LdiJ
Senior Member
Yes I am sure of the first paragraph. A judge can only award a share of the marital interest. I never stated that the entire equity wasn't marital property.Technically, 1/2 of the marital portion of the equity, but since they've been married 18 years, that's probably pretty close to 1/2 of the total equity - even if she bought the house before they were married.
Are you really sure about the first paragraph? I'm not an attorney, but I was under the impression that judges can split the assets pretty much any way they wish. If the house was purchased after they were married and paid for with marital assets, is there any reason the judge can't award it to either party - regardless of whose name is on it?
Granted, the fact that her name is on it probably gives her an edge and it sounds like he can't afford to keep it, anyway, but I'd be hesitant to assume that it was impossible for the judge to award it to him.
Interesting case, though. Almost the exact opposite of the typical male breadwinner case. I wonder why Bali Hai hasn't chimed in about how unfair it is for her to have to pay alimony or give her stbx some of 'her' assets.
You missed my point on something though. The post I quoted said that he would be entitled the THE equity. That implies ALL of the equity....as in the home has 100k in equity and he gets ALL of it. That was my point.