divorce - education expenses

[ramonaspaskos]

I am not sure I understand your question. Some of the education loans were the stbx before marriage and some was during the marriage. Hope this helps

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by ramonaspaskos

"What if a married couple pays off one party’s pre-marital debts?

That doesn't apply to the debts incurred during the marriage. It only applies to pre-marital debt paid off with community assets.

Now, to answer your questions, please answer the following SPECIFICALLY. Details matter:

1. How much money did she owe for student loans at the time you got married?
2. How much of that was paid off and what was the source of funds?
3. When was the loan paid off?
4. How much additional educational expense did you incur after your marriage?
5. Did she get any student loans after the marriage?
6. If so, when were they paid off and what was the source of funds?

Once I have the answers to those questions, it should be possible to answer your question.

[ramonaspaskos]

to answer your questions

1) She owed 35K

2) We paid off 30K 12 months into the marriage. I believe most of it was separate funds (24K) and some was community funds (6K). The reason I say this is because after we got married we put my separate money (24K) and savings every month (6K) into the same account and then paid the 30K out of this account. We also used money from this account for other household expenses.

The other 5K was paid off over the course of the second year of the marriage. We paid this 5K out of monthly savings ($416.66 per month)

3) The loan was paid off 2 years after getting married

4) We had an additional 15K.

5) No. she did not get any student loans. She was a full time student. I worked two jobs and we (I) paid the fees out of money made on the second job. I do have the receipts from the university

6) N/A since there was no loan

Thanks alot for your help

[fabulous07]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

Good point. Obviously, women have never worked to put their husband through medical or law school.

How do you know that women have never put their husbands through school? You don't know every woman in the world. And it's not obvious. You sound bitter.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by fabulous07

How do you know that women have never put their husbands through school? You don't know every woman in the world. And it's not obvious. You sound bitter.

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by ramonaspaskos

to answer your questions

1) She owed 35K

2) We paid off 30K 12 months into the marriage. I believe most of it was separate funds (24K) and some was community funds (6K). The reason I say this is because after we got married we put my separate money (24K) and savings every month (6K) into the same account and then paid the 30K out of this account. We also used money from this account for other household expenses.

The other 5K was paid off over the course of the second year of the marriage. We paid this 5K out of monthly savings ($416.66 per month)

3) The loan was paid off 2 years after getting married

4) We had an additional 15K.

OK. Just a clarification, the 'separate funds you're talking about ($24 K) was YOUR money and not hers before the marriage.

Assuming that's right, here's the way I see it:

- Initial $30 K payment. She would have to reimburse the $24 K you paid out of separate funds and 1/2 of the $6 K paid out of community funds.
- Next $5 K payment. She would have to reimburse 1/2 of this amount since it was paid from community funds.
- The additional $15 K which was incurred during the marriage is a community debt and she doesn't have to reimburse it.

At least, that's the way it looks from here.

[ramonaspaskos]

Thanks for the reply. Your assumption is correct.

I did have two questions based on your reply. When you say "reimburse" will she either have to pay me that money in cash OR take 30K less from the community. So if we split the community 50K each, she would give me the 30K out of her 50K.

She is of the opinion that because the 24K was her separate debt paid by my separate funds that she considers this a "gift" from me to her

Thanks again

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by ramonaspaskos

Thanks for the reply. Your assumption is correct.

I did have two questions based on your reply. When you say "reimburse" will she either have to pay me that money in cash OR take 30K less from the community. So if we split the community 50K each, she would give me the 30K out of her 50K.

Not correct. You would take your $29.5 K first and then you'd split what's left.

Originally Posted by ramonaspaskos

She is of the opinion that because the 24K was her separate debt paid by my separate funds that she considers this a "gift" from me to her

She could make that argument. There may be case law supporting her interpretation, but the site you provided suggests that my interpretation would apply (although it doesn't cover specifically this situation). There may also be other facts that enter into it. For example, if you gave her reason to believe that it was a gift, that would strengthen her position.

There's enough money involved that you should really see an attorney.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

Not correct. You would take your $29.5 K first and then you'd split what's left.



She could make that argument. There may be case law supporting her interpretation, but the site you provided suggests that my interpretation would apply (although it doesn't cover specifically this situation). There may also be other facts that enter into it. For example, if you gave her reason to believe that it was a gift, that would strengthen her position.

There's enough money involved that you should really see an attorney.

I think that its important to emphasize that this is an argument that he can make against splitting the community assets 50/50. There is no guarantee that a judge will make her "reimburse" the community for debt paid off during the marriage. There is no guarantee that a judge won't either.

I agree that he needs to at least consult with an attorney about the viability of this before he proceeds.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by ramonaspaskos

Thanks for the reply. Your assumption is correct.

I did have two questions based on your reply. When you say "reimburse" will she either have to pay me that money in cash OR take 30K less from the community. So if we split the community 50K each, she would give me the 30K out of her 50K.

She is of the opinion that because the 24K was her separate debt paid by my separate funds that she considers this a "gift" from me to her

Thanks again

Well did you have a contract with her for repayment?

Or she may come up with the quid pro quo argument.

You paid $24k of her debt in exchange for pootang. You honestly don't believe you got that for nothng do you?

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I think that its important to emphasize that this is an argument that he can make against splitting the community assets 50/50. There is no guarantee that a judge will make her "reimburse" the community for debt paid off during the marriage. There is no guarantee that a judge won't either.

There is case law suggesting that she would have to reimburse the community which is why I suggested that it would be reasonable for her to reimburse the community.

I don't know if there's any case law going in the other direction. Furthermore, I don't know if there's any evidence that they considered the payment a gift in which case he would no longer be able to be reimbursed.

So much depends on little details in a case like this.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by mistoffolees

There is case law suggesting that she would have to reimburse the community which is why I suggested that it would be reasonable for her to reimburse the community.

I don't know if there's any case law going in the other direction. Furthermore, I don't know if there's any evidence that they considered the payment a gift in which case he would no longer be able to be reimbursed.

So much depends on little details in a case like this.

Exactly, which is why its important to consult with an attorney who can ferret out those little details that could make a difference.