Split of assets on divorce

[Atropos]

She would. Maybe.

Really? If so, then it would seem fairer. Is a court actually likely to grant alimony to a man?

The point is that they have equal share in their joint efforts. The resizing is due to the fact that the numbers of their joint effort have changed.

Their joint efforts presumably ceased with the divorce, so why are events after the divorce relevant?

This is why she doesn't get half his salary, but a portion of it

My point is that there is still no evidence that she "bought shares in" (made an economic contribution to) her husband's career.

 

[El_Machinae]

She might never have economically contributed to her husband's success. That's actually unlikely. But she's deemed to have contributed intangibles, and it's very tough to see how much she improved his life or his earning power. But the courts make that decision ... I guess that's why they're courts.

Just because you find it strange that she gets a quarter million for her 'contribution' to her husband's income, doesn't mean it actually is. Clearly she gave him something, and that something is clearly a percentage of what he earns. I suspect that the courts assume that the breakup involves a 50/50 split and then takes away from one member or the other based on testimony.

Their joint efforts presumably ceased with the divorce, so why are events after the divorce relevant?

I believe, but am not certain, this is so we don't get stupid situations of the poorer member paying alimony to a richer member. In Canada, either sex could pay alimony, due to our laws not allowing discrimination based on gender. I would expect, due to common law precedent, that the UK would follow (though I don't really know UK law).

 

[Ayatollah So]

I've never been married, so take that into account when judging what I'm about to write.

As far as I'm concerned, when you marry, everything belongs to both parties. That's what marriage is supposed to be, the complete and utter sharing of everything in your lives, be it emotional, physical, material, spiritual, and so forth. Given that, if the marriage goes belly up, everything should be split up 50/50 since from the moment of marriage it was an equal partnership.

I am married, and I agree with you. I like the fact that the rules protect the weaker party in the event of failure. Those who worry about getting ripped off have the option of staying single.

 

[Atropos]

She might never have economically contributed to her husband's success. That's actually unlikely. But she's deemed to have contributed intangibles, and it's very tough to see how much she improved his life or his earning power. But the courts make that decision ... I guess that's why they're courts.

Thing is, though, anyone can claim that they helped someone else through "intangibles." It's perfectly possible to imagine a case where a marriage is unhappy through the fault of the man (I'm assuming it's his fault to make things clearer) and this unhappiness reduced his earning power. Why this assumption that the marriage has to have assisted his career?

Just because you find it strange that she gets a quarter million for her 'contribution' to her husband's income, doesn't mean it actually is.

Perfectly true, but what makes a judge particularly good at quantifying the "intangibles?"

Clearly she gave him something,

Not invariably the case, and certainly what "she gave him" in an economic sense does not seem to be taken into account in divorce proceedings.

and that something is clearly a percentage of what he earns. I suspect that the courts assume that the breakup involves a 50/50 split and then takes away from one member or the other based on testimony.

Where's this 50/50 figure coming from? What makes it rational to believe that a second party was as relevant to the development of a man's career as he was himself? And what's this testimony? "I packed his sandwiches for 40 years, which clearly entitles me to a further .1% of what he earned..." No. The actual testimony seems more often to be about infidelity and such.

Moreover, if I disown my parents or they disown me, the courts don't decide a salary-sharing arrangement, yet my parents have put much more in terms of actually quantifiable investment into me.

I believe, but am not certain, this is so we don't get stupid situations of the poorer member paying alimony to a richer member.

Why's it stupid if it's a joint-stock company? To pursue your previous example, the future earnings of the secretary would in no way affect the % of stock in the company which she owned, nor would it affect the dividends paid.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

1) I think who breaks up the marriage should have a serious impact on the split. If one is cheating on their spouse, it should cost them dearly.

2) No pre-nups is just stupid. What are your politicians thinking?!?! Even the Muslim world has pre-nups, though it is mainly used to protect women from rich families, not men who need no protection there.

3) The first case is silly. I can't believe she got so much. Almost 30% of his wealth for less than 3 years of marriage. Riduculous unless most of it was earned in those three years and she significantly contributed.

4) The second case is fair, but all the facts aren't given. If she got less than 1/2 his income, then she got too little. I think raising the kids is a far tougher job.

 

[7ronin]

When my wife and I married we both had negligible assets. In the forty or so years since we've done very well and we did it as partners. If we ever divorce (heaven forbid) I would not be happy about it but I think my wife would deserve half our assets and enough thereafter to be able to live reasonably.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible in divorce cases today to either divide the couples assets or award support in a manner which seems fair and equitable to all parties. Then too, in most cases, it really has nothing to do with the money or property at all, it's about getting over on the ex spouse and playing a zero sum game: I win, you lose. The courts seem to be completely deaf to the degree that avarice, revenge, and deceit play out the proceedings. I often wonder how judges manage to come up with their rulings with a straight face and if they actually live in the real world.

 

[.Shane.]

Especially when I read that first account, it confirms my belief that prostitution should be legalized.