MiseryInNJ
Member
What is the name of your state?
New Jersey
Came across a bit of a conundrum here.
My wife and I are getting divorced. But, I have a question about what happens to my existing Roth IRA, 401k, etc.
These accounts exist from when I was employed by another company years ago. I've rolled them over once to a different fund, but that was about it, and even that occurred well before the marriage. Actually, let me amend that. There are three total accounts, and I think I rolled one of them over to a different fund during the marriage, the other two were done significantly pre-marriage.
However, thus far we're going to a mediator company. Here's where the confusion starts.
I had previously been given to understand that all my premarital assets would NOT be subject to equitable distribution. I'd also been told that, since these assets' change in value were 100% passive, that the increase in value would also be immune to distribution. A lawyer I had a consultation with also mentioned this.
The person we were talking with at the mediation office was also a lawyer. She showed me a copy of the statute, and it seemed to specifically say things that were acquired during the marriage. I pointed this out, and she said that, even though the retirement funds themselves were premarital, the increase in value is considered '"acquired during the marriage" and thus subject to distribution.
I found this a little strange, because when we were debating other property/asset distribution, my wife even said she wanted to keep everything that was premarital totally separate, including the change in value. The mediator suggested that the fact that she wasn't taking the change in value of my retirement accounts "should be considered" when talking about splitting the other assets.
I've done some searching on the net, but can't seem to find anything definitive that I can "take to the bank" so to speak. Some seem to agree with my interpretation, others seem to not quite say, and I ran across one that agreed with the mediator's interpretation.
I suppose I could retain that attorney I consulted with earlier, but I don't want to wind up with a scenario where I wind up spending more in legal fees than the value of the assets. The mediation attorney, on the other hand, states that 100% passive assets are immune to distribution "is an argument your attorney can make, but there's no guarantee."
Does anyone have any reference to specific precedents, documentation, or whatever where this sort of thing is clearly, explicitly defined or decided?
I'm looking for hard, solid facts here. Thanks in advance.
New Jersey
Came across a bit of a conundrum here.
My wife and I are getting divorced. But, I have a question about what happens to my existing Roth IRA, 401k, etc.
These accounts exist from when I was employed by another company years ago. I've rolled them over once to a different fund, but that was about it, and even that occurred well before the marriage. Actually, let me amend that. There are three total accounts, and I think I rolled one of them over to a different fund during the marriage, the other two were done significantly pre-marriage.
However, thus far we're going to a mediator company. Here's where the confusion starts.
I had previously been given to understand that all my premarital assets would NOT be subject to equitable distribution. I'd also been told that, since these assets' change in value were 100% passive, that the increase in value would also be immune to distribution. A lawyer I had a consultation with also mentioned this.
The person we were talking with at the mediation office was also a lawyer. She showed me a copy of the statute, and it seemed to specifically say things that were acquired during the marriage. I pointed this out, and she said that, even though the retirement funds themselves were premarital, the increase in value is considered '"acquired during the marriage" and thus subject to distribution.
I found this a little strange, because when we were debating other property/asset distribution, my wife even said she wanted to keep everything that was premarital totally separate, including the change in value. The mediator suggested that the fact that she wasn't taking the change in value of my retirement accounts "should be considered" when talking about splitting the other assets.
I've done some searching on the net, but can't seem to find anything definitive that I can "take to the bank" so to speak. Some seem to agree with my interpretation, others seem to not quite say, and I ran across one that agreed with the mediator's interpretation.
I suppose I could retain that attorney I consulted with earlier, but I don't want to wind up with a scenario where I wind up spending more in legal fees than the value of the assets. The mediation attorney, on the other hand, states that 100% passive assets are immune to distribution "is an argument your attorney can make, but there's no guarantee."
Does anyone have any reference to specific precedents, documentation, or whatever where this sort of thing is clearly, explicitly defined or decided?
I'm looking for hard, solid facts here. Thanks in advance.