Seeking advice on the Divorce-from-Hell

[Roxanne Appleby]

A woman very close to me is going through the divorce from hell. He husband is an evil SOB who basically walked out a year ago after she refused to be manipulated into deeding over an ownership interest in a valuable house she's owned since before they got married. He wanted to borrow against the house to prop up a financial house of cards he's built in the form of sham businesses that allow him to appear to have a job when he hasn't really had one for a long time. They have several small children. He is very distant to the children, and is using them in completely immorals way to score "points" in the divorce process.

Nothing will be settled amicably – he refused to speak to her, and it's going to full trial soon. It's almost certain she will be granted sole custody, but the laws today are such that they give the kids to even the most miserable SOB for "visitation" half the summer and every other weekend as part of "maintaining a relationship." He's been getting the kids every other weekend for several months, and they are learning to hate his guts because the experience is so miserable. The likely child support payments are insufficient to support her, assuming he pays anyway – he's already deadbeated on the preliminary payment order. He'll almost certainly be sentenced to sleeping in jail at night at some point, but that doesn't help her.

Here's the question: She just started to wonder what she has to gain from getting a divorce. If she just drops the whole thing then the kids stay at home, and sole ownership of her one asset, the house, is not put at risk, as it is in the divorce process (the SOB could be granted a piece of it, which would force her to sell.) She's not likely to get much money out of him whatever happens – she needs to start a new career in her 40s either way (been a stay-at-home mom for years). She has no desire to get married again.

The only downside she can think of it the idea that HE will probably file for divorce if she drops it, so as to try to steal a portion of the house, putting her right where she started, but delaying the outcome.

Any thoughts or advice? It's pretty confusing right now.

 

[impressive]

The only downside she can think of ...

He would also retain "next of kin" status and rights of survivorship. No small matter. In fact, those two things are driving my desire for divorce right now.

 

[CharleyH]

Here's the question: She just started to wonder what she has to gain from getting a divorce. If she just drops the whole thing then the kids stay at home, and sole ownership of her one asset, the house, is not put at risk, as it is in the divorce process (the SOB could be granted a piece of it, which would force her to sell.) She's not likely to get much money out of him whatever happens – she needs to start a new career in her 40s either way (been a stay-at-home mom for years). She has no desire to get married again.

The only downside she can think of it the idea that HE will probably file for divorce if she drops it, so as to try to steal a portion of the house, putting her right where she started, but delaying the outcome.

Any thoughts or advice? It's pretty confusing right now.

My only thought and advice is to fight for what is important to her. I personally would not give a shit about the house if I had my kids.

 

[AchtungNight]

She has this to gain- the ability to throw the SOB out of her life. I am the child of divorced parents, and every uncle and aunt on my mother's side has been divorced at least once, so I know how tough it can be. But it is worth it, if it needs to happen. It may take a long time, but if it must it must. I wish your friend the best of luck.

 

[AchtungNight]

My only thought and advice is to fight for what is important to her. I personally would not give a shit about the house if I had my kids.

Well said, Charley!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My only thought and advice is to fight for what is important to her. I personally would not give a shit about the house if I had my kids.

She'll get custody of the kids, but have to submit to that "visitation" crap whatever happens.

The house is essentially her "pension" - she has no other assets, marketable skills, or "human capital," and it is very late to start putting together a retirement nest egg. It's her only asset, so she can't help caring. It's valuable enough to provide a reasonable retirement fund.

 

[R. Richard]

I am NOT an expert here. However, it would appear that your woman friend is overlooking one of her strongest assets in the divorce case. The kids can talk. They can talk to the Court. If they are coached, she will lose "points." If the kids really do hate the father for realisitc reasons [Not, he won't let me eat candy,] the Judge will pick up on this. The kids have more rights than either adult in the case, provided that their concerns are real and valid.

Just a thought.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I am NOT an expert here. However, it would appear that your woman friend is overlooking one of her strongest assets in the divorce case. The kids can talk. They can talk to the Court. If they are coached, she will lose "points." If the kids really do hate the father for realisitc reasons [Not, he won't let me eat candy,] the Judge will pick up on this. The kids have more rights than either adult in the case, provided that their concerns are real and valid.

Just a thought.

That makes sense, but as I say, while she is all but guaranteed to win physical custody, the only way that visitation crap is not ordered is if the SOB has actually been convicted for child abuse (and even then it's not automatic!)

To repeat: The question of the hour is, given the realities of the law and the fact that she has no desire to ever get married again, what does she gain by getting a divorce?

 

[CharleyH]

She'll get custody of the kids, but have to submit to that "visitation" crap whatever happens.

The house is essentially her "pension" - she has no other assets, marketable skills, or "human capital," and it is very late to start putting together a retirement nest egg. It's her only asset, so she can't help caring. It's valuable enough to provide a reasonable retirement fund.

Why do you use the words pension and asset? Can this woman not clean bathrooms to care for her children? I would do ANYTHING for my children, as my mother did for me?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why do you use the words pension and asset? Can this woman not clean bathrooms to care for her children? I would do ANYTHING for my children, as my mother did for me?

Repeat: She will get custody of her children. That is not at issue. He will get visitation - that is not an option.

She would really rather not be cleaning bathrooms at age 70. The house is her nest egg, and ticket to a comfortable retirement. Not to mention college for the kids, and bunch of other very important stuff.

 

[Guest]

Repeat: She will get custody of her children. That is not at issue. He will get visitation - that is not an option.

She would really rather not be cleaning bathrooms at age 70. The house is her nest egg, and ticket to a comfortable retirement. Not to mention college for the kids, and bunch of other very important stuff.

She's 70 and has several small children?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been offered, but if I were here, I'd drop the proceedings for now and find someone close to me to "sell" the house to. Then I'd pick back up with the proceedings and get my business handled with the kids and other joint assets. When the divorce is over, she can "buy back" the house (even for $10.00) and have everything she had going into the marriage.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

She's 70 and has several small children?

I think what she's saying is that the woman has no essential career skills and is destined to start over anyway, but by retaining the house she would have at least some kind of capitol behind her as a cushion should anything go wrong. So even if she was to go to work now as a janitor, she'd likely be doing it until she was 70 because that would only give them enough to get by on ... no extra for retirement. So, as I read things, the issues are a) how to proceed with the divorce and keep her kids from as much visitation as possible and b) retain her sole ownership of house (assets) to ensure their financial safety should something bad come down the pike.

But I've been wrong before.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

She's 70 and has several small children?

No, she's in her 40s. The point is, at that age, with no marketable skills, and several kids to support (and hopefully give some help for college when the time comes) she has no time or ability to build up any kind of nest egg for when she is 70. She and her kids have lived a comfortable middle class lifestyle, and the house will allow her to continue to do so while learning some skills and building some "human capital." Without it, she's on welfare, living in a dump, can't help the kids, and will be eating dogfood on social security when she's 70.

 

[Guest]

I think what she's saying is that the woman has no essential career skills and is destined to start over anyway, but by retaining the house she would have at least some kind of capitol behind her as a cushion should anything go wrong. So even if she was to go to work now as a janitor, she'd likely be doing it until she was 70 because that would only give them enough to get by on ... no retirement. So, as I read things, the issues are a) how to proceed with the divorce and keep her kids from as much visitation as possible and b) retain her sole ownership of house (assets) to ensure their financial safety should something bad come down the pike.

But I've been wrong before.

I think you're correct now. I need to read more slowly.

(Maybe it's time for a big, fat drink of rum.)

 

[cloudy]

Roxanne, in most states, the only property that a couple is required to split up is property that is acquired during the marriage. Property that she had before the marriage may not be up for grabs.

She really, really needs a good lawyer.

 

[Belegon]

I think you're correct now. I need to read more slowly.

(Maybe it's time for a big, fat drink of rum.)

<Capt. Jack voice> Rum?</voice>

Being concerned over the house sounds very valid providing that the facts are as they have been presented...I wish her good luck in her struggle

Roxanne, in most states, the only property that a couple is required to split up is property that is acquired during the marriage. Property that she had before the marriage may not be up for grabs.

She really, really needs a good lawyer.

agree totally with this...

 

[Guest]

<Capt. Jack voice> Rum?</voice>

Hello, handsome.

(You, not Capt. Jack.)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Roxanne, in most states, the only property that a couple is required to split up is property that is acquired during the marriage. Property that she had before the marriage may not be up for grabs.

She really, really needs a good lawyer.

Quite correct. There are even some limited assets acquired during a marriage (a gift in some states, I think) that are separate property. I could be wrong about that last one. Inheritances might be exempt too, though I'm not sure.

I hope it goes well for her, since he seems like a piece of work (and I don't mean in a good way).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think what she's saying is that the woman has no essential career skills and is destined to start over anyway, but by retaining the house she would have at least some kind of capitol behind her as a cushion should anything go wrong. So even if she was to go to work now as a janitor, she'd likely be doing it until she was 70 because that would only give them enough to get by on ... no extra for retirement. So, as I read things, the issues are a) how to proceed with the divorce and keep her kids from as much visitation as possible and b) retain her sole ownership of house (assets) to ensure their financial safety should something bad come down the pike.

But I've been wrong before.

Not this time, lovely. You got it in one.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, in most states, the only property that a couple is required to split up is property that is acquired during the marriage. Property that she had before the marriage may not be up for grabs.

She really, really needs a good lawyer.

I've simplified a lot. She has a good lawyer. She got a partial mortgage at one point and his contributions to household expenses went into a pot from which debt service was paid on that for a number of years. He did contribute, therefore, but actually got a huge bargain because the amount he contributed was much less than it would have cost him to provide comparable lodging if she had not owned the house in the first place. It's very complicated, and I can't disclose much more in public - and there is some more. The facts are on her side but the law is a mixed bag.

That brings it back to the original question: Why is it in her interest to get a divorce? (The next of kin stuff is one good answer. Given the essentially mandatory visitation crap he will NOT be out of her life whatever happens.)

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

That brings it back to the original question: Why is it in her interest to get a divorce?

Peace of mind, less stress... I would think, given the situation, that the emotional, mental and psychological benefits would be great.

 

[R. Richard]

I've simplified a lot. She has a good lawyer. She got a partial mortgage at one point and his contributions to household expenses went into a pot from which debt service was paid on that for a number of years. He did contribute, therefore, but actually got a huge bargain because the amount he contributed was much less than it would have cost him to provide comparable lodging if she had not owned the house in the first place. It's very complicated, and I can't disclose much more in public - and there is some more. The facts are on her side but the law is a mixed bag.

That brings it back to the original question: Why is it in her interest to get a divorce? (The next of kin stuff is one good answer. Given the essentially mandatory visitation crap he will NOT be out of her life whatever happens.)

In general, the wife will be given primary custody of the kids. The kids need a place to live. Thus, the woman should have little trouble getting the house if she gets the kids. If the husband is already not paying Court ordered support, the Court would very probably declare his interest in the house forfeit.

Again, the real key is the kids. If they go to the Court and speak up for what they want, it carries a very heavy weight. It must be real testimony, not coached. If it is real testimony, then the kids have more rights than either of the parents.

A friend of mine went through this and he got custody because his seven year old told the Judge, "I want to live with my daddy, because I want to go to school." Well, her mother was certainly going to put her daughter back in school, but things were a bit disorganized right now. The Judge wanted to know where the mother had been sending the child to school, when the child went to school. When the answer turned out to be "nowhere," the custody issue was solved.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

They have several small children. He is very distant to the children, and is using them in completely immorals way to score "points" in the divorce process.

Nothing will be settled amicably – he refused to speak to her, and it's going to full trial soon. It's almost certain she will be granted sole custody, but the laws today are such that they give the kids to even the most miserable SOB for "visitation" half the summer and every other weekend as part of "maintaining a relationship." He's been getting the kids every other weekend for several months, and they are learning to hate his guts because the experience is so miserable. The likely child support payments are insufficient to support her, assuming he pays anyway – he's already deadbeated on the preliminary payment order. He'll almost certainly be sentenced to sleeping in jail at night at some point, but that doesn't help her.

I think she definitely should divorce him, not just because she has a bigger chance of not getting totally robbed than if he divorces her; but also because it will help her self-esteem that she actually tried something to get rid of the bastard.

As for the kids, well, if he's so uncaring already, there's only hoping that he'll get tired of them, and not want them to come over so often. Perhaps the kids could play along and make sure each visit is a pain in ass to the father?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Roxanne,
There are three different kinds of States int he U.S. -
"Bed and Bower" which means regardless of other facts in a divorce the house belongs to the wife. This has become uncommon.
"Community Property" which means that regardless of ownership she is entitles to 1/2 of the assets
"Marriage Property" which means that the property is somehow divided by agreement or by the court.

I have no idea which kind of state your friend lives in. In any case, the house or the value there of should or can be 50% hers either by court order or agreement. How do you have 1/2 a house? You don't. You either sell it and split the proceeds or you give up other marital assets to "buy out" the other spouses half. The same goes for any assets her husband has in his "sham business".

As far as the children are concerned, in most states (not all) the children will stay with the mother and appropriate money arrangements will be ordered by the court for maintenance of the kids (ie child support). This is a knotty problem that really needs her attorney to explain because of the State differences.

As far as should she divorce or stay married. That's a personal choice that really has nothing to do with a property settlement at all. It has more to do with her personal freedom, does she intend to remarry and what are the pros of staying married vs Divorcing in her own mind.

JJ