Cheating Husband or Loving Husband stories?

[desecration]

It always helps to look at some high profile cases to see how many fit the model.

Any time you create a legal opportunity to seize wealth, you incentivize the party to do so. The seizure is the filing predicated on equal division.

 

[NoTalentHack]

It always helps to look at some high profile cases to see how many fit the model.

Any time you create a legal opportunity to seize wealth, you incentivize the party to do so. The seizure is the filing predicated on equal division.

I don't think those are selling your case. Everyone of them that I recognize, glancing at the names involved, were assholes. Like, before they were married, they were assholes. They weren't "men pushed too far," they were "abusive, controlling dude who managed to hide it long enough to fool a woman into marrying him."

 

[desecration]

I don't think those are selling your case. Everyone of them that I recognize, glancing at the names involved, were assholes. Like, before they were married, they were assholes. They weren't "men pushed too far," they were "abusive, controlling dude who managed to hide it long enough to fool a woman into marrying him."

We know them as assholes because they got caught murdering people for the most part. They got along fine with people before that, except for true psychopaths like Drew Peterson. The point is that because of the threat of property confiscation, they had an incentive to kill, just like many spouses have an incentive to cheat, lie, steal, etc and take half of what their spouse had. Speaking of Petersons, we should consider Scott Peterson and Michael Peterson, both of whom wanted to exit a marriage but could not afford to.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Haven't we all?

Let’s say it’s never OK to take your angst out on a bystander. It maybe more understandable in some circumstances than others - there is trauma and there is trauma - but I still don’t think it’s OK.

I’ve been triggered by stuff people say here when it’s trauma-adjacent. When the red mist has evaporated, I have often wished that I had expressed myself in a more measured way.

Again, it’s perspective.

I’m calling you out for utter insensitivity about my and others’ trauma
You are a bit overreactive on that subject
They went postal on them for no reason

Emily

Actually, a wife is only entitled to have the assets acquired after they are married in most state. Trust funds, preexisting wealth, personal property owned before, most of the time, are not one or the others for the taking.

I'll give you a f'rinstance. Texas is a community property state. While a 50/50 split of existing assets isn't always what happens, it's rarely very far off from that. It also has some wrinkles due to the stuff mentioned above, like women having difficulties buying property or renting on their own before the mid-70s. If a wife slept one night in her husband's house, for example, it became part of the marital property. Didn't matter if it had been in his family for generations, he owned it before they married, and they got divorced after a month; she got half. Period.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Haven't we all?

Actually, a wife is only entitled to have the assets acquired after they are married in most state. Trust funds, preexisting wealth, personal property owned before, most of the time, are not one or the others for the taking.

Not anymore, but those laws changed only relatively recently, like in the last 10 years. Trust funds were non-marital assets before that, but not houses, land, etc.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In Colorado and Oklahoma, if you owned a home prior to your marriage, it is your separate property. However, if marital funds were used to improve the home or pay down the mortgage, your spouse may have a claim to some of that equity. I don't see how mutual funds can be used to improve the house in one night. Or any significant pay down, entitling them to share either. And it is only a portion not 50/50.

Not anymore, but those laws changed only relatively recently, like in the last 10 years. Trust funds were non-marital assets before that, but not houses, land, etc.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Aaaand this is why anyone with legal experience opposes the law: we create a property for spouses which is available to them without consideration of fault, giving them a financial incentive to cheat, lie, steal, etc.

No-fault even-division divorce is probably responsible for more murders than any other law.

And this is why you shouldn't get your "legal experience" from LW stories and Telegram groups. Because what NTH described wasn't "the law". It was the old law.

I'm not a lawyer myself, but here's what I saw in my time as an adult: Today, or more like for the last two decades, things are a little different.

First of all, no-fault even division does split marital assets fifty-fifty. But it's important to remember that "marital assets" are "all income, property, and debts acquired during the marriage". So, if your spouse moves into your house, the only thing they can demand to be split is whatever they contributed to it during the marriage.

It's the same for alimony. The median "maintenance" payment across all states is now at 450-something dollars a month, for a maximum of three years, with states like Texas and New Mexico setting it to ZERO if the marriage lasted for less than a decade. That's because it doesn't really matter anymore who earned how much. It doesn't even matter whether your spouse worked at all. It only really matters whether or not your spouse could get a job that is sufficient to sustain them. And the maximum of three years is the time it would take someone to acquire any degree that should allow them a proper job placement.

And while the median child support payment is at around 720 dollars a month per child... you only have to pay that until the child either turns eighteen or finishes high school (and, again, could get a job to support themselves). Although I never met a single divorced man who ever complained about "having to support his children".

 

[MrPixel]

And while the median child support payment is at around 720 dollars a month per child... you only have to pay that until the child either turns eighteen or finishes high school (and, again, could get a job to support themselves). ...

Uh... did that change recently? In the '90s the child support mandate, at least at the federal level, was changed where support including things like health coverage was required until age 23 if the child was enrolled in college.

My best bud was an attorney at the time and complained bitterly about how draconian the rules had become, so lopsided as to basically impoverish the (usually) father in a divorce or other child support situation. According to him, the rules were abusive to the point that a woman could conceivably bear three children by different men and secure herself a minimum of 18 years of what amounted to a full, tax-free income backed by the courts. The kicker is he stumbled into an underground network advocating this while defending a paternity client.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

Uh... did that change recently? In the '90s the child support mandate, at least at the federal level, was changed where support including things like health coverage was required until age 23 if the child was enrolled in college.

My best bud was an attorney at the time and complained bitterly about how draconian the rules had become, so lopsided as to basically impoverish the (usually) father in a divorce or other child support situation. According to him, the rules were abusive to the point that a woman could conceivably bear three children by different men and secure herself a minimum of 18 years of what amounted to a full, tax-free income backed by the courts. The kicker is he stumbled into an underground network advocating this while defending a paternity client.

Well, I don't know about child support, but, as I wrote, the laws for maintenance and asset division have been changed over the last 20 years or so. So, I wouldn't be surprised if that went hand-in-hand.

I mean, some states make exceptions to the "eighteen or high school graduation" rule, like Arizona. They allow courts to order divorced spouses to pay for the child's college tuition as the state thinks that a high school diploma is not sufficient. Health care, health insurance, medical expenses, and dental fees are seen as college expenses, but even then it comes with a series of conditions. Like, the child's academic performance, financial situation (it is now generally seen as perfectly fine for kids to bury themselves in student loans), and whether the custodian parent could afford to send the child to college by themselves (even if that's only possible with grants/scholarships/student loans).

 

[lustychimera]

Not anymore, but those laws changed only relatively recently, like in the last 10 years. Trust funds were non-marital assets before that, but not houses, land, etc.

What about houses and land in a trust?

 

[Seadog777]

I can feel myself trying to get sucked into this conversation, knowing what the divorce attorney told me and the fact that I know the family court judges in my county.

I'm doing a good job resisting.

 

[NoTalentHack]

What about houses and land in a trust?

Anything within a trust didn't technically belong to the person that brought it in, IIRC, so it was exempted. It belonged to the trust, which was administered (typically) by another person or persons; my best friend in college had one set up by his mom before she passed away, and he basically had to go and ask for anything more than a small monthly stipend to plead his case. He lived fairly modestly, though, so I don't think he did that before he turned 35 and the trust reverted solely to him.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not anymore, but those laws changed only relatively recently, like in the last 10 years. Trust funds were non-marital assets before that, but not houses, land, etc.

I don't believe this is the case, but I'm not an expert in current marital law around the country so I don't know. I believe it's still the case that in most states whatever property you acquire BEFORE marriage remains your property during and after marriage. In the case of most people this may not mean much, because most people get married (for the first time) young enough that they don't have much property at the time of marriage.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

I don't believe this is the case, but I'm not an expert in current marital law around the country so I don't know. I believe it's still the case that in most states whatever property you acquire BEFORE marriage remains your property during and after marriage. In the case of most people this may not mean much, because most people get married (for the first time) young enough that they don't have much property at the time of marriage.

AFAIK, that's not still the case; it's now the case. Like NTH said, it got changed relatively recently. The only exception to it is if you, for example, mortgage a property during the marriage, because then the debt is a marital asset.

 

[NoTalentHack]

AFAIK, that's not still the case; it's now the case. Like NTH said, it got changed relatively recently. The only exception to it is if you, for example, mortgage a property during the marriage, because then the debt is a marital asset.

Yes, this. And "recent" is relative, like about 10 years. There's a whole generation, maybe two, of men who know someone their age (at least in certain states) who got absolutely fucked in their divorce by well-meaning laws that were actually good (in the moral/social good sense of the word) for maybe five to ten years before they needed adjustment, which then took another twenty to thirty. depending on the state.

 

[gordo12]

There's a whole generation, maybe two, of men who know someone their age (at least in certain states) who got absolutely fucked in their divorce by well-meaning laws that were actually good (in the moral/social good sense of the word)

Yep!

 

[MillieDynamite]

There are instances where No-Fault, in no-fault states, isn't the end all of it. If a husband or wife commits certain crimes, buys property in his or her name and hides that from the spouse, and hides assets, and during the divorce, these things are brought to light, the man or woman can be totally fucked. A woman or man who gets in trouble with minors may have no access to the children (supervised or not). Those hidden assets and bank accounts may be forfeited to the other in their entirety or weighed toward the other.

Rare, but it happens. We call those just deserts, which usually have a mighty bitter flavor.

 

[desecration]

"Our assets will be split fifty-fifty and once Pat finishes school and turns eighteen the house will be sold and the equity split between us. So now that you know what the monetary cost of divorce is, never mind the psychological cost to your children, is that what you want to do us? I mean for me spending one weekend with another man, that's the cost you are willing to pay?"

This story strikes me as having the low-down on why no-fault divorce is insane and stupid. Reverse discrimination invites abuse just like regular discrimination.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

This story strikes me as having the low-down on why no-fault divorce is insane and stupid. Reverse discrimination invites abuse just like regular discrimination.

...reverse discrimination?

 

[desecration]

There are instances where No-Fault, in no-fault states, isn't the end all of it. If a husband or wife commits certain crimes, buys property in his or her name and hides that from the spouse, and hides assets, and during the divorce, these things are brought to light, the man or woman can be totally fucked. A woman or man who gets in trouble with minors may have no access to the children (supervised or not). Those hidden assets and bank accounts may be forfeited to the other in their entirety or weighed toward the other.

Yep, despite good intentions, it's still a court case at the end of the day.

 

[bluegreen1222]

Okay, we have the category for Loving Wives/cheating wives. Why isn't there one for men? Would INCELS find them as objectionable as the 'tuther way around? I think we generally see these in Erotic Couplings. Is that their proper place?

Come on now, I really want everyone's opinion on this.

would certainly make my life easier looking for cheating husband stories