am i responsible for HIS credit card!?

[stealth2]

So my post is unoriginal because I cited case law which states that § 9–12–315 does NOT apply? Interesting perspective. If originality requires offering incorrect information, then no thanks.

It would be nice if you were able to actually provide information on your own, rather than regurgitating what has already been posted.

 

[CameronNewport]

It would be nice if you were able to actually provide information on your own, rather than regurgitating what has already been posted.

Wow, you really don't get it. I can see that I'll have to explain things in detail just for you:

The general flow of the thread was that debts are divided equally. I stated that in Arkansas debts are not automatically divided equally. Proserpina then cited a statute as support for the proposition that debts are divided equally (though he seemed to acknowledge that the statute allows the judge some discretion). I suggested that he research the issue since that law specifically pertains to property, not debt. You asked me to enlighten you. So, I posted case law which clearly states that the law that Proserpina cited does not apply to marital debts, and that in Arkansas, there is no presumption that debts should be divided equally.

Is that clear enough for you? The only regurgitation is me regurgitating my own posts because you can't seem to comprehend their significance.

 

[mistoffolees]

so it basically doesnt matter that my name is no where on his credit card... That's somewhat discouraging, but i know things arent "fair" by any means.

Why isn't it fair?

Let's say that the credit card is in your name and you use it to buy new furniture. Or to pay for a European vacation. Should that be entirely your debt simply because the card was in your name? Of course not- you spent the money together (and even if you didn't, there's a presumption that anything you buy during the marriage using marital funds is a marital asset).

It is somewhat nice to know I have right to half of whatever was put into his 401k accounts during the time we were married. I honestly have no idea, nor direct access to find out, how much was put into those accounts in the 2 years that we have been married.

Then you have to subpoena the information.

Wow, you really don't get it. I can see that I'll have to explain things in detail just for you:

The general flow of the thread was that debts are divided equally. I stated that in Arkansas debts are not automatically divided equally. Proserpina then cited a statute as support for the proposition that debts are divided equally (though he seemed to acknowledge that the statute allows the judge some discretion). I suggested that he research the issue since that law specifically pertains to property, not debt. You asked me to enlighten you. So, I posted case law which clearly states that the law that Proserpina cited does not apply to marital debts, and that in Arkansas, there is no presumption that debts should be divided equally.

Let's take a step back from the technicalities for a second. AL is an equitable distribution state. That means that there is no rule that it starts at 50:50 - rather, the distribution should be fair and equitable, not equal.

Similarly, debt works the same way. It doesn't have to be 50:50, it merely needs to be fair and equitable in the judge's opinion.

Debt is different than assets in some ways. An asset is owned and the value is therefore present value. A debt has future value. Furthermore, debt is often used to purchase items which will (in the long run) only be of benefit to one person. Just a couple of examples:
- Student loans. Fair and equitable clearly means that the person who borrowed money to go to school should pay for it. (the other person benefited while they were married, but the loan payments were also presumably paid from marital assets during that time).
- Car payments. The person who takes the car should clearly have the debt that goes with the car - and simply reimburses the other person for 1/2 of the equity.
- Mortgage. If one person is keeping the home, they should get the debt that goes with it.

So, yes, debt is frequently not split 50:50. Rather, it must be split in a fair and equitable manner.

That said, we're talking about credit card debt. Fair and equitable will almost always mean a 50:50 split - unless one party squandered a lot of money either after the divorce was filed or shortly before. If one party takes his/her paramour on a Caribbean cruise, the other party should not (and almost certainly WOULD not) have to pay for 1/2 of the cruise.

 

[CameronNewport]

That said, we're talking about credit card debt. Fair and equitable will almost always mean a 50:50 split - unless one party squandered a lot of money either after the divorce was filed or shortly before. If one party takes his/her paramour on a Caribbean cruise, the other party should not (and almost certainly WOULD not) have to pay for 1/2 of the cruise.

Are you sure about that?

If selfishly squandering money is the only exception, then why did the court in Ellis divide the debt unequally purely because of income? I didn't see anything in the case about one party selfishly incurring the debt.

I'm interested in your source.