I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
Unless I'm missing something, community property doesn't affect alimony, it affects division of assets acquired during marriage (that is a community property state, generally assets acquired during marriage are treated as shared 50/50 in divorce.) Though I suppose a settlement of divorce could trade off one for the other, and having more claim on marital assets to trade could lead to higher average alimony when settlements are considered.
Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers).
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
> One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth.
It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
I agree, i'm not aware of a state where it does (except by settlement agreement, as you say).
I think i misunderstood the question.
I thought they were asking whether there was a standard way alimony is calculated, and whether there is a standard way to do asset division.
I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state.
These are two unrelated things, as you say.
I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.
Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
> Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
This figured for me. FAANG income, but only for a couple of years, so going to court would have burned up our entire net worth. (Lawyers and consultants are very expensive.) I was fine with mutually assured destruction for she and me, but not with the harm that would have been done to her kids, who I loved/love.
A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true.
Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic.
Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks.
Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
> Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did
Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
Yes. I should have said "unreviewable after the initial court approval".
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.
2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him
3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum.
Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
I assume he had significant income in previous years, switched jobs for whatever reason, makes significantly less, but alimony is based on past few years income. That must hurt but I think is done to protect the other person since some people might purposefully quit etc in order to have alimony be set at a lower amount, then get a new job after divorce to match what they were making previously.
They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators