marital debt or not?

[almost done]

Since you are from NY and I have been through a NY divorce, I feel I must enlighten you on some not so accurate points that were made earlier.

NY is an "Equitable Distribution" state. It is also a "Fault" state. This means that if a judge were to decide your whole case, things may not (and most certainly WOULD not) be divided 50/50 as has been suggested here.?

Based upon my own past experiences, i would have to agree with you. I think that the more realistic percentages are closer to 70/30 in favor of the female.

Judges in NY have broad discretionary power and consider many factors when making property settlement decisions. They consider past behavior and future earning power of the parties.
?

I would have to disagree with part of this statement, in my case they are not considering past behavior and future earning potential of BOTH parties, only mine. The STBX can say and or do whatever she wants and it is taken as gospel. I know that it is "not going to happen that way" but it does. People on this site or any other will never convince me otherwise, i can give them my case files and they can see for themselves. Im not sure they would believe it then either. But these are just my opinions.

 

[CJane]

Based upon my own past experiences, i would have to agree with you. I think that the more realistic percentages are closer to 70/30 in favor of the female.

And just out of curiosity... what's the income differential?

 

[almost done]

And just out of curiosity... what's the income differential?

This is still in litigation however

She currently has a stream of $6K/ month

I earn roughly 4166/month and was ordered to pay her $2532/month

so effectively she gets $8532 and i get less than $2K

Guess i was being lienient with my initial 70/30 split in favor of the female.

 

[LdiJ]

This is still in litigation however

She currently has a stream of $6K/ month

I earn roughly 4166/month and was ordered to pay her $2532/month

so effectively she gets $8532 and i get less than $2K

Guess i was being lienient with my initial 70/30 split in favor of the female.

That was a dishonest response....

She does not have income of 6k a month. She has access to her father's income which is 6k a month, and you are attributing that income to her.

 

[CJane]

That was a dishonest response....

She does not have income of 6k a month. She has access to her father's income which is 6k a month, and you are attributing that income to her.

So she has NO income?

I figured the 6K wasn't income... when he referred to it as a 'stream' I immediately thought it was a rather political response, and not really an answer to the question that was asked, but rather an answer to defend a position.

 

[LdiJ]

So she has NO income?

I figured the 6K wasn't income... when he referred to it as a 'stream' I immediately thought it was a rather political response, and not really an answer to the question that was asked, but rather an answer to defend a position.

I don't remember if she has none or very little. Her dad is in a nursing home and she has POA on his bank accounts, and OP insists that it means that she spends her father's entire income on herself.

 

[CJane]

I don't remember if she has none or very little. Her dad is in a nursing home and she has POA on his bank accounts, and OP insists that it means that she spends her father's entire income on herself.

Yeah, I just read the 'imputed income' thread - which leads me to believe she has no real income because the offered imputed income was only $15K/year. And I just posted to a thread re POAs and elder abuse.

I'm beginning to see why this has drug out 2.5 years... and it's not all the crazy WIFE'S fault.

 

[Bali Hai]

And just out of curiosity... what's the income differential?

Why do you place so much importance on who was the hard working wage earner in the marriage?

You are suggesting that because the wife chose to be lazy and OP chose to work hard, that the lazy wife is entitled to half of his income upon divorce.

When people divorce, they should split things up 50/50 and go their own way just like they were doing BEFORE the marriage.

I will NEVER understand this kind of thinking. It suggests to me that it is advantageous to be lazy unless you are single.

When people work hard for their money, they get what they earn. When people choose not to work hard, they get what they earn.

 

[CJane]

Why do you place so much importance on who was the hard working wage earner in the marriage?

You are suggesting that because the wife chose to be lazy and OP chose to work hard, that the lazy wife is entitled to half of his income upon divorce.

You're being an idiot again.

My POINT, if you could see beyond the broad horizon of your bitterness, was that OP CLAIMS his wife MAKES MORE THAN HIM - she would therefore be the 'hard working wage earner' and therefore ENTITLED TO MORE OF THE ASSETS OF THE MARRIAGE.

It turns out, however, that his claims are erroneous and she does NOT make more than him.

 

[Bali Hai]

You're being an idiot again.

Well you know me, always trying to please everyone.

My POINT, if you could see beyond the broad horizon of your bitterness, was that OP CLAIMS his wife MAKES MORE THAN HIM -

Op claims and rightfully so that his wife has access to more money than he earns.

she would therefore be the 'hard working wage earner' and therefore ENTITLED TO MORE OF THE ASSETS OF THE MARRIAGE.

I don't think that was OP's claim at all!

It turns out, however, that his claims are erroneous and she does NOT make more than him.

OP is frustrated that the court ordered half of his hard earned money to be turned over to his wife because his wife is lazy and chooses NOT TO WORK!!

 

[CJane]

OP is frustrated that the court ordered half of his hard earned money to be turned over to his wife because his wife is lazy and chooses NOT TO WORK!!

But he can't have it both ways.

He's either pissed that she's getting alimony because she's lazy and doesn't work and therefore doesn't deserve it...

OR

He's pissed because she has a MUCH HIGHER income than him, and gets alimony anyway.

He really needs to decide which side he's fighting from or he's gonna sound like an idiot in court.

And I KNOW it wasn't OP's claim that she's entitled to more of the assets of the marriage than he is. That's MY claim if she REALLY DOES make that much more money than him. Because IF IT'S TRUE, she contributed more all along.

(She'd also be 'entitled' to more of the marital debt, in my opinion)

 

[Bali Hai]

But he can't have it both ways.

He's either pissed that she's getting alimony because she's lazy and doesn't work and therefore doesn't deserve it...

OR

He's pissed because she has a MUCH HIGHER income than him, and gets alimony anyway.

He really needs to decide which side he's fighting from or he's gonna sound like an idiot in court.

And I KNOW it wasn't OP's claim that she's entitled to more of the assets of the marriage than he is. That's MY claim if she REALLY DOES make that much more money than him. Because IF IT'S TRUE, she contributed more all along.

(She'd also be 'entitled' to more of the marital debt, in my opinion)

And my position is that it doesn't MATTER who contributed more or less DURING the marriage. Both parties were in it 50/50. The marriage is now over and each party takes 50% with no other strings (such as alimony) attached.

 

[LdiJ]

Bali, if you put half of the effort into lobbying your state legislature on this issue, as you do berating people here who either don't agree with you or are simply trying to convey legal answers, you might actually have a shot at getting something changed.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali, if you put half of the effort into lobbying your state legislature on this issue, as you do berating people here who either don't agree with you or are simply trying to convey legal answers, you might actually have a shot at getting something changed.

If I went to the legislature and were actually listened to, you would never hear from me again.

 

[LdiJ]

If I went to the legislature and were actually listened to, you would never hear from me again.

Bali, lobbying the legislature takes time (lots and lots of time) patience and perseverence. If you really want change, you have to be dedicated to making it happen.