Inheritance and Divorce

[meejessica]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My husband inherited a four hundred thousand dollar home. Four hundred thousand in cash, Four expensive cars and says that if we divorce he doesn't have to give me anything. We have been together for 8 yrs married for the last 3 yrs, and have children. He says its the law that its not communicable sp? property. Is that true? Will any of it be given to me if we have to divorce? He doesn't have any income just this inheritance and says he wont have to pay spousal support out of his inheritance. I work but only bring in 2 grand a month.

Thank you for any information in advance!

 

[ShyCat]

He says its the law that its not communicable sp? property. Is that true?

Yes, that is true: Gifts and inheritances are separate property unless mingled with marital property. (Anything placed in a joint account, for example, would be considered marital property.)

Will any of it be given to me if we have to divorce?

No, as long as it remains separate property. Only marital (community) property is split in a divorce.

 

[moburkes]

Yes, that is as it should be.

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My husband inherited a four hundred thousand dollar home. Four hundred thousand in cash, Four expensive cars and says that if we divorce he doesn't have to give me anything. We have been together for 8 yrs married for the last 3 yrs, and have children. He says its the law that its not communicable sp? property. Is that true? Will any of it be given to me if we have to divorce? He doesn't have any income just this inheritance and says he wont have to pay spousal support out of his inheritance. I work but only bring in 2 grand a month.

Thank you for any information in advance!

The inheritance is his - unless he mingles it with marital property. Even if he does that, he may still be able to claim it's separate property if he has good records and can trace the money.

Spousal support is trickier in CA: DivorceNet - California Spousal Support FAQ's
(Check with your attorney to ensure that this is still accurate)
In most states, unless the marriage is 10 years or more, there is little if any spousal support. In CA, for marriages under 10 years, the lower income spouse is typically entitled to support for about 1/2 the term of the marriage. In addition, you would get temporary support while the divorce is pending and the guideline for that is 40% of his net monthly income less half of your income. Judges have discretion, though.

The custodial parent would probably get child support, as well.

In spite of not being able to claim his inheritance, it still has some benefits to you:
1. He now has greater liquidity which would allow him to refinance a home loan if that is part of the settlement you agree on.
2. There is a greater chance that you'll get the court to have him pay your legal expenses.
3. This is a big one. Keep an eye on the finances as best you can. CA has a process where if one spouse tries to hide an asset, the court can give the entire asset to the other party. Of course, there's no reason for him to hide the inheritance assets because they're all his, but if he starts hiding things, that could get him into trouble with the court.

 

[nextwife]

The inheritance is his - unless he mingles it with marital property. Even if he does that, he may still be able to claim it's separate property if he has good records and can trace the money.

Spousal support is trickier in CA: DivorceNet - California Spousal Support FAQ's
(Check with your attorney to ensure that this is still accurate)
In most states, unless the marriage is 10 years or more, there is little if any spousal support. In CA, for marriages under 10 years, the lower income spouse is typically entitled to support for about 1/2 the term of the marriage. In addition, you would get temporary support while the divorce is pending and the guideline for that is 40% of his net monthly income less half of your income. Judges have discretion, though.

The custodial parent would probably get child support, as well.

In spite of not being able to claim his inheritance, it still has some benefits to you:
1. He now has greater liquidity which would allow him to refinance a home loan if that is part of the settlement you agree on.
2. There is a greater chance that you'll get the court to have him pay your legal expenses.
3. This is a big one. Keep an eye on the finances as best you can. CA has a process where if one spouse tries to hide an asset, the court can give the entire asset to the other party. Of course, there's no reason for him to hide the inheritance assets because they're all his, but if he starts hiding things, that could get him into trouble with the court.

I garee, There's no reason for him to hid these non-marital assets.

Poster, just a clarification so you know WHAT a marital assets IS: Its earned income that occurs during the marriage, assets acquired with that income, and, in essence, growth and interest on THOSE assets.

Assets someone else earned and chose to give to your STBX are not marital.

 

[LdiJ]

This guy is unemployed. That 400k in cash isn't going to last long, nor will the house last much longer as he won't have the money to maintain it.

 

[mistoffolees]

This guy is unemployed. That 400k in cash isn't going to last long, nor will the house last much longer as he won't have the money to maintain it.

Assuming that he never gets a job. Most people get tired of not having an income.

I suspect that there's more involved than that, though. A couple with kids living in CA on $24 K per year seems pretty suspicious - particularly if he's from a family which just left him a million dollars.

If that's the whole story, it would lessen any chance of her getting spousal support, though. I don't know if the judges consider assets in setting SS or just income.

 

[LdiJ]

Assuming that he never gets a job. Most people get tired of not having an income.

I suspect that there's more involved than that, though. A couple with kids living in CA on $24 K per year seems pretty suspicious - particularly if he's from a family which just left him a million dollars.

If that's the whole story, it would lessen any chance of her getting spousal support, though. I don't know if the judges consider assets in setting SS or just income.

How much you want to bet that they were living in the gp's home and being supported by them, all along?

 

[nextwife]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) We have been together for 8 yrs married for the last 3 yrs, and have children. . . . He doesn't have any income just this inheritance and says he wont have to pay spousal support out of his inheritance. I work but only bring in 2 grand a month.

Assuming that he never gets a job. Most people get tired of not having an income.

I suspect that there's more involved than that, though. A couple with kids living in CA on $24 K per year seems pretty suspicious - particularly if he's from a family which just left him a million dollars.

If that's the whole story, it would lessen any chance of her getting spousal support, though. I don't know if the judges consider assets in setting SS or just income.

It was an approximately THREE year marriage. How much SS could there possibly be?

Don't forget: if one's housing expense is not there, as is his situation, then a large monthly expense is eliminated. Betcha MOST Californians are putting a large chunk of their income into placing a roof over their head. He doesn't have THAT expense, other than property taxes and maintenance, which he'd STILL have if he were paying a mortgage. And he get's income off his investments. SO they are NOT living on just 24K a month.

One other question:

WHO has been the primary caregiver the last couple years, if she's working and he is not? Dad may very well have a better chance at custody, especially in light of keeping the home the children have always lived in. Status quo and all that.

 

[mistoffolees]

It was an approximately THREE year marriage. How much SS could there possibly be?

Under the California guidelines I provided, 1.5 years of SS PLUS temporary support during the divorce process is up for grabs. If he has no income, that's probably irrelevant, though.

Don't forget: if one's housing expense is not there, as is his situation, then a large monthly expense is eliminated. Betcha MOST Californians are putting a large chunk of their income into placing a roof over their head. He doesn't have THAT expense, other than property taxes and maintenance, which he'd STILL have if he were paying a mortgage. And he get's income off his investments. SO they are NOT living on just 24K a month.

That's the point I was making. OP said he brought home no money and Ldij said he was unemployed so his inheritance wouldn't last. I stated that I was suspicious that this was actually the case since OP stated that their entire income was hers - $24 K per year and I didn't think this was likely.

You're right, though, that he'll earn income off his inheritance which could be used to justify spousal support. A smart financial advisor could probably lessen that - by putting the money into an investment where the principle grows but no income is generated.

BTW, I interpreted the OP's post to mean that he just inherited the home and stuff, so they must have had a home before that - which was being paid out of their joint income- which is part of the reason I was questioning the $24 K figure.

One other question:

WHO has been the primary caregiver the last couple years, if she's working and he is not? Dad may very well have a better chance at custody, especially in light of keeping the home the children have always lived in. Status quo and all that.

I'm not sure the home part is correct. I thought that they had a home and then he inherited the $400 K home, but I can't point to exactly why I reached that conclusion. There's nothing in the OP's post to point either way. If they had a different home before and he just inherited the new home, then the kids would be used to the older home and that might favor the status quo.

In any event, rather than speculating based on the sketchy details, I would suggest that OP contact an attorney. The attorney will petition the court to have her stbx pay the legal expenses - and there's a good chance it will be granted.

 

[nextwife]

Under the California guidelines I provided, 1.5 years of SS PLUS temporary support during the divorce process is up for grabs. If he has no income, that's probably irrelevant, though.



That's the point I was making. OP said he brought home no money and Ldij said he was unemployed so his inheritance wouldn't last. I stated that I was suspicious that this was actually the case since OP stated that their entire income was hers - $24 K per year and I didn't think this was likely.

You're right, though, that he'll earn income off his inheritance which could be used to justify spousal support. A smart financial advisor could probably lessen that - by putting the money into an investment where the principle grows but no income is generated.

BTW, I interpreted the OP's post to mean that he just inherited the home and stuff, so they must have had a home before that - which was being paid out of their joint income- which is part of the reason I was questioning the $24 K figure.

My husband inherited a four hundred thousand dollar home. Four hundred thousand in cash, Four expensive cars

I'm not sure the home part is correct. I thought that they had a home and then he inherited the $400 K home, but I can't point to exactly why I reached that conclusion. There's nothing in the OP's post to point either way. If they had a different home before and he just inherited the new home, then the kids would be used to the older home and that might favor the status quo.


In any event, rather than speculating based on the sketchy details, I would suggest that OP contact an attorney. The attorney will petition the court to have her stbx pay the legal expenses - and there's a good chance it will be granted.

He inherited the home, worth $400,000, PLUS $400,000, plus four cars. NO timeframe was given, but it sounds like he may have had all this before the marriage.

I don't know why there is any reason four SS. Nothing has been stated that says his earned income has ever been greater or much greater than hers, in addition to the marriage having been of VERY short duration. The only thing we know is that she is female and he is not. That alone is not sufficient for SS. The only financial data on him was that he has a lot of non-marital assets, and no income. So, because of his assets, poster should be fairly confident that SHE will not end up paying support.

Additionally, he may, at this time, due to THIS stock market, be earning next to nothing on his investments, compared to perhaps a year ago at this time. I know my savings portfolio is doing poorly at the moment.

 

[mistoffolees]

He inherited the home, worth $400,000, PLUS $400,000, plus four cars. NO timeframe was given, but it sounds like he may have had all this before the marriage.

I read it the other way - since she's only bringing it up now. Unless she clarifies, we'll never know.

I don't know why there is any reason four SS. Nothing has been stated that says his earned income has ever been greater or much greater than hers, in addition to the marriage having been of VERY short duration. The only thing we know is that she is female and he is not. That alone is not sufficient for SS. The only financial data on him was that he has a lot of non-marital assets, and no income. So, because of his assets, poster should be fairly confident that SHE will not end up paying support.

Read the CA guidelines I provided. They can allow for SS in marriages under 10 years with duration typically 1/2 the term of the marriage. I did state in one of my posts that the person with greater income would pay. That's not necessarily the man, nor did I imply he should pay just because he's a man.

With a $400 K house, $400 K in cash, and 5 expensive cars, he should easily be generating income. Even a mediocre financial planner should be able to generate $25-30 K from that with minimal risk.

Additionally, he may, at this time, due to THIS stock market, be earning next to nothing on his investments, compared to perhaps a year ago at this time. I know my savings portfolio is doing poorly at the moment.

There's no reason for a savings portfolio to do poorly in any market. A savings portfolio should generally be invested in low risk investments. An investment portfolio will, of course, typically be invested in higher risk investments. Still, with this amount of money to invest, a decent financial planner should be able to get about 4-5% cash generation with essentially zero risk, 6-7% with limited risk, and considerably more than that depending on risk tolerance.

Besides, the current market has had almost no impact on income from stock portfolios. Most companies have not changed their dividends significantly. The principal value has dropped for most portfolios, but income generation is largely unchanged. Don't confuse portfolio value with income generation.

 

[nextwife]

I read it the other way - since she's only bringing it up now. Unless she clarifies, we'll never know.



Read the CA guidelines I provided. They can allow for SS in marriages under 10 years with duration typically 1/2 the term of the marriage. I did state in one of my posts that the person with greater income would pay. That's not necessarily the man, nor did I imply he should pay just because he's a man.

With a $400 K house, $400 K in cash, and 5 expensive cars, he should easily be generating income. Even a mediocre financial planner should be able to generate $25-30 K from that with minimal risk.



There's no reason for a savings portfolio to do poorly in any market. A savings portfolio should generally be invested in low risk investments. An investment portfolio will, of course, typically be invested in higher risk investments. Still, with this amount of money to invest, a decent financial planner should be able to get about 4-5% cash generation with essentially zero risk, 6-7% with limited risk, and considerably more than that depending on risk tolerance.

Besides, the current market has had almost no impact on income from stock portfolios. Most companies have not changed their dividends significantly. The principal value has dropped for most portfolios, but income generation is largely unchanged. Don't confuse portfolio value with income generation.

How would his residence and his FOUR cars in the driveway themselves generate ANY income? Additionally, any inheritance funds that was 401k or IRA may have been rolled into retirement accounts which generate income he cannot touch. I know that I recently received a smaller inheritance, and none of it generates income that I get now, it's all deferred..

 

[meejessica]

No 2nd home

There was no second home. We lived w/ his father for two years and when he passes we continued to live in it because it was then his. He hasn't worked in the 8 years we have been together besides a couple jobs for a couple months and that's it. His family as always supported us "which I never felt comfortable with n so that's why I always worked" even if it was not a lot of income it made me feel better. His dad would always pay our credit card bills, our car payment before he ended up paying it off.

I agree that the money will not last much longer since he is not replacing what we spend and he has bad spending habits. Also he lost $60.00 grand in the stock market. I'm trying to convince him to give me 15 grand and our 50 thousand dollar lexus to leave w/ to help me get our girls into a nice place and pay up on it for a little bit cause I know I will end up living pay check to pay check which will be really hard since I'm so used to the life style of being able to buy what ever i want.

So I'm wondering if it would be wise for me to take the 15 grand, maybe get the car or would I get more from a judge if we went to court?

Also he has been making money off of the stock market up until recently since the crash, he also earn interest in the back account w/ all the money. Plus a financial advisor has some other money but I don't know what's going on with that. Then also I just wanted to know does the 8 years we have been together count at all for the time we have been together or just the three years of marriage.

And am I reading what one of you said about about if he puts his account into both our names then thats money he would possibly have to divide in the event of a divorce?

Again thank you all so much for the information.

 

[mistoffolees]

How would his residence and his FOUR cars in the driveway themselves generate ANY income? Additionally, any inheritance funds that was 401k or IRA may have been rolled into retirement accounts which generate income he cannot touch. I know that I recently received a smaller inheritance, and none of it generates income that I get now, it's all deferred..

1. The home and cars would not generate income. I never said they would (although they provide a safety net for her - if he is ordered to pay child support or spousal support, they provide assets that could be seized by the court).

2. She stated that he received $400 K in cash. It's pretty unlikely that a 401K would have $400 K in cash.