Welp someone named busdriver who hasn’t signed on since 2006 just got a random message from a stranger with wedding pictures. Oops… xp
Uh oh!!! Maybe you should email the mods and see if they can erase that? Though if the other busdriver gets them, he or she might enjoy seeing all the happiness.
my quote:
As long as a received inheritance is kept cleanly separated from marital assets, it is not split in a divorce.
@soozievt
This is not always the case.
When would that not be the case?
Let me guess… When the parties contractually agree that it is fair game (e.g., H keeps his retirement funds and gives W some of that inheritance instead).
I don’t think that’s what she meant. any spouse is free to give whatever he wants. A court ordering division is another story.
Maybe this scenario might cause a court to order a division of an inheritance:
H receives $100k in an inherited IRA and it’s his alone, but can’t have much withdrawn without penalty
W receives $100k in inheritance, and it’s kept in her savings acct.
The family has college expenses coming up. The couple agrees that the wife will use her $100k because there is no penalty. This agreement was made because the couple also agreed that the H’s inheritance is now both of theirs, but he never adds her name to the acct. They later divorce. If the court is convinced that there was an agreement to spend the wife’s penalty free inheritance in lieu of the H’s high penalty inheritance…then I could see a court ordering a split of his inheritance.
I think @mom2collegekids is correct – if the inheritance is kept separate and not commingled with marital assets it is not considered marital property. Though there is the concept of “transmutation” where an inheritance can become marital property if it is used in support of the marriage or put in joint name. So for instance, if I utilized my inheritance to build a pool or an addition to our home I would most likely not get any “credit” for that in the division of marital assets. Those assets were converted to marital assets by my actions.
@romanigypsyeyes I would love to see the pictures, too! Congrats to you and best wishes for a wonderful married life!
I would like to see them!
I think @Nrdsb4 was gushing about being married and how wonderful her spouse was and is.
My spouse is wonderful, but we only got married for financial benefit. When we were married, we were already living together and financially it made sense due to health insurance and tax issues. Only. We did wait a while to have kids, partially due to finances and partially because we never wanted kids and eventually grew into the idea.
I feel that marriage should be only a religious ceremony, and that the government should stay out of it. Instead, I think the government should only offer civil unions, for two adults regardless of gender, which clearly outline all the financial benefits and risks of being in a civil union, as well as clearly outlining the procedure when a civil union is dissolved.
My point is that too many people go into marriage from the romantic and/or religious angle, and in reality the government has forced marriage into something totally different. Responsibility for children up to and including split or full custody for one parent, for example, should be completely independent of marriage.
Yes, people are stupid especially when love or sex are concerned. However, it’s even worse when people decide “it’s time to get married” and the secondary concern is who they are marrying…
(I and my spouse are in a small subset of people who actually discussed divorce rather thoroughly before we were married, and also after we started having kids. The agreement was to get divorced if one of us even wanted to start fooling around, let alone if one of us doesn’t love the other any more. No “hey, things happened, but I wouldn’t want to hurt my partner by telling them”. Of course no one has 100% proof of fidelity (without accessing EZ pass records?), but we’ve seen fatal results of people not getting divorced.
As for fair distribution of money, if both people have worked (mostly, a few very short layoffs for each of us), it seems you take monies on day one of the marriage, and assign them to each as it was, then take the money earned over the past however many years for each, then you total assets, and you split the assets based on the percentage of money earned. The main problem is when someone says they “didn’t work so we didn’t need a babysitter”. But to me that is a CHOICE not a mandate. Then again, my spouse does significant child care.
What that reminds me of is someone who is inheriting money from his mother. His sister is fighting him tooth and nail. But his wife quit her job and took care of his mother for the three years before she passed, almost every day and always at least five days per week for at least 8 hours per day. So guess what? Her “salary” for being a caregiver is going to be deducted from the overall estate, and she (who is not an heir) will be paid for her work. That’s the same thing as marriage - if you want to be paid for child care, be paid for child care at child care rates. Granted, let’s assume: US citizen, native English speaker, available 24/7, live-in, and so on, and the pay for someone like that is getting to be astronomical (especially if the wife does not have a college degree, nannies make a LOT of money).
Caveat emptor, folks. And I always tell the ladies to have their own separate account just in case, because in the heat of the moment, whether or not you have to “turn it over” later, at least you have something to work with.)
And I am with @romanigypsyeyes, on being too lazy to cheat - too much effort. The more we see of other people, the more we feel very lucky (not you guys, you guys are great LOL).
Only the soon-to-be-ex-husband in dstark’s case can determine how to move forward here, because only he knows whether
a) he has been cheating and spending money on his girlfriend(s) for years and years, and using his business to hide the expenses, or
b) the soon-to-be-ex-wife is a delusional whack job.
I don’t see much in between for the scenario given, and the solutions would be very different.
As for this from rhandco
I can’t blame the sister for being upset if this was not agreed to before the mom moved into the son’s house. Is this going to be treated as 1099 income and taxed, or is the son just going to decide what he thinks is a “fair” amount to deduct before splitting the estate? It’s sad because I’m sure in his mind he thinks he’s being fair to all, but if it wasn’t discussed and agreed to well in advance of the mom’s death, the son is a fool to think he can do this as a judgement call and expect his sister to just agree to it. Families are weird.
I know of a case where the wife received a sizable inheritance while the couple was married. The husband’s parents were still living and he stood to receive an inheritance some day. The wife’s inheritance was in her name only. A large chunk of that inheritance was an inherited IRA. The husband had no savings, no retirement funds, though made a good income and the wife did not. When the couple divorced, the husband was awarded some of the wife’s inheritance. That case is more complicated than that.
It is always more complicated than that. Pre divorce I was gifted a small amount, pre death, from my grandmother, in liu of inheritance. We put that money in college accounts for my 3. Due to declining bank interest rates, he took over management of that money, lost some of it in the 2000 market downturn, and then later said it was so co mingled with his funds that he could not separate it out, so I still owed 50% of college costs. It was not enough to be worth a legal process, but plenty irritating as well as a hardship for me. How I wish I had kept that money separate! However in a marriage, it feels unfair to keep money separate, when all else is co mingled.
Events in recent years have made me see the importance of leaving money directly to grand kids, as divorce and remarriage can really mess with other plans. My inlaws passed away in the last 5 years, and left money to the ex and his siblings. He now has dementia, is remarried, and that money will go to his care prior to spend down. Just a few thousand to each of my kids would have been an incredible gift during or shortly after their college years. Knowing them, they would have wanted help for the kids. Though the childless sometimes resent money given to grandchildren, so it can create other problems.
[QUOTE=""]
my quote: As long as a received inheritance is kept cleanly separated from marital assets, it is not split in a divorce.
[/QUOTE]
@soozievt
This is not always the case.
When would that not be the case?
I know of a case where the wife received a sizable inheritance while the couple was married. The husband’s parents were still living and he stood to receive an inheritance some day. The wife’s inheritance was in her name only. A large chunk of that inheritance was an inherited IRA. The husband had no savings, no retirement funds, though made a good income and the wife did not. When the couple divorced, the husband was awarded some of the wife’s inheritance. That case is more complicated than that.
<<<<
there must be more to this story. Will she later get some of his parents’ inheritance? If not, why not? lol
This could be a situation where the 'inherited IRA" was considered by the wife and couple to be the “couples retirement money”. If so, and either the wife agreed that that was understood, or there was something in writing that backed up that thinking, I can’t think of many reasons why the court would do this, especially if there is nothing in place to make sure she gets a share of his future inheritance.
@mom2collegekids
I don’t want to get into all the details here, but don’t wish to ignore you. Not all divorce cases are fair or just.
To answer a little of what you asked…no, the wife will not get any of the husband’s inheritance when his parents pass away. In terms of getting a share of the spouse’s FUTURE inheritance, the law in the state of that divorce had changed during the course of the couple’s separation to not allow that any longer.
The wife’s inheritance, including the inherited IRA was entirely in her name. There was nothing in writing promising anything to the husband. Actually, the husband had put into writing promises to pay the wife back for substantial debts he had incurred to her, none of which were adhered to in the legal divorce. While the husband had a good income and the wife did not, the husband had no money to speak of (other than a future inheritance). The court ordered the wife to give the husband even more money (husband never had to pay back any of the debts to his wife) out of her inheritance since she had more money in her name. The wife even had to pay back business debts of his that the husband had taken out behind the wife’s back on credit cards in her name, that she was unaware of, did not consent to, and went solely to his business and not their personal matters. I don’t wish to change the focus of this thread or get into more details. Just know that things don’t aways happen in a divorce the way one would assume is fair or just, as well with inheritances.
In general:
Each state has different laws (obviously), but first sort out whether you are in a community or non-community (common law) property state:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-property-ownership-who-owns-what-29841.html
The type of jurisdiction you live in will determine the nature and approach of the property division.
Generally, income earned during marriage is the “source” – retirement benefits (401k, pensions), stock options, deferred compensation, bonuses. What is comes from the source – assets should generally belong to the marital estate. What results from the spending of the source – debts should also generally belong to the marital estate.
In community property states: assets that come by way of gift or inheritance is generally separate property BUT income from separate property = community property. So, it can become a complex tracing process.
So, in the example of the inherited “Stretch IRA”: the account may be considered separate property of the spouse who owns it but each annual distribution = income to that spouse so = community property.
Also, in the equitable division of property: it’s important to cherry pick through assets because each asset’s value net of taxes is different.
The above are just some of the issues relating to assets. Debts can be equally complex. One can see how each important decision in a divorce can require expert advice and evaluation.
Absolutely +1 to all you said. Parties can also agree beyond what the law provides.
I heard of a client who negotiated inheritance rights for her children in her divorce agreement. Well, they weren’t worth anything by the time the husband died because property is alienable during one’s lifetime. A trust set up at the time of the divorce would have been the way to go.
You split cash and noncash assets based on percentage of income? I suppose I can understand keeping an inheritance seperate (as my ex sister-in-law did shortly before her marriage ended), but I would never enter a relationship as a less than equal partner. And when one partner gets 35 cents to the other partner’s 65 cents or whatever, that’s an unequal power balance from the get go. The poorer one has more motivation to keep the richer one happy, because s/he has more to lose.
I’ve spent the last 16 years homeschooling, so I haven’t had a paying job outside the home in that time (although many homeschooling parents do), and you can bet if Mr. S and I ever divorced, half the value of our home would be mine. And half the cash and investments too. Mr. S has harsh words regarding men who (a) leave their wives when there are children involved and (b) stronger words for those who leave ex-wives and children wanting.
I’m curious how loans are split. If you take out a $100k loan against your house in both your names, you have the same responsibility for repayment whether you get 20% of the value of the house in a divorce or 80%, don’t you?
@soozievt Wow! seems unfair. Best wishes for your friend. Sounds like she got the short end of the stick. 
H&W can / do agree differently. But the creditor can / will seek to collect against both or either party under the terms of the original loan. That’s why divorcing parties should part as cleanly as possible regarding debt. To repay debt, the underlying asset is often sold or refinanced.
<<<
As for fair distribution of money, if both people have worked (mostly, a few very short layoffs for each of us), it seems you take monies on day one of the marriage, and assign them to each as it was, then take the money earned over the past however many years for each, then you total assets, and you split the assets based on the percentage of money earned. The main problem is when someone says they “didn’t work so we didn’t need a babysitter”. But to me that is a CHOICE not a mandate.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
What?? That is your philosophy? What happens if one spouse becomes disabled and can’t work? What if there’s a special needs child and one parent can’t work full-time or must take a “less demanding” job to care for the child?
There are also many families where one spouse’s job is so demanding (long hours, lots of travel, etc) that the other spouse can’t realistically work as much and earn as much (someone needs to mind the store!)
I don’t think most families can operate in the way that you described. Too much like a business relationship.