What exactly should I expect as a result of "equitable distribution of assets"?

[MiseryInNJ]

What exactly should I expect as a result of "equitable distribution of assets"?

What is the name of your state? ---- New Jersey

Well, it's kind of looking more and more like the wife and I will be splitting.

However, I'll have to admit that I'm a bit uneasy about the financial implications, because I don't fully understand them.

Basically, when we had gotten married, I had a pile of money I'd just gotten from selling my previous home, but no job (a problem since rectified). She had a pile of debt, but the steady income.

We got married and bought a house. I paid basically a down payment of 50% of the price of the house, call it $X. I also paid off her debts (except the student loans, which she wanted to keep separate). She was, more or less, covering all our expenses for about a year, maybe a year and a half. By my best calculations, half of our expenses comes to a little less than what I paid off for her debts - maybe she would owe me a little if it came down to it, but relatively speaking, its not that significant.

Last year, we sold the house for $Y, and bought another house.

We also have money saved in the bank, as well as a mortgage on the current house.

We've been married for 4 years. There is no pre-nuptial agreement.

So, assuming we avoid going to lawyers and such, and just go to a mediator - how would NJ law say "equitable distribution" splits things? Primarily I'm concerned with the big chunk I'd originally brought in, since that was pre-marriage assets. The only real thing I know is that who brought what into the marriage "is taken into consideration" but I don't know how to even start guessing how to calculate.

I thought it would be that I get the $X I put in off the top (or percentage of the sale of the first house? I'm kinda confused about that), then the rest would be split, to account for what I had pre-marriage... but I really don't know if it works that way, if some formula is involved, or really have any idea how it would be calculated.

I assume, also, that any consideration of alimony/child-support is entirely separate from this, but is such an assumption correct?

Can anyone give me guidance?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state? ---- New Jersey


So, assuming we avoid going to lawyers and such, and just go to a mediator - how would NJ law say "equitable distribution" splits things? Primarily I'm concerned with the big chunk I'd originally brought in, since that was pre-marriage assets. The only real thing I know is that who brought what into the marriage "is taken into consideration" but I don't know how to even start guessing how to calculate.

Wrong. You comingled those premarital assets by putting them into a home and then selling that home and buying another home which is a marital asset. Especially if she is also on the title.


I thought it would be that I get the $X I put in off the top (or percentage of the sale of the first house? I'm kinda confused about that), then the rest would be split, to account for what I had pre-marriage... but I really don't know if it works that way, if some formula is involved, or really have any idea how it would be calculated.

Nope. It doesn't work that way.


I assume, also, that any consideration of alimony/child-support is entirely separate from this, but is such an assumption correct?

Can anyone give me guidance?

If you had kept that money separate and not made it a marital asset then you would be entitled to it as separate property but you comingled it from the sounds of things. You are not entitled to $X. Equitable distribution works that you each would get approximately 50% of the debt and 50% of the assets.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state? ---- New Jersey

Well, it's kind of looking more and more like the wife and I will be splitting.

However, I'll have to admit that I'm a bit uneasy about the financial implications, because I don't fully understand them.

Basically, when we had gotten married, I had a pile of money I'd just gotten from selling my previous home, but no job (a problem since rectified). She had a pile of debt, but the steady income.

We got married and bought a house. I paid basically a down payment of 50% of the price of the house, call it $X. I also paid off her debts (except the student loans, which she wanted to keep separate). She was, more or less, covering all our expenses for about a year, maybe a year and a half. By my best calculations, half of our expenses comes to a little less than what I paid off for her debts - maybe she would owe me a little if it came down to it, but relatively speaking, its not that significant.

Last year, we sold the house for $Y, and bought another house.

We also have money saved in the bank, as well as a mortgage on the current house.

We've been married for 4 years. There is no pre-nuptial agreement.

So, assuming we avoid going to lawyers and such, and just go to a mediator - how would NJ law say "equitable distribution" splits things? Primarily I'm concerned with the big chunk I'd originally brought in, since that was pre-marriage assets. The only real thing I know is that who brought what into the marriage "is taken into consideration" but I don't know how to even start guessing how to calculate.

I thought it would be that I get the $X I put in off the top (or percentage of the sale of the first house? I'm kinda confused about that), then the rest would be split, to account for what I had pre-marriage... but I really don't know if it works that way, if some formula is involved, or really have any idea how it would be calculated.

I assume, also, that any consideration of alimony/child-support is entirely separate from this, but is such an assumption correct?

Can anyone give me guidance?

This whole unfortunate situation points to one thing and one thing only:

Think with the larger head and not the smaller one.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

If you had kept that money separate and not made it a marital asset then you would be entitled to it as separate property but you comingled it from the sounds of things. You are not entitled to $X. Equitable distribution works that you each would get approximately 50% of the debt and 50% of the assets.

Yeek! So, in effect, she would wind up with as much, if not somewhat more, than her entire net pay during the period we were married, whereas I wind up with less than I came into the marriage with, not to mention none of what I earned.

Juuuuust lovely.

I'm distinctly under the impression that she won't really thank me for, ultimately, having allowed her to live for absolutely free for 4 years.

However, isn't what you're describing the way the rule works in "equal distribution" states rather than "equitable distribution"? I'm no expert at all, and I'm probably grasping at straws (damn straws!), but I seem to come across a lot of information about one versus the other, but even when I come across "equitable distribution," half of what I read seems to contradict the other half.

I guess that's why there's a good living to be made as a divorce attorney....

This whole unfortunate situation points to one thing and one thing only:

Think with the larger head and not the smaller one.

Your assumption is mistaken. My error was one of trust, not of thinking with the wrong head. She did say she was willing to sign a prenup back before we were married - not actually doing one is an error I can't exactly go back and correct now.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yeek! So, in effect, she would wind up with as much, if not somewhat more, than her entire net pay during the period we were married, whereas I wind up with less than I came into the marriage with, not to mention none of what I earned.

Juuuuust lovely.

I'm distinctly under the impression that she won't really thank me for, ultimately, having allowed her to live for absolutely free for 4 years.

However, isn't what you're describing the way the rule works in "equal distribution" states rather than "equitable distribution"? I'm no expert at all, and I'm probably grasping at straws (damn straws!), but I seem to come across a lot of information about one versus the other, but even when I come across "equitable distribution," half of what I read seems to contradict the other half.

I guess that's why there's a good living to be made as a divorce attorney....




Your assumption is mistaken. My error was one of trust, not of thinking with the wrong head. She did say she was willing to sign a prenup back before we were married - not actually doing one is an error I can't exactly go back and correct now.

How do you figure she lived free for four years especially when you stated she paid expenses for quite a bit of the time? YOu have said the gift amounted to approximately 50% of expenses during that time and so on. There are also non financial contributions that you each made.
That is marriage -- you and she each had a responsibility to support each other. You gifted her a large amount of amount of money by paying off her debts. No one stated you had to but you did. That was a choice you made. Now you want to take back that gift? Not going to happen.

 

[Bali Hai]

Yeek! So, in effect, she would wind up with as much, if not somewhat more, than her entire net pay during the period we were married, whereas I wind up with less than I came into the marriage with, not to mention none of what I earned.

Juuuuust lovely.

I'm distinctly under the impression that she won't really thank me for, ultimately, having allowed her to live for absolutely free for 4 years.

However, isn't what you're describing the way the rule works in "equal distribution" states rather than "equitable distribution"? I'm no expert at all, and I'm probably grasping at straws (damn straws!), but I seem to come across a lot of information about one versus the other, but even when I come across "equitable distribution," half of what I read seems to contradict the other half.

I guess that's why there's a good living to be made as a divorce attorney....




Your assumption is mistaken. My error was one of trust, not of thinking with the wrong head. She did say she was willing to sign a prenup back before we were married - not actually doing one is an error I can't exactly go back and correct now.

You may want to ask YOUR attorney these questions and at the very least read some case history relating to divorce in NJ.

You either give her what she askes for in negotiations between her attorney and yours or she takes you to court and gets that anyway and maybe more.

Your choice.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

How do you figure she lived free for four years especially when you stated she paid expenses for quite a bit of the time? YOu have said the gift amounted to approximately 50% of expenses during that time and so on. There are also non financial contributions that you each made.

Not counting the non-financial contributions, because that would simply get too messy for a single message-board post, I didn't say she lived for free... I said that if we divorce, and she gets 50% of everything, including the value of the house, then she will have effectively lived for free, at least from a monetary standpoint.

To wit, she'd wind up with approximately, give or take maybe $4000, every penny she earned in take-home pay (before any expenses) during the entire time we were married. Since she came into this with $0 (well, debt, actually), wouldn't this mean that, from a monetary standpoint, she lived for free, as a net result?

 

[MiseryInNJ]

You may want to ask YOUR attorney these questions and at the very least read some case history relating to divorce in NJ.

Well, yeah. I ultimately intend to - if it comes down to bringing attorneys into this.

You either give her what she askes for in negotiations between her attorney and yours or she takes you to court and gets that anyway and maybe more.

Well, again, yeah, but I also figured that since she mentioned simply using mediation instead, I'd try to figure out how that works.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

As a married woman myself, I bet she paid plenty in one way or another!

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

 

[Bali Hai]

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

You will never know the answer to that until the court tells you.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

I pretty much know what you mean/intended by that comment, but frankly, I find that, having asked you directly to admit what you intended, your evasion is more interesting.

I figured coming here would give me information as to facts, not as to personal biases.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

Nobody made you come here.... therefore I am not wasting your time.

You made, for no good reason, a snarky comment which implies a concept that, quite frankly, would be wonderful if your intent is to set the women's movement back 40 years or so.

It would be less a waste of time, however, if you kept your broad generalizations of men to yourself, and stuck with legal facts.

 

[Bali Hai]

Nobody made you come here.... therefore I am not wasting your time.

You made, for no good reason, a snarky comment which implies a concept that, quite frankly, would be wonderful if your intent is to set the women's movement back 40 years or so.

It would be less a waste of time, however, if you kept your broad generalizations of men to yourself, and stuck with legal facts.

You have alot to learn my friend. And I have a feeling your lesson will be sooner rather than later.

 

[MiseryInNJ]

You have alot to learn my friend. And I have a feeling your lesson will be sooner rather than later.

This is an absolutely fascinating statement from someone whose entire contribution to this thread has been:

1) mistaken assumptions about the circumstances of my marriage
2) "Contact an attorney"

Between yourself and AHA, I'm mostly getting veiled insults - oh, and of course no clarification because I "have a lot to learn" but don't forget that oh so clever "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" from AHA, whose posts in this thread seem to have mysteriously vanished.

 

[seniorjudge]

Equitable distribution means fair distribution.

If you treated property as being jointly-owned, then the court will also in splitting.

Vice-versa.

It's a simple concept; but the devil is in the details. Thus, make a full disclosure of the court on how everything was treated and let the judge decide how to split it.

Or settle it.

That's even better!