|
Post by renovatingme on Jan 26, 2008 20:16:33 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone will remember me from ojar. My h and I have had a terrible relationship for years. If I am being truly honest, which I have told nobody else, it's been so bad for so long that our 4 yo son is actually a "mistake" (I love him to death, no one would argue that), but it was the only sex we had had in ages and probably for ages afterwards, too. We were already in therapy for what, the third time, when we conceived him. Anyway, after too many years of unhappiness, deceit and much therapy, we came to the discussion to divorce. The best way for it to happen really, we're even living in the same house, going to dinner and soccer games with the kids, but it is truly over.
So that's my reintro....
I also have a question regarding the settlement. He has agreed to give me half of everything, which should be very helpful, but I am concerned about staying in the same town, which is severly overpriced, but our kids are happy here and I don't want to uproot them any more than I have to. He wants me to keep my hands off his shares of the family business, that would mean additional money, an easier life for at least a couple years, that's all I'm looking for, a couple years. He says I have no rights to it, the state says I have rights to half of EVERYTHING. Am I crazy to pursue this? Should I play the role of a doormat to protect the children from the possible pandoras box this could open? Or should I protect myself and the kids financially at any cost?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 26, 2008 20:23:48 GMT -5
You should do what is right. You know what that is.
|
|
|
Post by renovatingme on Jan 27, 2008 10:20:19 GMT -5
unfortunately I don't know what's right anymore, protecting me and my kids one way, or protecting them another. years of bowing to his manipulations has left me somewhat befuddled. I have veered so far the opposite way, ultra moral to his manipulations of rules and laws, I don't know what motivates each choice anymore. I am curious what any of you have done during your own divorces.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 27, 2008 12:00:55 GMT -5
I would keep my hands off of shares to HIS family's business. I wouldn't dream of going after anything that belonged to my ex's family, and I would be livid if he went after mine.
|
|
|
Post by finding on Jan 27, 2008 12:08:48 GMT -5
Without kids I would agree, but it is about what is best for them and what they need. Do you NEED this extra income that this would bring in for them or is it about sticking it to him?
If it is about sticking it to him, then the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 27, 2008 12:22:49 GMT -5
Even with kids, I still disagree. What will shares in a family business do to provide for them that other financial contribution from both parents will not? If she gets custody he will likely have to pay child support to cover half of their children's expenses.
I don't mean to sound critical, but if he's smart he will have already sold his shares to members of his family until everything is final.
|
|
|
Post by finding on Jan 27, 2008 12:41:07 GMT -5
If that is what he does it is unethical and will be looked poorely upon when they go to court. What else is he hiding?
My ex pulled a similar stunt even though I wasn't going after his work tools. It bit him in the ass.
What ever choice is made, it is about what is best for the kids.
|
|
|
Post by jules on Jan 27, 2008 14:51:12 GMT -5
finding, I'm not disagreeing that it's about what is best for the kids, and what both parents can and should provide for them. I think most everyone would agree on that (I hope). As for getting rid of assets, I think it's pretty common knowledge that it's a smart thing to do *prior to filing*. Once the paperwork is filed everything freezes. But I know I took a chunk of money out of the bank prior to filing and gave it to my family members, based on the recommendation of a couple of friends who had been there. I also had my name taken off of my parents' bank accounts (I was on there to have access to funds in case of an emergency or tragedy) prior to filing. There was no way I was going to allow him to possibly get his hands on my parents' hard earned retirement fund, nor the savings that I had earned. (A good part of that savings went toward my retainer fee anyway. Not the way I'd planned on using my savings...) Thank God I don't live in a 50/50 state.
|
|
|
Post by renovatingme on Jan 27, 2008 14:52:10 GMT -5
the money would mean a better house for the kids, that is the only reason I need it. I don't need it for monthly expenses, child support and the other assets will cover that, but it would definitely mean that we can stay in town and afford a better than crappy house.
All assets are basically his prior to marriage, what makes the business different? If it were shares in a public company would it seem better?
And, btw, he has hidden money from me in the past and is a bit unethical in many areas of his life.
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Jan 27, 2008 17:10:36 GMT -5
I I also have a question regarding the settlement. He has agreed to give me half of everything, which should be very helpful, but I am concerned about staying in the same town, which is severly overpriced, but our kids are happy here and I don't want to uproot them any more than I have to. He wants me to keep my hands off his shares of the family business, that would mean additional money, an easier life for at least a couple years, that's all I'm looking for, a couple years. He says I have no rights to it, the state says I have rights to half of EVERYTHING. Am I crazy to pursue this? Should I play the role of a doormat to protect the children from the possible pandoras box this could open? Or should I protect myself and the kids financially at any cost? The state says you have a right to everything that came after the day you were married. If those shares were his before the marriage, they are NOT community property...
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 27, 2008 17:49:22 GMT -5
I think the difference between what is right and what is being vindictive in this situationwould be the differnece between what you and your kids need versus what you "have a right" to. A bigger house does not mean they are better off. Do they need a bigger house to thrive, or would it "just be nicer"??
|
|
|
Post by kittenhart on Jan 27, 2008 20:05:03 GMT -5
I don't think you should go after his shares in his family's business just to make things financially easier for a year or two....it will alienate his family from your children and they have a right to have that relationship with their paternal grandparents & aunts/uncles not be spoiled by what is going on between you & your husband. The kids would be better served in the long run by having a good relationship with his family.
No one will end up better through you trying to "stick it to him", except the lawyers.....and divorce is bad enough as it is. You have to make a commitment to your children and to yourself about how low you are willing to go, and how you are going to behave, so that you can get through this with some semblance of dignity. This is just my opinion and I am assuming that your husband and his family are not crazy, or vengeful...only you ultimately know what's best....
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jan 28, 2008 16:44:44 GMT -5
I think it DOES matter if the kids get to have some semblance of normalcy - including the kind of house/area they are used to. However, I am not sure the best way to get it is through the shares. Can you get a temporary alimony so he gives you a bit more financial assistance for a few years? I agree he shouldn't have to give up family business, but he should VOLUNTARILY be ensuring the kids have as easy and normal a transition as possible. If he won't (and it sounds like he won't) then perhaps you can work something out that gives you the value without the shares?
Shey
|
|
|
Post by Saucy on Jan 28, 2008 17:00:17 GMT -5
I I also have a question regarding the settlement. He has agreed to give me half of everything, which should be very helpful, but I am concerned about staying in the same town, which is severly overpriced, but our kids are happy here and I don't want to uproot them any more than I have to. He wants me to keep my hands off his shares of the family business, that would mean additional money, an easier life for at least a couple years, that's all I'm looking for, a couple years. He says I have no rights to it, the state says I have rights to half of EVERYTHING. Am I crazy to pursue this? Should I play the role of a doormat to protect the children from the possible pandoras box this could open? Or should I protect myself and the kids financially at any cost? The state says you have a right to everything that came after the day you were married. If those shares were his before the marriage, they are NOT community property... Phyx is right. Property acquired before marriage is not community property. You should at least talk to him and come up with a reasonable amount of support for the kids, and the support should be totally based on the cost of living in the state you are in.
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Jan 28, 2008 17:18:48 GMT -5
That's a grey area. If a spouse had a bank account, with say, 20k in it, prior to the marriage, but it becomes a joint account to which they both deposit and withdraw funds, then that is considered to be intermingling of martial funds and that money is no longer considered a premarital asset. At least in NY.
|
|