• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Fair settlement

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pakunic

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia. After 22 years of marriage I want to file for a divorce. I have been a full time mother for the last 11. My husband earns $120,000 a year. Since I am the one wanting the divorce, he says that giving me $25,000 and then $1000 a month for 5 years is overly generous and that if I get a lawyer and it goes to court I will get much less so I need to jump on his offer. Is this reasonable?
 


Proserpina

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia. After 22 years of marriage I want to file for a divorce. I have been a full time mother for the last 11. My husband earns $120,000 a year. Since I am the one wanting the divorce, he says that giving me $25,000 and then $1000 a month for 5 years is overly generous and that if I get a lawyer and it goes to court I will get much less so I need to jump on his offer. Is this reasonable?
22 years of marriage is generally considered long-term, and at that point spousal support becomes more likely. There are several factors though, including your future earning capacity and past work history - and perhaps surprisingly (in this age of no-fault divorces) fault can be a factor in Virginia (adultery being the obvious example). You will be expected, generally, to help support yourself though.

Did your husband's proposal consider child support?

You'd be best advised to speak with an attorney.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia. After 22 years of marriage I want to file for a divorce. I have been a full time mother for the last 11. My husband earns $120,000 a year. Since I am the one wanting the divorce, he says that giving me $25,000 and then $1000 a month for 5 years is overly generous and that if I get a lawyer and it goes to court I will get much less so I need to jump on his offer. Is this reasonable?
First, you should NEVER take legal advice from your soon to be ex husband.

You are entitled to 1/2 of the marital assets (home equity, cars, bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts etc.) and responsible for 1/2 of the marital debt.

If it turns out that your total marital assets minus your total marital debts only equals $50,000 then the 25k offer might be reasonable. However, I think that's a bit unlikely.

Alimony is harder to predict, because there are no set formulas, but what he is offering there also sounds quite low and for a somewhat short period of time, considering the length of the marriage.

I think that you absolutely need to get your own attorney. His offer certainly isn't "overly generous".
 

nextwife

Senior Member
First, you should NEVER take legal advice from your soon to be ex husband.

You are entitled to 1/2 of the marital assets (home equity, cars, bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts etc.) and responsible for 1/2 of the marital debt.

If it turns out that your total marital assets minus your total marital debts only equals $50,000 then the 25k offer might be reasonable. However, I think that's a bit unlikely.

Alimony is harder to predict, because there are no set formulas, but what he is offering there also sounds quite low and for a somewhat short period of time, considering the length of the marriage.

I think that you absolutely need to get your own attorney. His offer certainly isn't "overly generous".
How much could you earn? How young is the youngest child? 11 or more?

Remember, he has already supported you for the past 11 years.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
How much could you earn? How young is the youngest child? 11 or more?

Remember, he has already supported you for the past 11 years.
She has been out of the workforce for 11 years...even with an advanced degree she would probably have to start and the bottom and perhaps get some refresher education.

The were MARRIED for the last 11 (actually 22) years. It was a choice that they made, as a couple...and its a perfectly acceptable and legal choice.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
She has been out of the workforce for 11 years...even with an advanced degree she would probably have to start and the bottom and perhaps get some refresher education.

The were MARRIED for the last 11 (actually 22) years. It was a choice that they made, as a couple...and its a perfectly acceptable and legal choice.
I didn't read where her choice to sit on her butt for 11 years was a choice made as a couple.

OP's husband may very well challange your statement.

Must be nice to think you can capitalize at someone else's expense by sitting on your butt for 11 years and irresponsibly filing for divorce.
 

ShyCat

Senior Member
I didn't read where her choice to sit on her butt for 11 years was a choice made as a couple.

OP's husband may very well challange your statement.

Must be nice to think you can capitalize at someone else's expense by sitting on your butt for 11 years and irresponsibly filing for divorce.

If you truly believe that being a stay-at-home Mom is "sitting on your butt", then you are an idiot. Why should anyone listen to a confirmed idiot?
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
I didn't read where her choice to sit on her butt for 11 years was a choice made as a couple.

OP's husband may very well challange your statement.

Must be nice to think you can capitalize at someone else's expense by sitting on your butt for 11 years and irresponsibly filing for divorce.
OP's husband also had the right to disagree 11 years ago when the decision was obviously made.

In "allowing" the situation to continue for 11 years I think it's fair to say that the choice was made by both parties. If Dad disagreed or objected he's had the better part of 11 years to do something about it.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
OP's husband also had the right to disagree 11 years ago when the decision was obviously made.

In "allowing" the situation to continue for 11 years I think it's fair to say that the choice was made by both parties. If Dad disagreed or objected he's had the better part of 11 years to do something about it.
Good point.

Anyone married out there reading this? If your wife refuses to get her butt out to work, divorce her lazy butt ASAP.

If she says ,"I want to stay home with the kids", the answer is a flat NO!!
 

nextwife

Senior Member
If she says ,"I want to stay home with the kids", the answer is a flat NO!!
Answer might also be

"Yeah? So do I Dearrie.

Let's SHARE doing that and SHARE working. That way the kids get both of us and we both retain and grow our ability to earn an income, accrue social security credits, accrue retirement benefits and reduce our debt"
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Answer might also be

"Yeah? So do I Dearrie.

Let's SHARE doing that and SHARE working. That way the kids get both of us and we both retain and grow our ability to earn an income, accrue social security credits, accrue retirement benefits and reduce our debt"
But but but but that would mean both parents are being mature and sensible.

(It would be nice though)
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
But but but but that would mean both parents are being mature and sensible.

(It would be nice though)
And that would also assume that the working parent didn't insist that the other one stay home with the children....which happens far more often, even these days, than some posters here would like to admit...or that it wasn't more economically feasible for one parent to stay home with the children.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
And that would also assume that the working parent didn't insist that the other one stay home with the children

That's a common STORY told by the lazy parent.

....which happens far more often, even these days, than some posters here would like to admit...or that it wasn't more economically feasible for one parent to stay home with the children.
Let's enact a law that both parents must work, and then the lazy one, couldn't say "HE wanted me to stay home with the kids so give me a free ride for life judge".
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Let's enact a law that both parents must work, and then the lazy one, couldn't say "HE wanted me to stay home with the kids so give me a free ride for life judge".
The bolded of course would be a violation of our constitutional rights.

Bali, no matter how much you want to see the law change, you should not be willing to see any of our constitutional rights violated to change the law.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top