Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Quick Divorce Help for Friend

J

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,790
One of the friends I posted about many months ago is getting divorced. I think she's getting a terrible deal. I'm actually quite shocked. Is the below fair/usual?? She's in FL.

They've been married 12 years. She gave up her career to raise their two young children, ages 5 and 12. He slept around with many women and has been horribly verbally and financially abusive toward her. No physical abuse. She is lovely and has never been unfaithful.

My friend is only getting 3.5 yrs of alimony in decreasing increments (??), the child support will be reviewed next summer (why??) and she is taking on half of his 30k credit card debt - which is all his and was spent on boy-toys and his girlfriends. She has to sell the house in 18 months when the oldest child finishes elementary school. The cc debt will be settled via the equity, or something. Not sure how that works.

Oh - she got the car. Big deal. Cars depreciate.

He also has a pension from about 12-15 years of work in France before they met. She can't touch it. It will be worth quite a lot by the time they're both 65. There is no mention of getting anything extra from their US assets in order to compensate for giving up a claim to that pension.

Despite all this, she seems happy with the deal. Huh??? She didn't tell me the amounts involved, but I can only think that the amount of the alimony, combined with child support, must be quite generous since she's OK with the deal. (It can't be megabucks, though - he earns 100k.)

But even if the payments are generous, she still has to move from her nice house and neighborhood where all her friends are, into a less-nice/less-safe area, and even if the payments are good, 3.5 years of alimony isn't long considering her earning power isn't anything near what it would have been, had she not had the children.

This seems like a terrible, terrible deal. Or is this what divorce is like these days?

I'm really shocked, seeing as how she did nothing wrong and he was horrific toward her. Do they not take conduct into account?

All this was decided via mediation. Was that her mistake? Would she have got a better result in court?

If this is what divorce is these days - that you can be a loyal, faithful homemaker and get completely screwed - then I wouldn't blame women for eschewing a traditional marriage and family. If this is what divorce is like, I could never recommend women give up their careers, and since they still do the lion's share of the child-raising, maybe we should all refuse to have more than one! See the legislation change then!

Sorry, I'm just really upset for my friend. She so, so did not deserve this, and I'm really concerned for her future.

And, looking forward over the next 2-3 decades, it's just a disaster. She's a nurse (before all this, did about one shift per month or more depending on snowbird demand, but obv will nurse much more regularly now) so can make a decent living but it's never going to be that much, she says she won't get remarried because she could never go through this/trust someone again, and what about her retirement and what if she gets really sick and has huge medical bills? She's lost out on some prime earning years already.

Bottom line: She's looking at a future that's significantly financially reduced because her husband turned out to be a smelly garbage rat.

It's SO UNFAIR! :angryfire:

She is sweet and lovely, and not over-confident, and although she actually did a good job of standing up to her husband, maybe she didn't stand up for herself enough in mediation?

I'm just struggling to understand how a good wife and mother of 12 years' standing could get so screwed.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding florida is a state where it doesnt matter who is at fault.
Does she have a competent lawyer?
 
I know most states and most divorces are no-fault these days, but many states also say that conduct is one of the factors taken into account by the judge. Of course, there was no judge here - it was mediation. Perhaps that was her mistake. I did read that mediation is best where couples are evenly-matched financially, and this couple isn't - he has all the earning power while she was at home with the children.

This is a no-fault divorce.

My friend has always said how competent and kick-ass her lawyer is. Well, doesn't sound like it to me!
 
Lawyers have told me that judges send couples to mediation pretty much regardless when there is any sort of dispute i.e. custody, assets, etc. It isn't usually recommended to spend a boatload of money on a lawyer for each party unless there is also a boatload of assets to divide.

What do you think she should receive, Jambalaya? All of his assets? Alimony for the rest of her life? Yes, it sucks to find out the life you thought you had/would have is over and you have to begin again, but she may just be so happy to be rid of him that the money doesn't matter as much to her. She now has a chance to be independent, be herself without being criticized, and live the life SHE wants to live without having to answer to an *******. Some of us just count our blessings and move on, I guess. Perhaps this is where your friend is at now, ready to move on.
 
I think she is just so relieved to be free of him that she agreed to all of it. I'm not sure she's thinking long-term.

I don't understand how a SAHM can walk away from 12 years and 2 kids with 3.5 years of decreasing alimony, half of his credit card debt that he ran up behind her back, and have to get out of the house in 18 months while the kids are still so young.

If she has a low income from all those years at home, and if she has none/decreasing alimony, how is she supposed to afford to live?

I was just wondering if anyone knew if this IS what divorce is like these days, or if it does seem like a bum deal?

I'm now also concerned for my other friends going through this.

It almost makes me see why women stay for the money. I know how awful and retro it is to do that, but my friend's circumstances will be so reduced and any disaster like getting cancer would tip her right over the edge, and to not even see how to afford a home...It's all very well to have principles, but principles cost money. Some people can't afford principles.

I am NOT saying that my friend should have done that. She is so happy to be free. I'm just saying that watching all these makes me understand how some women might make that trade-off.

It's very sobering. I truly thought there was more equality in the world today than for a faithful SAHP to get screwed like this. I think young women today should think very, very carefully before marrying, if this is the result. (ETA: Before marrying and giving up a career to bring up the kids.)

V. upset tonight. I was so naïve. I think I believed in some form of justice, that someone who had been treated so horribly would somehow be compensated.
 
Last edited:
But Monarch, three years of decreasing alimony? When he had an absolutely glorious time sleeping around behind her back? And she has to pay half his credit card debt?

You asked me if I think she should get everything. Do you really not see the difference between getting everything and getting the piddling amount that she got? Ever heard of a middle ground?
 
And Monarch - yeah, money doesn't matter until you can't afford a place for you and your two kids to live or you can't afford your cancer treatment.

Then - poof! - suddenly money matters like hell.

This is NOT about a money-grab. This is about her being left greatly impoverished while his earning power only goes up over the next 2 decades of earning life.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like she is taking a bum deal. But like monarch said, she may just want to be done with it, even though she is getting screwed.

I know a woman like this. She actually told me she took on his debt to be nice and to make her seem sweet to him so that he would want her back and realize his mistake. Didn't work out that way.
 
I always remember that there was a poster on here when I was lurking, and she hasn't been on in ages. So long that I can't remember her screen name. Anyway, many years ago she had had breast cancer. I think it was 18 years ago at her last post, because she had got some jewelry to celebrate getting her chest re-done, and at that point she said it had been 18 years.

So we're talking maybe 20 years or more now.

Even at those prices of 20 years ago, she said her cancer treatment cost 70K with good insurance. I think she was a teacher and had good insurance through the school or the educational district, or something.

How is my friend supposed to afford something like that when she can't save because she needs every penny to live?

It's just so unfair. She was such a good wife and mom while he was horrible. Do you know something? He wouldn't even help her fix the brake light on her car. Even though she has very meager earnings, she bought the brake light but had no idea how to fit it. He refused to help her, even though brake lights are an essential safety feature and she's driving their children round in that car.

So basically, he gets to cheat on his wife with bells on, gets to treat her like dirt in all manner of small ways like this thing with the brakelight, has said pretty much whatever he wants to her - some really disgusting things - which have resulted in her undergoing horrendous stress and panic attacks this year...and the little so-and-so gets to sail on into the future and keep pretty much all the money.

Once, he left her with $400 in their account and she had a panic attack. She couldn't even pay for any of their daughter's summer activities. Meanwhile, he's renting a luxury apt. (His decision to move out - oh, and he walked out on her and the kids TWO WEEKS BEFORE CHRISTMAS last year.)
 
Last edited:
Whitewave...wow, your poor friend.
 
Jambalaya said:
But Monarch, three years of decreasing alimony? When he had an absolutely glorious time sleeping around behind her back? And she has to pay half his credit card debt?

You asked me if I think she should get everything. Do you really not see the difference between getting everything and getting the piddling amount that she got? Ever heard of a middle ground?
Click to expand...

She IS getting the middle ground.
 
How come? She's paying half his debt, which he got into taking his girlfriends out, and after three years she will get nothing - and at some point before then, it will start decreasing anyway. So, what, 18 months of full alimony? After she gave up her career and was married 12 years? I just don't understand how she's supposed to be able to afford a place to live for her and her two very young children.

I was doing some research for her months ago, and an article I read said that although circumstances are obviously reduced in a divorce, the legal system was supposed to make sure that the circumstances of both are at least somewhat equally reduced - i.e. that one doesn't get a big lifestyle at the expense of the other. (This didn't include short marriages/no kids.)

I'm just surprised. I thought he would learn that you can't treat people like this. But apparently, men can and do get away with treating their wives like this and then walk away pretty unscathed.

What he has put her through is just so horrible.
 
Matata - thanks for the link. One of my posts above was meant to be a reply to you, but another post landed while I was writing. Didn't want you to think I'd ignored it.
 
When I got divorced I didn't even have kids and there was no alimony, I'd given up no income, our assets/income were about even so no arguments, but I thought someone who'd given up her career to raise the kids wouldn't have to worry about how to afford a home.

That's why I keep saying "Is this what divorce is these days?"
 
Several quick comments:
  • Refusing to participate in mediation may not have been an option. Think most of the Florida counties' courts require (absent unusual circumstances) the divorcing parties to try mediation before proceeding with litigation before a judge.
  • Florida lawyers aren't frozen out of the mediation process, so it's not as if she had to go it alone, without the benefit of legal counsel.
  • His pension due to his years of work before they married is not a marital asset. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was she who had a vested interest in a pension because of pre-marriage employment, would you think he is entitled to half of it?
  • Your vision of him living high on the hog with virtually no reduction in his lifestyle while she "gets nothing" after the alimony payments cease ignores his continuing obligation to pay child support. Child support payments need not be spent directly for only the kids, e.g., clothing and school lunches; rent and household expenses are among the expenses properly payable from child support monies. Additionally, child support is primarily governed by statutory guidelines and formulas & the court must approve of the child support provisions in even a mediated agreement, so I think it's safe to assume that child support payments rest on sound calculations. The fact that the agreement contemplates the current child support figure will be reviewed next summer is not necessarily the bad thing you're fearing.
You say she has had high praise for her attorney -- and that she is happy with the terms of the agreement. As someone who initiated a divorce (before 2010 when NY began to permit"no fault" divorces; it was the last state to do so), I can attest that some things were more precious to me than money -- and spending more time, energy, and $$$ balled up in divorce court -- especially because I was a mom with other concerns (most particularly, my son!). So my now-ex benefitted from a settlement offer that was more stingy than the first ones we proposed, but more generous to him than my attorney thought a judge, in all likelihood, would have ordered after a full-blown trial.

Sounds as if she may very well feel as I did. Especially if the agreement is now final, I hope you'll be able to honor her decision by not laying out for her a parade of horribles.
 
Last edited:
Laying out a parade of horribles? Molly, I have done and will do no such thing. I am not stupid. I have said nothing to her that reflects the above opinions at all, the mediation is done, except to say that I think she has a good approach and that although she envisaged being a SAHP, doing more nursing is not a bad thing because it will ensure that no one has such financial power over her again. (See the parts above about him leaving her with $400.)

I am no bull in a china shop and I am very careful what I say to people going through vulnerable and difficult situations. That's why I come here and say it instead!

Laying out for her a parade of horribles, indeed.

And about the pension, do couples in the US who have been married for at least ten years not get a share of their spouse's pension/401k, regardless of when it was earned if the marriage is more than ten years old? That was the law when I got divorced. He earned it in France, not here. If he had earned it here, she'd have got a share. It's a marital asset that she can't access only because of geography. That's not fair and she should have been compensated accordingly.

I should have been her lawyer. :angryfire:
 
Last edited:
And also, Molly, my parade of horribles may be horrible but it doesn't make them any less real. I know three people who developed cancer in their late thirties/early forties - all are dead now. Horrible but true. I have seen some VERY unexpected things happen. College friend with no family history of cancer, dead at 37 of a sarcoma. Pouf! Part of the reason I'm upset about her not getting very much is because you just have no idea what will happen in life, and this country is not a good country in which to have little money.

The issue is not whether my friend is right or wrong - I don't think of it that way. I support her in however she wants to handle it. I'm angry at the law because given the whole situation, I don't think the law has treated her fairly.

I remember when they got together. They were so in love; he adored her, and she him, and he seemed like such a nice guy. And now he won't even fix the brake light on the car she drives their kids around in. I was there when they met, I vividly remember her calling to tell me about the engagement. We were all young together and it's just sad.
 
Jambalaya, I'm sure you are a wonderfully supportive friend! The reason I expressed the cautionary hope at the end of my previous post is because your deep distress is palpable & because the subject heading, Quick Divorce Help for Friend, came across as soliciting advice as to what you should say to her. I truly am sorry that last sentence of mine seemed to be critical of you; I wasn't thinking of anything like that.

Jambalaya said:
And about the pension, do couples in the US who have been married for at least ten years not get a share of their spouse's pension/401k, regardless of when it was earned if the marriage is more than ten years old? That was the law when I got divorced. He earned it in France, not here. If he had earned it here, she'd have got a share. It's a marital asset that she can't access only because of geography. That's not fair and she should have been compensated accordingly.
Click to expand...
That's an intriguing provision in whatever state you were divorced, but that isn't true in New York: only that portion of a retirement benefit that was earned during the marriage is a marital asset & therefore included in the equitable distribution attendant to a divorce. Quickie discussion here on this page for NY government employees:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/members/divorce/dro_guide/ex-spouse_share.php
And it seems as if Florida's definition of a marital asset is the same in this regard as New York's:
https://www.myfloridalaw.com/asset-debts/dividing-retirement-plans-in-divorce/

Yes, it's undeniably sad that the rosy life-long future envisioned at the time of their engagement proved not to be the reality. And heaven knows that I'm quite aware of the financial difference between my married state and post-divorce one; there's no way that the vast majority of two households can live as the couple did when they were one household. But it certainly sounds as if she's looking forward to this new chapter of her life, and understandably so, given how much "under his thumb" she's been existing.
 
Last edited:
Just to give you some insight from the other side, when you are stuck in a marriage that is abusive in multiple ways you get to a point where you don't care if you're poor as long as you are happy. Happiness at a certain point and getting your life back is worth more to some people than money or how fair the divorce is.

There is this saying, money can always be made but time cannot. Maybe this is how she is choosing to look at it.
 
Freedom is priceless. That said, friends of ours recently got divorced and I was pretty dumbfounded by how things work out as well. At the time, in PA, you couldn’t even go before a judge for 2 years so your options were work it out, wait it out or pay a boatload of lawyer fees negotiating/arguing. I think this waiting period is one year now.

In our friends’ case, the wife ended up making a lot of concessions to avoid paying the lawyer to respond. There wasn’t much to divide but it wasn’t equitable. Like Steph said, she was just happy to be out.

I understand being angry for your friend. Here’s the perfect place to unload it.
 
I think all you can do is accept her decision and support it.
I had a friend who divorved her lawyer husband and got nothing...but their baby.
He was abusive and said he would try to take the baby if she didin’t give him the house.
She did it his way to avoid the stress of battle. Perhaps your friend feels the same way?
 
Premarital assets aren’t typically included in the division of assets during divorce here. So if you or your spouse comes into the marriage with a pension, an inheritance, or a home, these are typically excluded from the division of marital assets if people go their separate ways (because they are not marital assets - marital assets are things that you both contribute to or that were earned/purchased during the course of the marriage). Plus, in places where there is no fault divorce law, it doesn’t matter how poorly someone may have behaved - marital assets and debts (including credit card debt) are typically divided in half. It means that most people sell the house as few people can afford to buy the other person out. Alimony is relatively rare, but child support is required until the children are 18, and often until they complete university. “Being supported in the manner to which you have been accustomed to” is a bit of an antiquated notion I’m afraid, and I do think women need to consider future earning potential and issues of financial dependency carefully if making decisions to leave the workforce entirely after having children. Things happen, not just divorce, that could leave you vulnerable if you do. I have to admit that I really don’t know anyone who decided to be a SAHM. All of my friends either work full time or part time, mainly because my generation (gen x) isn’t super comfortable with being financially dependent on a spouse having seen from our parent’s generation what that really means. That said, it sounds like your friend has marketable skills. She is a nurse, and provided she didn’t give up her license to practice or fail to get enough clinical hours in to maintain her license while she was off, she should be able to find well-paid work relatively easily. Or perhaps the 3 year alimony is to give her time to get recredentialled. From what I’ve seen where I live, I’d say that it sounds like the division of assets was probably relatively equitable. There are no punitive damages in no fault divorce. I hope she is happier without him, as he sounds like a jerk, and that she and her ex will be able to be amicable co-parents for the sake of the kids.
 
I didn't read all the comments, but I am going through a divorce. I understand her friend. To be free of an emotionally abusive relationship, is a sense of relief and sanity, worth no small amount. Most states are no fault, and poor behavior and even abuse does not affect division of assets. On my side, even though it was my ex who was the cheater and the one who did not fulfill the vows (as well as other stuff I'm not getting into) because we have been married for 20 years he will be getting half my pension, half the value of the house. We are still deciding custody and how much of my retirement fund (that only I contributed to, because he never saved for retirement). The only plus is, because he was unfaithful he cannot apply for alimony.
I have have even worse stories of divorce than the one you relay. Such as my older coworker, who was a stay at home mom who had 3 children with her husband. Her husband was a DA, cheated and treated her horribly. She couldn't find anyone to represent her in her county because of his connections. She was awarded NO alimony, he was late and often skipped paying child support. She ended up put herself through nursing school and worked full time to support her children. It was incredibly hard but she did it and she has 3 wonderful children with their own families.

So really, I am not surprised at all. Be happy for your friend Jambalaya. Financially and emotionally it sucks, but she will be OK.
 
Just skimmed the latest responses as I'm off to work...thanks everyone, and especially Molly. I will read more thoroughly tonight.

About 401ks, when I got divorced they were marital assets and, crucially, valued at the date of filing. So anything put in after the filing was not a marital asset, but everything before that is. There was no sense of "Well, X amount of the 401k was earned before marriage, so this amount is marital and this amount is separate." The entire 401k was a marital asset and valued at the time of the divorce. So she's missing out with the French pension.

Also, it's an offshore asset, and other offshore assets count, so why not this.

Anyway, yes, as others have said, the relief of being free of that terrible relationship is the most important thing to her at this time. I think she is thoroughly worn out by this awful year. (He walked out two weeks before Christmas!!) I fear for her future in the long run, but perhaps she'll get promoted at work and end up with a very good salary in hospital administration or something along those lines. It's tempting to say "Oh, I'm sure she'll find someone else and marry again" but a man is not a plan!

Thanks, everyone. Y'all have pretty much answered my question as to whether this kind of settlement is the norm these days. Seems it is. There's this myth about women getting a lot in a divorce, and I think young women should be made aware that this is just a myth so they can make informed decisions about finances from a young age and the risks of giving up careers.
 
I'm not familiar with FL law but when I got divorced in MA ANY 401K, pension, etc that was accrued prior to marriage was off the table. Why should either party be entitled to the others assets accumulated prior to being wed? I 100% agree with this. Only the assets that accumulated during marriage was a 50/50 split. If your state is no fault no one cares who cheated on who, who called who what, etc. You have to step back & look at it objectively. She is not entitled to the french pension nor should she be in my opinion. The point of splitting assets in a divorce is to try to make each party whole again - as they were prior to marriage. I had a pension that rolled over to an IRA before marriage. He was entitled to 0 of that pension $$. Zero. As it should be. The house was not a 50/50 split - we each got back what we put into it & split the appreciation - again being made whole to what we were prior to marriage. I couldn't get back my career... so I found a new one. Ultimately the decision to give up mine so he could chase his was on me. I could have said no.

It's hard to be objective when you are so personally invested emotionally but I don't think your friend is getting taken here.

I don't know how much nurses make in FL but here they do VERY well especially nurse practitioners. Your friend will be fine I'm sure especially with loved ones like you looking out for her.
 
Kbell, for how long were you married? What I was describing above, regarding 401Ks, was the law only if you had been married over ten years. The thing about being put back the way you were before marriage applies, I thought, to shorter marriages/no kids.

But perhaps it's all changed since I got divorced.

Yes, she has a lot of people looking out for her because she's such a lovely person.

I need to win the lottery so I can give her a few million.

Nice fantasy!
 
I don't think it's that bad of a deal.
She doesn't work, and hasn't in (im assuming) 12 years.
She gets a home for her and the kids for 18 more months.
She gets alimony for 3.5 years to get on her feet.

They are splitting all the marital assets/debts equally.

Obviously his behaviour is disgusting, but just because someone splits up doesn't mean you should take them to the cleaners. She gets a lot of time to go back to school or look for a job.
 
It’s a shame she doesn’t live in England :( My friend got divorced recently, married 20 years +, stayed at home all that time (no kids, he didn’t want any, or her working), and she got half of everything, house, money, and his enormous pension pot.

In the beginning she said she didn’t want anything, (found out he’d never loved her, cheated constantly, just wanted someone to look after him) but I told her she couldn’t live on fresh air, especially as she was in her 60’s, and eventually she listened.

Now at least she can live decently, without worrying about her future.
 
I would say the deal is within reason--not that we know the particulars.

Alimony for a 12 year marriage is intended to give the person time to get on their feet and boost their salary. Obviously the expectation is that she will work full-time in her given field.
Yes---she may struggle financially, as many (probably most) single moms do.
There is no guarantee that her ex will behave honorably (based on his past behavior) towards her or the children. He may, or may not, continue to be employed and pay child support or alimony. It is possible that he simply disappears if he is not interested in being a parent.
As far as the debt---it is marital debt. Unfortunate and I know that frustration all too well as my ex ran up $40K in credit card debt during our divorce.

Does she have BSN? Her primary goal in the immediate future (obviously after her children) is to get the best paying full-time job she can and to upgrade her education to increase her earning power. Maybe find a job where they will pay for continuing education. Nurses with Masters can earn a very comfortable living.

I was divorced at 49 after 26 years marriage. I was awarded 5 years reviewable alimony. I had recently returned to working FT. I received a little over 12 months before ex managed to get himself terminated. I then incurred $3K in additional legal bills when he filed to halt the alimony while unemployed and reduce it when he became employed. My sons were 18 and 19 when we divorced---he has never paid for a dime of college.

She needs to do everything in her power to increase her value in the marketplace so she can provide for her children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top