Author Topic: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)  (Read 129792 times)

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #250 on: May 12, 2014, 01:59:11 PM »
^It sounds like Virginia needs more female judges.  All of the family court judges in my county are female, and with that change came the default of the woman gets custody to the default of "well of course she can work and of course he wants 50% custody!"  According to my (older male) divorce lawyer, for years it was the older male judges here who were the enemy of the men who wanted an even division of assets and joint custody arrangement.   Do you get to elect your judges?

Basenji

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • Location: D.C.-ish
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #251 on: May 12, 2014, 02:07:04 PM »
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*

SNORT!

Vilgan

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #252 on: May 12, 2014, 02:20:42 PM »
@ 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!

Close family members are aware of our plan and they all seem to think it makes sense. We don't fight about other things, so why risk potential fights about money? There might one that thinks it is a bit strange and just keep it to themselves, but I haven't noticed a negative reaction from anyone on the idea. I think it helps that at this point we've been together a long time and they all know each other and mostly like each other. I think it is easier to make judgments about not being all in or not trusting each other etc when you don't know the people involved.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #253 on: May 12, 2014, 02:39:57 PM »
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact.  Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #254 on: May 12, 2014, 03:11:16 PM »
^That's brilliant.  I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was).  Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.

bikebum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Location: Nor Cal
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #255 on: May 12, 2014, 06:20:07 PM »
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact.  Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.

I wouldn't have any ceremony called a "wedding" if it weren't actually made legal because I think it may piss people off, even though I think that part of it is none of their business. Did anyone get pissed?

^That's brilliant.  I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was).  Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.

As a patient at a hospital, don't you have to tell them your marital status or put it on a form. Would it be illegal to say you're married if you are not legally? I don't know the answer, just something to think about.

My lady and I sometimes refer to each other as husband and wife because it makes the most sense in certain situations. So far my grandpa is the only one to point out it's legally not true; I just smile and say OK.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #256 on: May 13, 2014, 08:31:02 AM »
I suppose you could always do what we found out my BIL did 6 months after the fact.  Hold a wedding, but don't actually get married, in a state that doesn't recognize common law marriage.

I wouldn't have any ceremony called a "wedding" if it weren't actually made legal because I think it may piss people off, even though I think that part of it is none of their business. Did anyone get pissed?

We were a bit peeved ourselves actually.  The sarcasm didn't come across well over the internet.  Apparently they held off on filing paperwork so "SIL" could take the mortgage deduction on their jointly owned house.  BIL makes too much to qualify.  (MIL was very unhappy at tax breaks expiring for them a bit ago as they were over $250k apparently, but we didn't feel too sorry for them.  Somehow we've got to pay for running the country and the person earning minimum wage can't afford to shoulder it.)  It may be mustachian not to get married, and that's totally fine, but we weren't particularly a fan of learning we spent a lot of time, effort, and money attending what later turned out to be a fake wedding.  (And we're not particularly religious, I suspect religious people would feel even more "taken in" and that it was a mockery.)  Wish they had at least been upfront about it.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #257 on: May 13, 2014, 08:40:52 AM »

...It may be mustachian not to get married, and that's totally fine, but we weren't particularly a fan of learning we spent a lot of time, effort, and money attending what later turned out to be a fake wedding.  (And we're not particularly religious, I suspect religious people would feel even more "taken in" and that it was a mockery.)  Wish they had at least been upfront about it.

This issue comes up regularly on the website "Wedding Bee."  But it usually is the opposite scenario: the couple got married earlier due to military/insurance/immigration reasons, and the "wedding" is actually a vow renewal ceremony taking place after the true marriage date.

A fair number of posters say they would feel duped by attending as a guest anything that is less than what it is represented to be.
"
I would be somewhat annoyed to attend a "wedding" where the couple did not get married for tax purposes. It is crass. Just call it a "commitment ceremony" and be truthful and done with it.

zhelud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #258 on: May 13, 2014, 08:47:04 AM »
^That's brilliant.  I can only think of one instance where I had to produce a marriage certificate (and I can't even remember now what it was).  Otherwise, if you are a heterosexual couple and say you are married, then people like hospital staff just seem to take that on faith.

Heh heh- in our almost 20 years of marriage, my husband and I have had to produce our marriage certificate exactly twice- the first time to get his green card (which is perfectly understandable) and the second time so I could get on his dental plan!

Noodle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #259 on: May 14, 2014, 06:59:58 AM »
Per the "fake" weddings...I can totally get why a couple that needed a marriage certificate might want to have the party and even some kind of religious ceremony later (to share with family who couldn't be there, Grandma gets to see you in a wedding gown, etc.) I wouldn't mind going to one of those at all as long as I knew what was going on. Or even a couple who isn't getting legally married wanting to have some kind of dedication ceremony/party for friends and family. But yes, a wedding where the couple claims to be married but is not...that seems weird. I guess because it's hard to think of a higher purpose behind lying to everyone.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #260 on: May 14, 2014, 08:22:50 AM »
Yes, I've attended a ceremony where the couple was already married a year for immigration reasons.  It didn't phase me, as they were honest about it.  The reverse situation bothered us though.  My MIL reminded us to send an anniversary card at the end of the month and my husband half-joked if we could put quotes around the: Happy "Anniversary" wishes.

sobezen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 894
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #261 on: May 25, 2014, 12:50:12 AM »
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.

This is a fascinating read, thanks for sharing Cpa Cat!  Highly agree with you comment, "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."!  To me it seems to extreme and yet many of my married friends strongly feel that assets must be merged and cannot imagine a relationship with this. 

Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #262 on: May 25, 2014, 10:58:31 AM »
...
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.

This thread is pretty long and I may have already stated this somewhere upthread. but--

Yes, and no.

No--For one thing, when we got married eons ago DH had financial assets of $100,000 and I had around $15,000. If he had asked for a pre-nup I would have been 1) surpised (it's not his style) and then 2) agreeable. I think pre-nups are smart. I also respect the fact that DH and his parents loaned money back and forth for the family farm, his real estate acquisitions and etc and they had written documents each time. To me, that shows a business-like approach to money, not a lack of trust.

Yes--for me, me personally, throwing in my money with his, commingling it from the beginning, was a sort of jumping into the fire with both feet. It was a leap into a new life.


Argyle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 904
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #263 on: May 25, 2014, 03:58:02 PM »
I'm for pre-nups.  One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish.  For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for.  So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet."  In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets.  You can make it to protect the other person's assets.  If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.

I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements.  We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?"  We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing").  But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was.  As it happened, the marriage didn't survive.  But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him.  Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience.  (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.)  The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.

bikebum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Location: Nor Cal
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #264 on: May 25, 2014, 08:34:30 PM »
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.

I don't think it's necessary to merge finances. The main reason my lady and I keep finances separate is because we have different spending habits. She likes being independent, and I like not worrying about her spending "our" money on lattes and clothes. People choose to accumulate and spend money at different rates. And to answer a potential question, I think a couple can have a wonderful relationship even if they have different spending and saving habits, as long as they are not too different. That's how it is for us.

If it makes couples feel closer to be "all in" with their money, I see nothing wrong with that. But I disagree if someone says it is a requirement for a healthy relationship or marriage.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5960
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #265 on: May 26, 2014, 05:23:14 AM »
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship.  Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.

It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.

bikebum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Location: Nor Cal
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #266 on: May 26, 2014, 02:31:25 PM »
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship.  Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.

It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.

From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."

My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.

Bearded Man

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1137
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #267 on: May 26, 2014, 06:51:16 PM »
I don't have a story. I knew when I was 16 I didn't want to get married. Now at 32, I am still glad I have decided not to get married. It is a lifestyle and financial choice.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Australia
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #268 on: May 26, 2014, 07:01:11 PM »
From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."

This is awesome! I'm going to use this if you don't mind, in another financial forum I'm on there's a big debate going on about reasons to merge accounts, and I can't get people to see my POV.

Quote
My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.

My first marriage we had totally shared finances. It was 12 years of emotional and verbal abuse, culminating in many affairs (him) and a stay in a psych hospital (me).

My current marriage (10 years together and counting), we have never bothered to join finances. I've had the "you are more like flatmates than spouses" comment more than once online, but the difference emotionally between this marriage and the first is like chalk and cheese. We are absolutely partners in everything, and everything financial gets discussed first (except the little purchases). Makes a massive change from being repeatedly caught out at the grocery store checkout with an account with no money because my husband had decided to spend the $1000 in the account on jewellery for his latest girlfriend.

TheDude

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #269 on: May 26, 2014, 07:53:16 PM »
Interesting points on both sides. I got married at 27  but we had been together since 18. We pretty much started at 0. We have shared since day one as I think its important for us to be on the same page. If we aren't financial on the same page we shouldn't be together. I'm sure that if something is to happen and I find myself single I may rethink this.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #270 on: May 27, 2014, 10:34:52 AM »
I think marriage is largely what you make of it and what values you attribute to it. Some people think having separate accounts negates the whole point of joining lives. Okay.

Lots of couples find that separating certain things just makes life together better overall, but still consider themselves marriage partners. Using grant's eating analogy, would I be any less married to my wife if she suddenly became vegan or I became paleo, so we started preparing and eating "separate" meals? Do we have to eat the same things to be truly joined?

My (senior citizen) mom sleeps in another bedroom from her husband because he snores a lot, and she tosses and turns all night and gets up super early. Together they'd never get any sleep, but by being in separate bedrooms, they can each get a decent night's sleep. I don't think this makes them any less married, and I would not even think that for a younger couple who has separate bedrooms but still makes room for plenty of "adult time."

In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #271 on: May 27, 2014, 10:36:33 AM »
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #272 on: May 27, 2014, 10:52:08 AM »
I think marriage is largely what you make of it and what values you attribute to it. Some people think having separate accounts negates the whole point of joining lives. Okay.

Lots of couples find that separating certain things just makes life together better overall, but still consider themselves marriage partners. Using grant's eating analogy, would I be any less married to my wife if she suddenly became vegan or I became paleo, so we started preparing and eating "separate" meals? Do we have to eat the same things to be truly joined?

My (senior citizen) mom sleeps in another bedroom from her husband because he snores a lot, and she tosses and turns all night and gets up super early. Together they'd never get any sleep, but by being in separate bedrooms, they can each get a decent night's sleep. I don't think this makes them any less married, and I would not even think that for a younger couple who has separate bedrooms but still makes room for plenty of "adult time."

In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.
This gets at an idea my father frequently shared with us growing up.  He said a marriage is between two people, and you can't know from the outside what is really going on or how the marriage is going, because ultimately it's between the two of them.  (My parents have what I consider a strong marriage, and were/are very much against setting the institution up as a magical fairytale with true love->happily ever after). It works best for us to have joint accounts, but the fact that others come to different arrangements in their own marriages doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of commitment to me.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5960
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #273 on: May 27, 2014, 01:03:43 PM »
In my mind, finances are really no different. Who am I to say, "They're not really in a marriage, they have separate bedrooms or separate finances"? But yes, there's a heap paradox here -- at some point, if you threw out all of the traditional trappings of marriage, you might be left to wonder if there's really any marriage (heap) left there at all.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough about my views. I don't look at anybody else's relationship and say that - as you said, who am I? I look at MY relationship and say "this is how I feel about the way my relationship should be", and nothing more.

Apples

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #274 on: May 27, 2014, 02:08:57 PM »
We share finances, and if we get divorced in the next 7 or 8 years, I'll take a financial hit from where I started.  And if we divorce w/in the first 12 to 15 years, I probably would have made out better by myself.  We're getting married in 3 weeks (which will make it much easier w/ just a joint account to work out of), but we've merged finances since living together the end of last year.  He has student loans equal to the amount I had in my bank account (which was 60% of my net worth), but some of that money has been used to set up house, buy a car, and wedding/honeymoon.  We will pay off the final 1/3 of his student loans over the next 2 years or so, working together on our budget.  The other 40% of my NW is in investments for retirement and a shorter term goal.  Together, our NW is less than half of what mine was alone.  He has 2/3 the income I do, the loan payments, and is a bit spendier than me.  But he is willing to be a team on making our budget and though I won't retire early (commercial family farm - tough to leave early) I'm getting him on board w/ savings.  If our finances were separate, he would have no spending money, or very little, and I would have tons to save for retirement and go on trips, and I guess pay for all of our activities/dates?  It's just an unequal situation, and sharing finances only makes sense.  But divorce in the nearish future would not help me financially, though he would do well in comparison.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #275 on: May 27, 2014, 03:52:41 PM »
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
If it was a major financial setback because of something out of his/her control like a job loss or medical expenses - the yes, I'd be there with my cash willing to help as much as possible. However if it was just because he HAD to have that Sports car or 200 inch plasma TV - then no. And if he already had those things and then had a financial disaster and I was going to help bail him out, he's have to sell those things asap.

bikebum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Location: Nor Cal
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #276 on: May 27, 2014, 07:34:03 PM »
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?
If it was a major financial setback because of something out of his/her control like a job loss or medical expenses - the yes, I'd be there with my cash willing to help as much as possible. However if it was just because he HAD to have that Sports car or 200 inch plasma TV - then no. And if he already had those things and then had a financial disaster and I was going to help bail him out, he's have to sell those things asap.

Same here. I cover most of our living expenses right now because she is still in school.

From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."

This is awesome! I'm going to use this if you don't mind, in another financial forum I'm on there's a big debate going on about reasons to merge accounts, and I can't get people to see my POV.

Don't mind at all :)

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Australia
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #277 on: May 27, 2014, 08:06:20 PM »
A question for the finance-separating folks on here (just genuine curiousity)... if your spouse got hit with a major financial setback (large medical bill, unexpected job loss, etc.) would there be any sharing of the burden, or would they just cut back significantly while you went on as before?

This happened to me. He was off work for 6 months after a medical emergency, and not receiving any income. I paid for everything and gave him a "no questions asked" allowance.

Next?

2lazy2retire

  • Guest
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #278 on: July 03, 2014, 12:46:44 PM »
wtf...  so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that?  Is it really that simple?

Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.

They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse.  E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars.  I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.)  I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."

The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job.  They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning.  As with anything, it's an imperfect system.  If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.

So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #279 on: July 03, 2014, 01:24:50 PM »
wtf...  so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that?  Is it really that simple?

Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.

They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse.  E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars.  I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.)  I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."

The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job.  They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning.  As with anything, it's an imperfect system.  If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.

So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.

I worked pro bono offering advice to those with no assets, so this question never came up :)  I also don't know the laws in your state.  That said, yes, a conservative careful approach might be 1) keep any records that show an intention by both parties to retire early when X amount was achieved (maybe it'd help), and 2) time your retirement carefully.

Beridian

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #280 on: July 03, 2014, 01:33:27 PM »
wtf...  so they factor in some oddball estimation of what you can make and stick you in prison if you can't find a job that pays that?  Is it really that simple?

Basically yes, they don't like to do jail though because that obviously harms earning potential.

They will do jail in cases of flagrant abuse.  E.g. I had someone come in for pro bono support at the court where I was volunteering, who had NEVER PAID A DIME for HIS MULTIPLE CHILDREN (by different women) and owed thousands of dollars.  I think the hope is to make them realize this is serious. (Note: The courts can't garnish wages if you work under the table.)  I managed to refrain from saying "you asshole, how do you think your kids were fed, clothed and housed" or "wear a condom."

The issue that comes up more often is when someone quits working to attend school to get a better job.  They can be set a figure that the courts feel they "should" be earning.  As with anything, it's an imperfect system.  If you didn't do this, many would quit jobs, work under table etc to avoid paying.

So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.

Oh course this is all subject to the laws of the state and when whims of the judge, but it really comes down to income going forward from the divorce.   If there were sufficient assets to guarantee both parties an ample income I doubt that alimony would be required (celebrities and the uber-wealthy being an exception).
The purpose of alimony is for when the income (or the potential income) of one spouse is far below the other spouse, alimony is intended to balance out this disparity and typically will only be considered for long term marriages (15+ years).

And my advice to anyone who is considering divorce, if you are the higher earning spouse the longer you wait the more you will pay, if you are the lower earning spouse the longer you delay the more you stand to collect.  I am all in favor of happy relationships, and if your marriage can be salvaged by all means give it a go, but if all the signals point to a divorce best to rip the band-aid off as quickly as possible and get the pain behind you.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #281 on: July 03, 2014, 10:49:32 PM »

...So in the context of early retirement how would this likely pan out, say a couple have reached FI and after a year or 2 decide to get divorced. Before FI he/she was a high earner and she/he a SAHS. In light of the fact that they have achieved FI there is substantial assets to be be divided 50/50. Would the previous earner still be expected to pay alimony even if no longer working based on his ability to earn pre FI?. Just thinking out loud if one was planning on divorcing might he/she be better to quit now and hang on for a year or two before divorcing, as both their recent lifestyles would be based on the investment earnings and equal with a 50/50 split.

I know 2 instances fairly close to me where the man stopped working in his 50's when the pension kicked in and the wives went on working. Both men--mustachean. One of the wives--big spender, the other wife--pretty frugal.

And in both cases they ended up divorced just 3 years after the men retired. I would imagine that adjusted the men's 'stache.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #282 on: July 04, 2014, 08:26:26 AM »
Oh course this is all subject to the laws of the state and when whims of the judge, but it really comes down to income going forward from the divorce.   If there were sufficient assets to guarantee both parties an ample income I doubt that alimony would be required (celebrities and the uber-wealthy being an exception).
The purpose of alimony is for when the income (or the potential income) of one spouse is far below the other spouse, alimony is intended to balance out this disparity and typically will only be considered for long term marriages (15+ years).

You're right that it very much depends on the jurisdiction in question, but many (or even most) jurisdictions will award alimony on a strict formula basis, and it does not require a large disparity in income or a long marriage. Also, it is much les dependent on income going forward than income in the past or at the time of the divorce. It's simply plug in the numbers, and the formula spits out what the higher paying spouse owes. Deviating from those guidelines is rare and often requires exceptional circumstances.

Usually there will be guidelines dictating how long alimony will last. For example, in my state, it's 1/2 the length of the marriage for marriages under 20 years, and for life after that. But you most certainly don't have to be wealthy or a celebrity or in a long marriage or have a large pay disparity to pay alimony; far from it! This is one reason I'm vocal on this board about prenups, because many people likely don't recognize just how likely they may be to pay alimony and that it can be onerous, even lasting for life, decades after the demise of the marriage.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #283 on: July 04, 2014, 08:52:20 AM »
I'm sure I stated it eons and pages ago in this thread, but remember that you do not get to voluntarily reduce your income (e.g., retire early) and have your alimony or child support obligations reduced. So, for example, if you earn $100k at the time of divorce, and you are paying $2000/month in alimony or child support based on that, you will continue to pay that amount when you retire, even though you've reduced your earnings to $0 (although child support can be eliminated once they reach the age of majority). If you're paying alimony for life, well then -- you're paying for life, so factor that into your retirement budget!

sobezen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 894
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #284 on: September 22, 2014, 02:56:49 PM »
Everyone do you mind sharing if you agree if people need to merge their finances to be "all in"?  And does having a pre-nup really mean you aren't all in?  Lots of my friends tell me it is important to be all in by merging your finances together with your partner, it shows you do trust your partner.  What do you think?  Thanks.
I don't care much what other people do with their marriages, but I think that there's more to separate finances than the perspective this thread has taken (perhaps it's colored by the fact the thread's about divorce). I'm a proponent of shared finances, but I don't think trust has anything to do with it. The way I see it, money is an important part of life and an important part of a marriage, and separating it makes it a little bit less of a marriage. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't say "we're married but we don't eat together" and then use the rationale that "if we only stay married in order to sit at the same table for lunch that's not really all in"; or "we're married but we keep our households separate, because if you're only married to buy one toaster instead of two that's not really all in". Eating food and having a household are inherently meaningful aspects of my life. If I shared everything else but eating or having a home with someone, it would be an incomplete relationship.  Money seems no different to me. I think money is another important part of life, in which couples need to work together, compromise, and practice talking about goals and pushing one another, just like any other part of the relationship. Just like lunch and making a home, a relationship without it seems incomplete to me.

It won't hurt my feelings much if you disagree, like I said, but I'm really surprised how little support sharing finances has gotten in this thread.

From my point of view in the context of the eating analogy, sharing a bank account is like sharing a stomach. A couple can plan, prepare, and eat a meal together, but they probably want to eat different amounts and proportions of things. I think that's similar to choosing where to live together and how to pay bills and stuff with separate accounts, it is still something you do together. We can't share stomachs, but if we could I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying, "No thanks, I prefer to have my own stomach."

My main point is there is nothing wrong or inferior about separate accounts. There is also nothing wrong with shared accounts. But I disagree that separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship.

@ bikebum:  Thanks for sharing some excellent points!  Since you do not feel having separate accounts makes for a lesser relationship or indicates a lack of trust, do you mind sharing how a bit about your experience with your partner? I find it interesting and helpful to read how couples raise, communicate and compromise on this extremely sensitive topic (pre-nups and keeping separate finances). Thank you!

sobezen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 894
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #285 on: September 22, 2014, 03:05:02 PM »
I'm for pre-nups.  One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish.  For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for.  So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet."  In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets.  You can make it to protect the other person's assets.  If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.

I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements.  We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?"  We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing").  But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was.  As it happened, the marriage didn't survive.  But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him.  Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience.  (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.)  The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.

Wow! I appreciate your insights! I didn't consider a pre-nup as something that can be selfless and not selfish. Good distinction. May I ask, what is your experience with friends or loved ones who have partners who were not willing to sign a pre-nup? I am very curious how other couples communicated their concerns and how they reached a compromise. Thanks again. I also agree with you how people who fight like cats and dogs over a pre-nup may have other underlining concerns like distrust, etc.

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #286 on: September 22, 2014, 03:16:49 PM »
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else. And it's not like these people knew that the relationship would go bad when they first married. Seems you just can't know what your spouse is planning behind your back.

Regarding prenups, I've heard that even these aren't 100% reliable. With a 50% divorce rate, marriage seems very risky, especially for a Mustachian who might marry with a large sum on hand. Having to work another 5-10 years after divorce as a prior early retiree sounds horrible.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #287 on: September 22, 2014, 03:18:30 PM »
I'm for pre-nups.  One thing many people don't consider is that if done in the right spirit, they can be selfless, not selfish.  For instance, you can structure it so you're saying, "I care for you and even if our marriage somehow doesn't survive, I want you to be provided for.  So this pre-nup ensures that I won't make any claim on the assets you brought into the marriage, and that you'll have support to get back on your feet."  In other words you don't have to make a pre-nup to protect your own assets.  You can make it to protect the other person's assets.  If both people do this lovingly and of their own free will, I think it can be a great sign of caring.

I had a pre-nup, and my soon-to-be husband showed his true colors at the arrangements.  We went to my lawyer, who had prepared the pre-nup, and he said, "I don't need to read it, I'm sure she's fair, where do I sign?"  We had to convince him that he needed to have the thing overseen by his own lawyer (or else there's cause for arguing, in the event of a divorce, that "it doesn't count because I didn't know what I was signing").  But he trusted that what we put in there was fair, and it was.  As it happened, the marriage didn't survive.  But he's never tried to bilk me out of any money or act vindictively, nor I him.  Both those traits were reflected in our pre-nup experience.  (Our divorce lawyer did say that the whole process was made much less gruesome by the pre-nup, so it was useful that we had gotten it.)  The people who fight like cats and dogs over the pre-nup -- it makes me worry that this is indicative of later distrust and lack of generosity and cooperation.

Wow! I appreciate your insights! I didn't consider a pre-nup as something that can be selfless and not selfish. Good distinction. May I ask, what is your experience with friends or loved ones who have partners who were not willing to sign a pre-nup? I am very curious how other couples communicated their concerns and how they reached a compromise. Thanks again. I also agree with you how people who fight like cats and dogs over a pre-nup may have other underlining concerns like distrust, etc.

This is a very interesting point.  I know of a friend of a friend that had a difficult prenup discussion (the one with the business assets offered a quite unreasonable prenup only 2-3 weeks before the wedding).  The one w/o the assets (but who had been supporting both of them...) signed, but they ended up getting a divorce w/in a year.  Obviously there can be red flags the other direction but most often people characterize it as the unwillingness to sign of the one w/o the assets as the issue, so this is a story to buck that trend.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #288 on: September 22, 2014, 03:45:50 PM »


I cried a little and couldn't read through all the posts here.   I don't think anyone ever fully recovers from a divorce where children are involved.   I think it effects generations. 

I hope we can all deal with the pain in the most constructive manner possible.



Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #289 on: September 22, 2014, 05:05:11 PM »
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.

Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)? 

I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name).   And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.

My DH does not work.   If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all.   And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me).   We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #290 on: September 22, 2014, 05:32:24 PM »
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.

Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)? 

I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name).   And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.

My DH does not work.   If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all.   And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me).   We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).

Compared to a 50% chance of losing half my life savings? Certainly. And it's an opportunity cost, not a loss.

I fully agree marriage should be much more than just financial considerations, but it's really hard to ignore the fact that if the marriage does go sour (and there are plenty of chances it will), you would lose half of your 'stache. Even prenups can be voided (spouse can claim they were signed under duress, or without full understanding of the terms).

I think marriage is great. But it's just too risky these days, particularly for people with a large amount of assets. The problem is, you just can't know who is going to divorce you. And if it happens, no one know what the courts will decide.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #291 on: September 22, 2014, 05:50:57 PM »
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.

Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)? 

I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name).   And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.

My DH does not work.   If we weren't married I highly doubt he'd have any savings at all.   And yet, I still consider him the rightful owner to half of our joint savings and am not upset at the thought of ever having to split it with him (even if he left me).   We built the life we have together, and I feel very confident that in the big picture, I have far more with him than I would've without (even if not financially).

Compared to a 50% chance of losing half my life savings? Certainly. And it's an opportunity cost, not a loss.

I fully agree marriage should be much more than just financial considerations, but it's really hard to ignore the fact that if the marriage does go sour (and there are plenty of chances it will), you would lose half of your 'stache. Even prenups can be voided (spouse can claim they were signed under duress, or without full understanding of the terms).

I think marriage is great. But it's just too risky these days, particularly for people with a large amount of assets. The problem is, you just can't know who is going to divorce you. And if it happens, no one know what the courts will decide.

Well, there are laws that limit what courts can decide.   And like I said, I am unaware of anywhere where you are legally entitled to 1/2 of anything saved *before* the marriage.   So, we're not talking about any loss of current assents, but the fear of loss of future savings, or weighing the opportunity costs of building savings through marriage (with the risk of divorce) vs building savings individually.

IME there is a lot of fear-mongering regarding loss of assets through divorce (exhibit A: see this long ass thread).   And also IME, much of this comes from loss-aversion.   You often hear stories of "OMG-I had to give my ex half of my million in savings" vs "OMG-through our joint efforts my wife and I were able to save a million dollars vs just the $500,000 I'd have on my own."   

Also, we're Mustachian.   We can always build our savings back up if somehow we do wind up worse off after a divorce than if we had never married.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2014, 05:53:03 PM by Emilyngh »

pachnik

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #292 on: September 22, 2014, 08:10:57 PM »
This may sound very negative but when my husband and I got together, I thought to myself how would he behave during a divorce? 

I had the opportunity to observe his legal dealings with his ex-wife which did not go smoothly to say the least.  But he always behaved in a reasonable and civilized manner.  Always.  Something to look for. 

Outlier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Location: Michigan
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #293 on: September 22, 2014, 08:36:41 PM »
Hi everyone,

I'm still dating but this is a topic I'm very interested in because I know how big a setback divorce would be for my goals.

On_a_slow_boat and Thespoof: How did you bring up the topic of keeping finances separate with your significant other? Were they offended at first and you had to convince them, or did they get on board right away? I know every situation will be different, I'm just curious to hear how your's went. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I completely understand.

JHC I'm just going to go out on a limb and reply without reading what everyone else had to say. My wife and I kept our finances separate for five years. We were wasting money like crazy because we didn't support each other and use money to bolster each others actions. Together we make an efficient machine. The cost is that we had to air every bit of hidden spending and dirty laundry to work together. If you're uncomfortable about sharing spending and merging assets there's a problem. Spouse means equal in everything. If you have problems with equal in everything than don't have spouse. Also with this being a divorce thread I'm just going to say being equal in everything is scary, frustrating ......really freaking scary and extremely rewarding in some cases.

If someones actions will directly change what options  you have in life be really really honest about how that makes you feel and what actions you absolutely will take in response.

frompa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #294 on: September 23, 2014, 06:10:10 PM »
Emilyngh says:
"IME there is a lot of fear-mongering regarding loss of assets through divorce (exhibit A: see this long ass thread).   And also IME, much of this comes from loss-aversion.   You often hear stories of "OMG-I had to give my ex half of my million in savings" vs "OMG-through our joint efforts my wife and I were able to save a million dollars vs just the $500,000 I'd have on my own.""   


Thank you, Emilyngh, for you sane contribution!

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #295 on: September 23, 2014, 06:47:10 PM »
Hi everyone,

I'm still dating but this is a topic I'm very interested in because I know how big a setback divorce would be for my goals.

On_a_slow_boat and Thespoof: How did you bring up the topic of keeping finances separate with your significant other? Were they offended at first and you had to convince them, or did they get on board right away? I know every situation will be different, I'm just curious to hear how your's went. If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I completely understand.

 My wife and I kept our finances separate for five years. We were wasting money like crazy because we didn't support each other and use money to bolster each others actions. Together we make an efficient machine. 
 
I found this interesting because my hubby (now ex) and I always had separate finances during our 20 years together (17 married) and pretty much spent/saved the exact same amount seperately as we would have together. We had the whole  "yours, mine, ours" savings and investments and a pre-determined amount went into each - including bill paying. I never felt either of us wasted any money even if much of it was kept separate. When we divorced neither of us came away financially ruined - as a matter of fact we each were nearly FI separately based on our own savings and investments. So I don't think it's so much HOW you hold money, I think it's more how one person spends compared to another. Since DH and I were basically the same (savers) it was a wash.

For JHC: I don't really remember either of us discussing how we'd hold our finances (we were both broke and very young when we married) so it just sort of happened. As we got older and had more money coming in, we both continued to save the same way as before. If we jointly decided to buy something big that we'd both be sharing, then we'd each agree to buy the thing, and each would contribute 50% (we worked in the same profession and made the same amount of money).
« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 06:53:03 PM by Spartana »

FreeWheel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Location: Chicagoland
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #296 on: September 23, 2014, 08:28:12 PM »
Shortly after we met, wife and I both started dumping all the money we could save into her bank account for a down payment on a house. (My name wasn't even on the account!) I bet no one here has done that!

Four years later we married and moved into our home at 20 (her) and 22 years old. We both worked full time, all income has always gone into the same pot. All large expenses were agreed upon, small ones never questioned. We both were savers, but not quite to mustachian levels.

Today, 31 years later, if wife and I divorce, I'm not "losing" 50% of my stach. I'm keeping my half and she's keeping hers. We would both be fine, $$$ wise. If anything, we saved and acquired MORE together, because two can live cheaper (per person) than one.




 
« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 08:29:46 PM by FreeWheel »

2704b59cc36a

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #297 on: September 23, 2014, 11:04:39 PM »
Wow. Just reading some of these posts, this is why I don't have any current plans to marry! (though I wouldn't mind having kids someday) I can't imagine losing half your life savings because your partner leaves you for someone else.

Eh, so you'd rather have a guaranteed loss of potentially sharing in double your life savings (or more?)? 

I'm unaware of any state where your spouse would be entitled to anything you saved the marriage (assuming you keep it separate and in your name).   And assuming you have a partnership, then anything earned during your marriage is the result of two people, not one.

Doubling your life savings only works if you marry with comparable incomes. How does getting married and maybe divorced double your savings if you make $150K/year and marry someone making $60K/year (with not much room for growth)? Average that out and the $150K/year person is now down to $105K/year because in a divorce assets would be split 50/50.

Also, we're Mustachian.   We can always build our savings back up if somehow we do wind up worse off after a divorce than if we had never married.

This is not necessarily true. At some point you may be too old to work or may not have many working years left.

nicnack0923

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Age: 54
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #298 on: September 24, 2014, 12:10:39 AM »
Am

DaKini

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • Location: Germany, Munich area
Re: Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)
« Reply #299 on: September 24, 2014, 02:44:56 AM »
After following this thread a long time, and reading all those fear about "probability of divorce" i think it should be pointed out that you have very much influence of the outcome of your marriage. This is nothing that "just accidentally happens" like a rock falling on your head. In my opinion, of course there is the chance of divorce or a malicious/bad partner divorcing you, but in "normal" marriages i think how well both care about the marriage by far outweights this "random chance". 50% divorce rate should no be read as in "50% i cant do anything against".

Threat your partner well and continuously work on your relationship and you are set for a "4%-SWR"-like high probability of success. In such a scenario, the highly probable realizing benefits of marriage vastly outdo the possible negative consequences in case of a black swan; at least in my book.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!