equality, diversity, and hipster men wearing skinny jeans," because that's what it would take. We're talking about a very conservative and very long legal tradition, around since before there was a United States. The state is becoming more "purple" in voting due to the high (and more liberal) population in the Washington DC suburbs, but the remaining 99% of the state, area-wise, is very conservative, with a very conservative legislature, courts, and judges. Our state legislature last year was the first, and highly proud, to require women to undergo "transvaginal ultrasounds" and view the images before having an abortion, no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy. Good luck changing divorce laws to be more egalitarian and gender neutral here!

This state is also one of the last holdouts (I think there are about 5 left) not to have shared child custody as the default. That's the real divorce law crime that leads to all kinds of horrible outcomes, and gives SAHPs a ridiculous advantage that can be used as a potent weapon, including with alimony (i.e., if you want to see kids, pay up). And regardless of the laws, many judges in this state see women and mothers as the only "proper" parents, delicate flowers that need extra care and coddling, so says my female attorney in practice for 30+ years.