The 50/50 asset split was probably designed in a time where 95% of women were not breadwinners. So, it was necessary to provide them with some safety in a divorce. However, today, a much higher percentage of women have jobs that are at least as lucrative as their spouses’. It is also much more possible for women to have successful careers while raising children. So, perhaps the 50/50 rule has become outdated and should be replaced with a 70/30 rule, or a hybrid rule that takes into account career earnings of each spouse and their initial assets.
^ What’s wrong with 50/50 if both are equal earners? Hmm…
agree, the 50% is outdated.
I thought the 50/50 rule was because you get 50% share…as in 1/2 of the marriage
Unless there’s three spouses divorcing from 10-people polygamy, I’m not sure how 30/70 works?
Isn’t the whole point of marriage you’re somewhat legally considered one entity? So if it splits, shouldn’t you get you/entity share?
Btw is it common in US to get cash settlement from spouse+other cheater if the spouse cheats?
There should be a line drawn when it comes to payout. Tiger Woods’ ex was a nanny. A nanny shouldn’t be worth a quarter of a billion dollars. Just like the backup dancer of a pop queen shouldn’t be worth tens of millions of dollars.
Marrying a millionaire doesn’t entitle you to have that lifestyle for the rest of your life after the union is over. Something is wrong with the law when people are asking for 200K a month in alimony or child support.
the nanny payout was just ridiculous. And that’s a terrible message to females - it promotes the fact that looks and body will get you $$$PAID$$$ and all you got to do is hang around rich guys and then try to lock them in.
The famous cheating scandal? I’m sure there’s more than just that. If he cheated then he violated the marriage contract, ergo she deserves the pre-divorce lifestyle. If it’s an amicable dissolution, then I don’t know, 50% of consolidated assets unless contribution of one party is less than x%, then 50% or $y, whichever is less?
That’s actually a good point. I din’t think of it that way. But I am sure you guys dicussed it beforehand to make sure everyone is on the same page. The “claims” I was thinking about are more of unreasonable ones: “We were married, so I am entitled to half of your income for the rest of my life”. That kind of nonsense.
PS: Sorry, originally replied to the wrong comment. Long day
Exactly! This is what I was thinking when I made my original pre-nup comment. This doesn’t apply to us, but there was the divorce case of Dmitry Rybolovlev last year. He was ordered to pay $4.8 billion to his ex-wife. I understand that they were married in college so he made his net worth after. And I’m sure she was supportive of him during that time but did she contribute that much to his business? Probably not.
Again, I’m not sure that I agree. And I think it depends on the situation.
He made ~$10b with his wife at his side. Maybe early in the marriage, she did a lot for him. Took care of the house and kids, did his laundry, cooked for him, etc., so that he could work 70 hour weeks and make money.
I’m sure that at some point in time, he started making good enough money that she didn’t have to be the sole slave in the house. I’m sure they hired some help. But without her, they would have never got there in the first place.
So what I’m saying is that, by himself, he might be worth a billion or two, but it took her help to get to $10b. And given the choice, I’d rather split 10b with my ex than have a mere $2b for myself.
(Again, a lot of this is conjecture and can’t really be proven either way. But I think most people on this forum vastly underestimate the impact that their spouse will have on their life.)
How is that not fraud/lying under oath or whatever it’s called?
Well, maybe it’s because I’m not married so I don’t understand as much.
It’s impossible her “supportive care” value was worth $8Bn.
We went with one so that we could decide some of the important issues (e.g. custody if we ended up having kids) while we still like each other. We decided that we’d rather make rational decisions now than in the heat of a divorce when you could end up making decisions just to hurth the other person.
It was a surprisingly easy conversation.
It was easy because you still like each other:) On a serious note, these are all good points. One of these days I should rethink my attitude towards this whole “prenup” concept.