Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

[GandK]

One thing I have never understood : Why is the size of the divorce settlement made out to be a function of the higher-earner's income/wealth? (I say "higher-earner" here, rather than "ex-husband", to keep my comment gender-neutral.)

As before, I can only comment on things from the POV of an Ohio resident (divorce is state-specific in the US, as is marriage):

When one divorces is Ohio, only marital assets are divided between the spouses. With a few outlying exceptions, those would be any assets accumulated during the marriage which were NOT the result of inheritance, minus any debt the couple managed to accumulate. A home owned by one party that was used by both might be an exception, e.g. if you and I married, and I sold my home to move into yours and we both spent that money, then when we divorced the courts would likely say I owned part of yours because you spent part of mine. Which is logical.

For the most part, though: if you owned or owed it before you married, or if you inherited it from a family member, it stays with you after you divorce. The remaining assets/debts are the marital assets/debts, which would be divided.

Assuming there's no prenup, the division is based on a number of factors including each partner's current and projected income, contributions (financial and otherwise) during the marriage, who will have custody of the kids if any, and the length of the marriage. The separating spouses are generally free to craft the specifics of the divorce agreement themselves, and most do so. In my case, my ex and I didn't really have any assets (early 20s), but although I was getting custody of our son, I also took all of our debt because my income was higher. I volunteered to do that. It was my goal to end the marriage, not to impoverish my son's father. Again for the record: MOST separations do not devolve into bitter arguments about who gets what. Most people calmly come to an understanding, perhaps through attorneys but generally without courtroom intervention.

But, when they cannot, my impression from years of watching my husband craft other people's divorces is that, from the court's prospective, the goal during divorce in a marriage of any significant length is almost always to preserve both parties' standard of living for length of time that is sufficient for the lesser earner to get themselves off to a good start on their own two feet, at which point that person is on his/her own. So they will tend to get more assets, or alimony, or both, to meet that end. But that is the line of thinking: standard of living maintenance. "These guys were married ten years. Hubby will leave the marriage and still be in the middle class, but it would take this stay at home wife 2 years to finish her college degree and go find a job that would keep her in the middle class, assuming no debt. So we'll give her that situation as the divorce order: no debt, plus two years of support, plus half of any retirement savings accumulated by him during the marriage (since she forfeited that opportunity to raise the kids). She can't afford the house on her own so either he keeps the house and helps her get a new one or they sell it and split the proceeds. Their choice. They each get one of the cars, and then he gets whatever's left to compensate him for taking all the debt." That's what it might look like if the judge had to order it.

In a short marriage, by the way, this is way less of an issue. If I divorced after 6 months, no judge on earth would award me alimony. Alimony is about justice for spouses who gave up earnings opportunities of their own over time in order to help the family and/or help the high earner succeed.

[7Wannabe5]

Spartan_Warrior said: Cynicism aside, was there another message in that story that I was supposed to take away other than that most women still demand marriage as a condition of long-term commitment? I'm well aware of that (tragic) fact, lol.

Well, I think his take on the story was something like if you don't/won't marry a woman for financial reasons then you at least owe her a ride to Alaska if she will financially benefit by going to Alaska. IOW, her opportunity cost = his risk aversion. The "if you really loved me" card could be played by either party.

Anyways, I see your cynicism and raise you, because the real tragedy is that women generally do want to get married more than men even though women are only slightly more happy when they are married and men are a whole quantum leap more happy when they are married. It's basically a big culturally reinforced scam upon young women perpetuated by the industrial wedding complex. I know several women around my age (49) who have a lot of their own money and long-term boyfriends they have zero desire to marry. I think if somebody could figure out why men are happier than women being married then that would go a long way towards lowering the divorce rate in general and reducing any individual man's risk of ending up divorced in particular. Of course, it might just be that women have higher expectations.

[Dragline]

In other words, you can get divorced, but your money may still be subject to that promise you made about "for richer, for poorer, 'til death do us part."

"So now I'm praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
'Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don't think that I can really survive
I'll never break my promise or forget my vow
But God only knows what I can do right now
I'm praying for the end of time
So I can end my time with you."

-- Meatloaf

[Spartan_Warrior]

Well, I think his take on the story was something like if you don't/won't marry a woman for financial reasons then you at least owe her a ride to Alaska if she will financially benefit by going to Alaska. IOW, her opportunity cost = his risk aversion. The "if you really loved me" card could be played by either party.

Thanks for re-explaining. I understand now, and that does make sense.

Anyways, I see your cynicism and raise you, because the real tragedy is that women generally do want to get married more than men even though women are only slightly more happy when they are married and men are a whole quantum leap more happy when they are married. It's basically a big culturally reinforced scam upon young women perpetuated by the industrial wedding complex. I know several women around my age (49) who have a lot of their own money and long-term boyfriends they have zero desire to marry. I think if somebody could figure out why men are happier than women being married then that would go a long way towards lowering the divorce rate in general and reducing any individual man's risk of ending up divorced in particular. Of course, it might just be that women have higher expectations.

Could not agree more with the bolded part! As for the differences in satisfaction, I'm not familiar with that data, but I would hazard a guess that it's to do with sexual economics. Men benefit more when it comes to "guaranteed access". Women pretty much always have guaranteed access to sex, whereas a single man's gotta work for it. In that sense, women don't "gain" as much from exclusivity as men do--one could even argue they're giving something up in the exchange.

Interesting video (not sure if I got this from here?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, let's say you are a man on this forum and you have accumulated enough assets/skills that you feel comfortable semi-retiring and living a thrifty lifestyle with the plan of making some additional funds through self-employment as a newspaper publisher. Then you take a train ride out West and meet a woman with twin sons age 6 who owns a large ranch which is worth $1,000,000 and you fall in love. So, instead of putting together the printing press which you brought with you on the train and starting up a newspaper to supplement your income you choose to help your woman with the large task of running her ranch in exchange for room and board. You are aware that the twins will inherit the ranch and you are okay with that. Then a couple years go by and instead of the ranch job getting more under control, your woman keeps taking on expanding the enterprise because she can because now she has your help and you still don't have your own printing press up and going. Then one day without consulting you beforehand, she goes and forms a partnership with the fat old banker (you are younger and buffer) to whom she used to be married to expand the ranch even more. At what point would you continue in such a situation without the possibility of gaining equity in the ranch? What if you finally got around to asking your ranch-owner-lady to help you set up your printing press and her response was "That is not a priority for me." ?

My point here being that there really are situations where a person with less assets/income can be economically taken advantage of by the person with more assets/income. Obviously, this is a fictionalized (to appeal to the audience) rather one-sided account but the reason why my recent EX is mad at me is because I drew the line at the deal with the fat old banker and went off to set up my printing press on my ownsome. The value-adding asset I took away from him was just me.

[Devil's Advocate]

G&K, I appreciate the details of how this actually works. It isn't quite that black and white, then, in Ohio at any rate. The individual points you mention do appear logical.

Two quibbles, though :

1. People here in these forums (again I say "people" to keep the discussion gender-neutral) are generally fair. Far more so than in general. What you did, that's just terrific. At one level, it's no more than fair : but how many "people" out there would do the same? This sort of a decent, non-predatory, fair attitude is, I think, the exception rather than the rule. (And I don't mean to be misogynistic in making that remark. Men would just as callously and cynically cash the chips if they could, as indeed they did in times past. It's just that, at this time, this is how the die happens to be loaded.

2. If A makes 10 times what B would probably have made, and they live that lifestyle, why would B need to maintain that level if they are no longer together? That's what's central here. Like I said in my earlier post, above.

[Devil's Advocate]

Look at it this way. A is a normal person, normal income, normal wealth. On divorce, A's spouse gets amount x. Now if that person had married and divorced C instead of A, and C earns five times what A does (and has five times as much wealth), then the settlement amount will doubtless be much higher than x, perhaps as high as 5x. But why? What has changed? The notional income foregone is the same, so is the notional value of the service rendered. So why?

The principle itself is flawed. Although I take your point, that it often does not work out this way.

Even otherwise, a decent higher-earner will probably choose to give a much higher amount than strictly necessary on separation if they can afford it. Just as a decent offspring will probably do as much as they can to make their parents comfortable. But to make this legally binding is inequitable, unfair, unjust.

I realize this is just a righting of past wrongs, gone overboard. Probably just a temporary stage, as gender rights seesaw their way to true equity. But meanwhile, some things remain less than fair.

[George the original one]

In theory, signing on for marriage is "for life". Exiting a marriage that promised a much better financial standard means the person with lower financials was promised something they are no longer receiving.

In other words, exiting a marriage is little different than exiting a top-level executive position where the contract provides a golden parachute.

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said:]Look at it this way. A is a normal person, normal income, normal wealth. On divorce, A's spouse gets amount x. Now if that person had married and divorced C instead of A, and C earns five times what A does (and has five times as much wealth), then the settlement amount will doubtless be much higher than x, perhaps as high as 5x. But why? What has changed? The notional income foregone is the same, so is the notional value of the service rendered. So why?

I agree that this is something that is becoming archaic but the answer to your "why" is that if you consider "wife" as a job title (as opposed to a relationship descriptor) like "personal assistant" is a job title then it is generally assumed that the notional value of the service performed by the "wife" of a highly ambitious, wealthy, upper-class man is greater than the notional value of the service performed by the "wife" of ordinary Joe. Nowadays, when everybody, including females, tends to work 40 hours a week at something it doesn't make as much sense or seem as fair if a woman who freely chooses to teach kindergarten as her job gets a bigger settlement if she was married to an investment banker than if she was married to a carpenter but in the olden days if she was functioning as a full-time wife she might have been doing investment research work and hostessing elaborate client dinners for her investment banker husband and maybe just clipping coupons and re-heating meatloaf for her carpenter husband. IOW, in the olden days it was assumed that the guy who during the course of a long marriage becomes a top surgeon would choose to marry a woman who (if women could do such things) could become a top lawyer herself. Nowadays, it is assumed that the woman is free to choose to be a top lawyer herself and nobody gets to have a "wife" anymore, just like nobody gets to have a butler anymore. Except this isn't really totally true yet because men born prior to approximately 1961 (give or take depending upon micro-culture) frequently still almost-expect-or-hope that you will cook dinner for them.

[SilverElephant]

With regards to the "women being only a bit happier but men being a lot happier when married" thing, my impression is that, yes, women are scammed into thinking being married will make them happy for ever, only to discover it's not. It's basically exactly as it is before, only you blew a chunk of money in one evening that made you feel the center of the world, so now you're feeling down because you're not anymore. It's the same as buying an expensive car, really.

As for the guy, someone already mentioned how it might be about "exclusive access", although this seems to be, for the most part, a pipe dream when one takes no-fault divorce into consideration which makes it rather clear that being married will not stop anyone from doing anything they want.

Looking back on the history of marriage, it used to be all about family ties and asset consolidation, and love was actually considered a bad reason to marry.

I'm actually in a reverse position because my girlfriend's family have much more assets than I do (two rental properties). It's been made clear to me in not-at-all-subtle ways by her parents that the expectation for me is to put as much time into them as I have left besides the demanding full-time career I will obviously have to support their daughter and grand-children, who is a doctor, while at the same time never being on any title deeds. I have not seen any actual numbers but I'm certain these rental properties provide more than enough income for a middle-class life style, even above ERE/MMM standards, but these are not frugal people.

Fun times.

[GandK]

G&K, I appreciate the details of how this actually works. It isn't quite that black and white, then, in Ohio at any rate.

I think most states probably work this way.

To me, this issue is like the difference between what real crime scene investigation is like and the impressions of the people who watch CSI. I think most people who haven't been through a normal, non-celebrity divorce read about the circus that Tiger Woods' divorce became and think that's the way it happens for everyone.

1. People here in these forums (again I say "people" to keep the discussion gender-neutral) are generally fair. Far more so than in general. What you did, that's just terrific. At one level, it's no more than fair : but how many "people" out there would do the same? This sort of a decent, non-predatory, fair attitude is, I think, the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe, maybe not. I hesitate to extrapolate globally from only a handful of experiences, but not only did my first marriage end in civility, but so did my husband's, and most of my divorced friends as well. I think most people don't want to make a bad situation worse, especially when there are children involved. They do what's necessary and step up to the plate. And as I sit and think about it, the two people I know who were unhappy with their divorce proceedings were the ones whose spouses cheated/left yet those spouses also happened to receive more financial resources. That is, I think those people were still hurt and they were confusing emotional fairness and financial fairness.

2. If A makes 10 times what B would probably have made, and they live that lifestyle, why would B need to maintain that level if they are no longer together? That's what's central here. Like I said in my earlier post, above.

It's what @GTOO said. Marriage is assumed to be for life. The spouse who made less assumed that his/her standard of living was going up for life. That was an implied part of the marriage contract, which was broken. Giving that party a chance to reorient to a new and reduced level of hedonistic adaption is, at least at present, an accepted part of the divorce process.

[henrik]

The spouse who made less assumed that his/her standard of living was going up for life. That was an implied part of the marriage contract, which was broken.

It was only broken in this sense if it's the higher earning side who initiates the divorce. Sort of like unemployment insurance in many countries that you can only collect if it's your employer who parts ways with you, not the other way around, and then only if you weren't fired for being at fault:)

[GandK]

The spouse who made less assumed that his/her standard of living was going up for life. That was an implied part of the marriage contract, which was broken.

It was only broken in this sense if it's the higher earning side who initiates the divorce. Sort of like unemployment insurance in many countries that you can only collect if it's your employer who parts ways with you, not the other way around, and then only if you weren't fired for being at fault:)

And most divorce now is basically no-fault. <shrug>

[Riggerjack]

This thread has so many offshoots, I think I'll add one more: common law marriage, or meretricious relationships.

I live in WA, we don't have common law marriage, but we do have meretricious relationships. Basically, acting like a married couple (living together, co-mingling finances, etc.) can open you up to almost a full divorce, should the lawyers get involved.

I know, breaking up with my last girlfriend before I met my wife involved lawyers on both sides, court, me buying her a few grand's worth of household stuff, cutting a 4 grand check at court order (@at a time when I had to borrow the money to pay her off), taking a f'ing YEAR to crowbar her out, hiring a team of movers and a 52' moving truck, then having her come back, continuing to take this and take that, until I changed the locks. Then, she came back, dug up the landscaping. That was just funny. Take the plants. Come back, take the dirt. Come back, take the rocks.

It was worth it just to watch her load trash bag after trash bag of the topsoil I'd bought a year before into a wheelbarrow to haul to her truck. As bad as the breakup was, it still wasn't as bad as I expected, and it makes for a lot of laughs, looking back.

Breakups can be crazy, just because you aren't married doesn't mean you won't get divorced.

[MrRich]

I would not get married. But if you must then follow JohnnyH's advice above.

[Devil's Advocate]

Okay, I dug up this old thread to just talk of these friends of mine who’re in the process of dissolving their marriage. Sad, and all that, but here’s the point : Both are of the same age, have exact similar education (college sweethearts, in fact), and have had very similar career paths. Naturally I don’t know what they earn, but given their work profile, I would imagine that their salaries too are very similar.

So it’s an amicable enough parting of ways, and no one is going to be paying or receiving alimony, and nor will there be any division of assets. But. The mother gets custody, and she is to get maintenance for the kids.

Both take this (the maintenance money) as a matter of course. The father is happy to pay, and the mother takes it for granted that she’ll be paid. Naturally I did not open my big mouth there with any wise-ass philosophical musings on this, not wanting to further muddy the situation any further. And I have no idea what might happen if this were contested in a court of law.

But I couldn’t help thinking this : If perchance, for whatever reason, it was the father who got custody, would any money have then be paid (or even expected) for maintenance?

We all know the answer. It’s a big NO! So : Not fair!

Although, like I’d said earlier on in this thread : this is nothing to get bitter about, really. Seen in the proper perspective, this is no more than the gradual reversal of years and years of past gender injustice, and has swung off to the other extreme for now. No doubt it will right itself and arrive at proper balance one of these days.

Meanwhile, though, things are not fair. Exceptions here and there, sure. But no, Things Are Not Fair.

[GandK]

But I couldn’t help thinking this : If perchance, for whatever reason, it was the father who got custody, would any money have then be paid (or even expected) for maintenance?

We all know the answer. It’s a big NO! So : Not fair!

This thinking is antiquated. Yes, dad would get paid in the scenario you described. Custodial dads get paid all the time now. The fact that your friends chose a more traditional separation doesn't change either the guidelines for people who don't separate amicably, or the math that goes into those guidelines.

[7Wannabe5]

What GandK said. I have a friend whose wife "abandoned" both of their daughters to his care and she owes him child support even though he is quite reasonably well-off and she is fairly destitute and one man I dated won (at great expense) full custody of his 8 year old son and his ex owes him child support even though they were never married and she has much less money than him. It's only in cases of 50/50 joint custody or full custody transfer to lower income parent that the higher income parent makes payment these days because it's the standard of living of the children that the court cares about not the financial well-being or fair treatment of the parents. My recent ex has way more wealth/assets than the mother of his children but since she made an upper-middle-class salary and he was retired and living on his assets/pension, the court ordered joint custody with no transfer of child support.

One thing to consider is that a couple generations ago it used to be the rule-of-thumb in the event of divorce with minor children that men would usually completely give up parental rights and responsibility through adoption to the next husband of their ex-wife and prior to that (think Anna Karenina) women would have to completely abandon parental rights and responsibility to their ex-husbands in the event of divorce. This is a constantly evolving issue in law, especially now with such a large percentage of children born out of wedlock. Sometimes men choose to voluntarily pay child-support in situations where they weren't married to the mother in order "buy" custody rather than going through the hassle in the courts. This is the situation with my youngest sister's boyfriend and his ex-mother-of-child.

[lilacorchid]

Seriously, when are you guys going to stop beating the dead horse? Here's how they calculate it in Canada. I see "parent" as the noun describing the person who is paying, not "poor, downtrodden man who has to give up all his hard earned money to his terrible ex-wife because of a outdated and antiquated system".

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/chil ... k-rech.asp

P.S. And what happens if it's two dads? Then who is the poor man getting screwed by the courts?

[NPV]

Perhaps this has already been addressed on the 13 pages or in another thread. I am less concerned with the question of whether marriage is a good or bad deal, or what is fair or not.
Rather I am interested in another practical question: for an already married man, what is the best strategy to protect his income and property? E.g. in California. Are post-nups any good? What about other strategies e.g. to delineate ownership of assets in marriage?