|
Post by Saucy on Jan 28, 2008 17:25:10 GMT -5
yeah. that's why divorce is sooo tedious when it comes down to $$.
ugh.
|
|
|
Post by renovatingme on Jan 29, 2008 13:23:45 GMT -5
I was not actually thinking of taking his shares, but merely 50% of his profit sharing bonus for the length of the alimony agreement. Does that still sound out of line? I don't want to have any part of the actual business.
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Jan 29, 2008 17:25:30 GMT -5
I don't think that 50% of the profit sharing is unreasonable. Besides, your ex will be benifiting from the kids being in the same city, won't he? I would use the 50% profit sharing as a trade for not going after the family business, even though you have no intention of going after it. Besides, if you were still married you would benifit from 100% of the profit sharing, so this is not being unreasonable. Put your poker face on and get the 50% profit sharing!!! And it is only the length of the alimony agreement, you aren't trying to squeeze he for everything.
|
|
|
Post by rocko on Jan 30, 2008 15:36:25 GMT -5
How do you expect the man to make it if you want child support, alimony, and half of EVERYTHING? His families business could fail with this extra burden which could F you over on child support in the future. Get the smaller house in the area and make it a home.
Greed is not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jan 30, 2008 15:39:59 GMT -5
This guy disagrees: (Why? Because Lumpy was expecting it)
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Jan 30, 2008 15:43:15 GMT -5
This guy disagrees: (Why? Because Lumpy was expecting it) Nice. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jan 30, 2008 16:44:36 GMT -5
How do you expect the man to make it if you want child support, alimony, and half of EVERYTHING? His families business could fail with this extra burden which could F you over on child support in the future. Get the smaller house in the area and make it a home. Greed is not a good thing. Profit sharing is actual profit left over - like bonuses. Why shouldn't she get half of the bonuses? If they were still married, the kids would get the benefits of that additional money - it isn't about greed, it is about giving the kids as normal a life as possible, isn't it? They already lose living with both parents, why make their standard of living go down any more than it has to? Shey
|
|
|
Post by renovatingme on Jan 30, 2008 19:35:56 GMT -5
thank you sheyd. I am not being greedy. I am not trying to buy a nicer house, I am trying to buy a decent house. We live in a very affluent area, one btw I didn't really want to live in in the first place, but he did. Now my kids are active in the community, as I am, and I don't want to uproot them any more than I have to. I am trying to find a way to buy a house in this town, maybe it's not possible with the assets available, but please don't call me greedy. I'm not asking for a mercedes or plastic surgery. I'm not asking for a second home or vacations. I am only trying to get a decent house in the town I currently live in. I certainly don't think it would be fair for him to continue to live an affluent life style, keep the club membership, his two cars and his motorcycle, go on vacations and into the city frequently while my children and I live in a crappy house.
|
|