Posted: 1/23/2012 4:06:50 PM EDT
|
Someone told me something today that I had some trouble believing and I'm having some difficulty researching it as well. The situation arose in a divorce settlement following a lengthy separation. The husband is seeking (and supposedly will receive) compensation in the amount of the monthly mortgage and upkeep (for a period of several years), as part of the divorce settlement, from the unemployed homemaker (from whom he seeks divorce after leaving the home to stay with another woman) for the time she lived in the marital home, with their college aged children, after he voluntarily vacated but where he continued to pay the mortgage and maintenance on the house.
Assume both names on the mortgage and a joint tenancy where the wife has no employment and no assets. Sup with that? How can you charge your wife rent? Nevermind, found my case. Le v. Le |
|
Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out.
NYS law calls for "equitable" distribution of assets, but in reality judges don't like to spend time looking at "equitable" instead they only understand "50/50"...it's a lot less work on them. Which of course, stinks if you have one spouse saving money and spending their paycheck on family needs, and the other spouse is out boozing and partying and taking trips. In NYS the "good" spouse gets screwed by the 50/50 split and the naughty spouse gets rewarded. |
|
Quoted:
Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out. NYS law calls for "equitable" distribution of assets, but in reality judges don't like to spend time looking at "equitable" instead they only understand "50/50"...it's a lot less work on them. Which of course, stinks if you have one spouse saving money and spending their paycheck on family needs, and the other spouse is out boozing and partying and taking trips. In NYS the "good" spouse gets screwed by the 50/50 split and the naughty spouse gets rewarded. You can always count on NYS to screw the good guy. |
|
Quoted: My sister was on the bad end of that. Her now deceased ex drank and gambled their wedding money as well as a lot of his paychecks. It wasn't until she got a legal separation at first that she was able separate herself from the debt collectors calling for him. In the end she wasted three years of her life, was emotionally and physically drained, and was much poorer financially.Which of course, stinks if you have one spouse saving money and spending their paycheck on family needs, and the other spouse is out boozing and partying and taking trips. In NYS the "good" spouse gets screwed by the 50/50 split and the naughty spouse gets rewarded. |
|
Quoted: Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out. NYS law calls for "equitable" distribution of assets, but in reality judges don't like to spend time looking at "equitable" instead they only understand "50/50"...it's a lot less work on them. Which of course, stinks if you have one spouse saving money and spending their paycheck on family needs, and the other spouse is out boozing and partying and taking trips. In NYS the "good" spouse gets screwed by the 50/50 split and the naughty spouse gets rewarded. In most divorces both Parties are equally naughty. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out. NYS law calls for "equitable" distribution of assets, but in reality judges don't like to spend time looking at "equitable" instead they only understand "50/50"...it's a lot less work on them. Which of course, stinks if you have one spouse saving money and spending their paycheck on family needs, and the other spouse is out boozing and partying and taking trips. In NYS the "good" spouse gets screwed by the 50/50 split and the naughty spouse gets rewarded. In most divorces both Parties are equally naughty. or at least one of them was stupid to have married the other in the first place, lol ! |
|
Quoted:
Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out. The short is that under some circumstances the person solely occupying the house during the pendancy of the divorce action might owe for 50% of the principal mortgage balance asssessed as a credit to the party paying their portion of the principal when the home is finally sold. Doesn't appear that they would owe 100% or any portion of the interest. They may also be responsible for their portion of taxes and insurance on the house. In other words, not the story I was told initially. I hate "law telephone." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Interesting- I search and read what I found on the case, but couldn't find the long, descriptive decision. Give us the short story of how it turned out. The short is that under some circumstances the person solely occupying the house during the pendancy of the divorce action might owe for 50% of the principal mortgage balance asssessed as a credit to the party paying their portion of the principal when the home is finally sold. Doesn't appear that they would owe 100% or any portion of the interest. They may also be responsible for their portion of taxes and insurance on the house. In other words, not the story I was told initially. I hate "law telephone." When I venture into divorce/family law threads (which I do altogether too often) I always caution people about this, only to be shouted down with "NO, this is EXACTLY what happened." You never get the whole story from someone, either because they (a) accidentally leave out details, (b) INTENTIONALLY leave out details (most common), and/or (c) don't really understand what happened. Now, in this case, this is probably not what happened since it's a financial matter, but a lot of dirty laundry gets aired in divorces, some of it quite embarrassing, so even the guy you've known since you were both 5 is likely to leave out details that make him look bad when telling you the story. You can never really know what someone is like behind closed doors. |
');