Sounds like he took the chance by getting married and agreeing to stay home... like you said, "If you can't speak honestly with the person you're about to marry about finances, my advice is don't get married." He should've thought about that before agreeing to stay at home or... even getting married. Oh well. He should get enough money to take care of the kids comfortably (if he gets the kids) and that doesn't mean 50% of a $400 million fortune. My point isn't that he/she shouldn't get any money - on the contrary, they should get enough money to live comfortably (heck, maybe even excessively, lol), but not the amount this woman has gotten if it can be proven she really didn't have much to do with acquiring the fortune to begin with. I understand what the law is, and if in the position to do so, I will abide by it. I just don't happen to agree with it.
ummm...it doesn't matter what the guy in my hypothetical thought...because the law already entitles him to 50%. it would be the woman (assuming she b****ed about it after the fact) that "took the chance." she was the one expecting something she's not ultimately entitled to if she expects more than 50% at the end. she should have thought about that before agreeing to work so hard...or even getting married.
She should have thought about that before having her husband forego furthering his career so that she could be free to put maximum effort into hers so that she amassed that fortune. His actions enabled her to build the fortune in the first place.
yep..that's what i'm saying. marriage is a partnership. marriage is a contract. there's not a "gotcha" at the end for either spouse when it's 50/50.
And he received no benefits from this? lol. I say all this because I have a friend in the same situation and I argue this with her all day. The fact of the matter is, at least from what I've seen, a lot of the ones that do stay at home are living "the good life" to begin with. It isn't easy when the kids are young, but when they're older, heck, half the time the education system is taking care of them. Heck, if it's this easy to get a fortune, I should get out there and agree to stay at home.
so the wife agrees to stay at home. she sacrifices building a career to stay with the kids. she eventually goes back to work after the kids go to junior high, but is unable to make the money she could have made had she been working instead of staying home with their kids. what about in that scenario. look...ultimately it's a matter of what you think is fair. i'm saying if you know what the law is (even 50/50) don't complain when it's applied. if you were forced at gunpoint to marry someone and had no way to get a prenuptial agreement done, then i'd have some sympathy. otherwise...i don't have any. and i don't have any for a guy who is holding on to $184 million after 30 years of marriage to his wife.
Prove to me she would've made her career a $187 million one. And of course the other side of the matter is you saying "she agreed to stay at home". Didn't she know she was sacrificing the career? Like the guy "should've known the law". This could go in circles forever. That's all I've been saying throughout this. The law is the law. I have no problems with that. Whether or not the law is fair is what I have an argument against. Sure, the thought of "50-50" always sounds fair. But was 50% of the effort to build the wealth put forth by both sides of the party is all I've been arguing. Again I understand what the law is. I disagree with it. I am not having it applied to me - I'm the 3rd party observer of the law being applied. I should be able to complain about the law. That's in my right, no? I've heard pre-nups in Texas don't mean anything because of the community property law(s). Is that not true? Or is it more complex than that? I don't know anything about the whole divorce thing other than I've talked to some dudes that felt they were screwed over. I'm not gullible enough to think it wasn't their fault in all the cases, but ... ah well, much of this just messed up anyway.
money is not the be all end all. its not the only thing of value in a marriage. it is one aspect of a multi-faceted partnership. hey, i'm not anti-money but sheesh, it can't buy me love, can it?
I'm surprised we've gone 5 pages on a 50/50 asset split. I could see it if we were talking alimony or even child support -- you know -- future earnings. This is where Max's whole 'she sacrificed her potential earnings' bit comes in. She's getting no compensation for sacrificing her potential earnings while he'll continue making big bucks as an exec. Poor girl has to get by on 50% of what existed at the time . I know some really bizarre situations out there where hubby pays what I consider to be an unjust amount to spouse who chooses not to work, or even who remarries to a richer guy. Or frustrations when child support goes to wifes indulgences rather then for the kids. Or it's calculated at a level where it makes it very difficult for hubby to get ahead. (And there's usually a 50/50 asset split in those cases too!). But assets on dissolution just seems so straight forward. The numbers here just happen to be big. Oh....and as an aside. Marriage is actually GOOD for your finances. It's separation that destroys them. So treat your spouse well. Invest in building and maintaining that relationship just as much (or more) then your career relationships. Because it doesn't do you any good to climb that ol' corporate ladder if you lose your family (and your fortune) in the process.
exactly. it's incredibly straight forward and simple. if it was earned during marriage, you split them up 50/50 at dissolution.
I totally agree. You can sit there and argue how much she contributed. But then you can argue if he would have achieved what he did without her in the first place. Personally I give a lot of credit to my wife for any achievements I have made. Would I have made it this far without her? To me that's not the point. I made it this far WITH her. So at this point everything is 50/50.
