• 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.

Divorce - Large Inheritance - Entitlement

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

ilovemyhgtv

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois, Dupage County

Q) My attorney suggests I give my spouse 55% of our "marital assets" due to the large sum of funds I MAY inherit when my father passes. He also stated that because of the large sum (close to 2 million) the judge may grant my spouse 60, to 65 percent.

I don't understand - he is not dead yet. What if he spends it all prior to dieing, he does not have health insurance, what if he needed major surgery.....

Everything we own is all paid off, kids are all all over age 18.

One more thing - is there any reason our divorce should be going on 1 year 5 months? When it's simple? I'm wondering of both of our attorneys are not friends**************..
 


LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois, Dupage County

Q) My attorney suggests I give my spouse 55% of our "marital assets" due to the large sum of funds I MAY inherit when my father passes. He also stated that because of the large sum (close to 2 million) the judge may grant my spouse 60, to 65 percent.

I don't understand - he is not dead yet. What if he spends it all prior to dieing, he does not have health insurance, what if he needed major surgery.....

Everything we own is all paid off, kids are all all over age 18.

One more thing - is there any reason our divorce should be going on 1 year 5 months? When it's simple? I'm wondering of both of our attorneys are not friends**************..
If the two of you are not agreeing on the property settlement, then that's part of the reason why its still going on. Its not simple if you are not agreeing.

However, I do think that your attorney's suggestion is a bit strange. Besides the inheritance issue is there something else behind it?...like your spouse wants to keep certain assets and they total 55%?
 

Perky

Senior Member
Has your wife been working throughout your marriage. If so, is there a large difference in both your earning capacities? If she hasn't worked throughout marriage, or if you make a lot more than she ever will, then 60% of the assets is not unusual in Illinois.

I was a SAHM after my last child was born. After 15 years of marriage, we divorced and I was awarded 60% (in Illinois). The percentage was not based on the possibility of a large inheritance, but on the disparity in our earning capacities. We did have minor children at the time, but I know others with and without minor children who have the same type of settlement, so it's not unusual. Maybe not common, but not unusual.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Do not allow your possible-future-inheritance to be any part of your divorce considerations!

What your dad MAY or may not someday leave you (he could decide to give it away, he could blow through it (lots of elder people lost millions investing with Maddoff, for example, or simply saw their investments shrink considerably), he could spend years ill at home needing full time in home care giving and use up his money. He could remarry someone looking for a sugar daddy who gets left everything.

You and she should share the MARITAL assets and marital debt only. It's ridiculous to involve what your dad may someday l;eave you if nothing changes, if he doesn't revise his will and if he still has all his money. Dad is NOT a party to the divorce and not obligated to do anything - thus what he maybe will do should absolutely be irrelevant.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Has your wife been working throughout your marriage. If so, is there a large difference in both your earning capacities? If she hasn't worked throughout marriage, or if you make a lot more than she ever will, then 60% of the assets is not unusual in Illinois.

I was a SAHM after my last child was born. After 15 years of marriage, we divorced and I was awarded 60% (in Illinois). The percentage was not based on the possibility of a large inheritance, but on the disparity in our earning capacities. We did have minor children at the time, but I know others with and without minor children who have the same type of settlement, so it's not unusual. Maybe not common, but not unusual.
Plenty of women either share caregiving/financial responsibilities with their spouses, as I do, or return to the workplace once the little one is in school all day (which in districts like mine is K5) and see no reason to stay home ALL day when their kiddo is IN SCHOOL all day.

WE have no reason to think his wife never returned to the workforce. Regardless, what his dad may do with dad's money is not part of the negotiations.
 

Perky

Senior Member
Plenty of women either share caregiving/financial responsibilities with their spouses, as I do, or return to the workplace once the little one is in school all day (which in districts like mine is K5) and see no reason to stay home ALL day when their kiddo is IN SCHOOL all day.

WE have no reason to think his wife never returned to the workforce. Regardless, what his dad may do with dad's money is not part of the negotiations.
Good for you; however, never did I state that I stayed home while my kids were in school all day. Nor did I assume that his wife never returned to work. I asked QUESTIONS, and SHARED MY EXPERIENCE with Illinois divorce.

Please read posts more thoroughly, and reply accordingly.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Do not allow your possible-future-inheritance to be any part of your divorce considerations!
I think you're off base - you don't know the facts and can't offer that kind of firm advice.

As has been pointed out, it's not uncommon for a stay at home spouse to get up to 60% in IL, so 55% may not be a bad deal. Second, it could well be that the father might be sick enough that he would pass away before the divorce ever becomes final if it is dragged out and she may wish to get the divorce closed ASAP. Finally, there may be other factors you don't know about.

You'd be OK to say that an inheritance is not marital property as long as it is not comingled with marital assets. Going beyond that without knowing more facts is bad advice.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
I think you're off base - you don't know the facts and can't offer that kind of firm advice.

As has been pointed out, it's not uncommon for a stay at home spouse to get up to 60% in IL, so 55% may not be a bad deal. Second, it could well be that the father might be sick enough that he would pass away before the divorce ever becomes final if it is dragged out and she may wish to get the divorce closed ASAP. Finally, there may be other factors you don't know about.

You'd be OK to say that an inheritance is not marital property as long as it is not comingled with marital assets. Going beyond that without knowing more facts is bad advice.
I am NOT off base to tsate that any inheritance he hasn't inherited is sutely NOT appropriate to count in a MARITAL settlement.

A. Even if dad is at death's door, they can't TRULY know what poster may actually inherit. They can't know what creditor claims exist, what the most recent version of the will actually says, nor what the current value of any after-creditor assets may be. And, freankly, it's none of son's business and certainly none of a STBX's business. Dad is alive, there is no probate.

B. WHO SAID poster's wife was a SAHM? I see NO PLACE where he says this. So why are you all presuming this to be the case?
 

Perky

Senior Member
B. WHO SAID poster's wife was a SAHM? I see NO PLACE where he says this. So why are you all presuming this to be the case?
You are the only one assuming things in this thread. I stated my experiences and Mistofflees repeated them. No one on this thread gave advice assuming that the wife didn't work. However, scenarios were proposed that may explain the lawyer's thinking. YOU MISREAD BOTH POSTS!!! Please don't jump to conclusions!
 

nextwife

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois, Dupage County

Q) My attorney suggests I give my spouse 55% of our "marital assets" due to the large sum of funds I MAY inherit when my father passes. He also stated that because of the large sum (close to 2 million) the judge may grant my spouse 60, to 65 percent.
Poster's statement: the rationale of unequal distribution ONLY mentions a presumed inheritance.

IF the attorney was discussing the need to look at unequal distribution due to STBX absence from the workplace, then WHY was a totally DIFFERENT rationale stated? Surely it would have been just as easy for an attorney discussing this to actually STATE that was the reason, were that the case.

Money of a third party should NOT be allowed to be an issue in a divorce proceeding.

The thread was NOT a question about unequal distribution when one spouse has been a SAHM, it was specifically a question about including a maybe-inheritance in divorce negotiations.
 
Last edited:

Perky

Senior Member
Poster's statement: the rationale of unequal distribution ONLY mentions a presumed inheritance.

IF the attorney was discussing the need to look at unequal distribution due to STBX absence from the workplace, then WHY was a totally DIFFERENT rationale stated? Surely it would have been just as easy for an attorney discussing this to actually STATE that was the reason, were that the case.

Money of a third party should NOT be allowed to be an issue in a divorce proceeding.
Since you've been on this board much longer than I have, I would guess that you too have run across posters who have misinterpreted, misstated, or misunderstood their attorney's advice. I don't see anything wrong with presenting another plausible scenario for the attorney's advice.

Besides that, there was no need to preach about spouses returning to the workplace when their children enter school. What's the point?
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Poster's statement: the rationale of unequal distribution ONLY mentions a presumed inheritance.
Would you please stop jumping to conclusions?

The attorney has suggested that 55% might be fair. There could be all sorts of reasons why attorney would suggest that (several people have listed them). The attorney has the facts, you don't. Your offering advice contradicting the attorney is therefore unjustified.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
I deal with financial matters involving bankruptcy and family law attorney recommendations on a daily basis in my work. And on a daily basis, see that people who took the recommendations of certain attorney's as gospel without doing their own research were sometimes mislead or poorly represented. Not all attorney recommendations are correct. People should do as this poster is doing, be proactive and do some research on their own.

If they were, I wouldn't be talking to ex spouses all the time trying to tell me how they "are not responsible" for the joint debt on a foreclosed or repossessed asset because their attorney said the other spouse would be "liable". Or how they "don't have to make any payments, talk to the ex".

I've also seen attorneys let their clients buy out the ex spouses interest without first making sure that no adverse matters have attached to the real estate.. They were "trying to save their clients some money". Five years later they go to sell or refi, and first discover some huge tax lien or judgment from their long gone ex is still against the property.

The bottom line is that THIS poster asked if considering a "maybe inheritance" that he'll maybe get, someday, when his dad dies, if dad doesn't lose, spend, or redirect that money in the interim is appropriate in a divorce settlement. And the answer to THAT question is, NO.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
I was not making a "recommendation". I was, however, stating that a third party's own money is not an appropriate part of ANY divorce proceeding. I stand by that.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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