Divorce settlement alternatives?

[Scanner]

I was wondering if the forum wouldn't address a sensitive subject for me.

Has anyone done any kind of "non-traditional" divorce settlements and had it work out nicely (well as "nicely" as any divorce can work out)?

Typical divorce settlements result in a 50/50 split of assets (maybe weighted a little more one or the other). . .child suport +/- alimony and that's where we are headed but I am trying to do a "collaborative divorce" with my soon-to-be-x. Slowly she is thawing on the idea.

Has anyone done something "alternative" with their ex and it worked well?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I knew someone who gave up alimony for a paid for home. No idea if it was a good idea or not.

[FrugalTexan75]

My brother and his ex-wife worked everything out without any attorneys. Of course, they didn't have any children, so it wasn't too complicated.

My mom and dad also worked it out between themselves. (the second time at least - they were divorced once when I was 11, and then remarried two years later.)

Both my dad and my brother had the philosophy of letting the ex wives have pretty much whatever material items they wanted. Basically, if it can be replaced with a check, why fight over it?

[MonkeyMama]

I was going to throw out the idea of a "collaborative divorce." Which apparently you are on that track. I have heard great things about the process.

You still get the legal advice (the legalities can be a minefield) and someone "on your side." But far more flexible and affordable. More working together than fighting. Good Luck!

[Broken Arrow]

Legally, you can pretty much have any kind of arrangement you would like so long as both party agrees to it in writing.

For example, my ex-wife pushed for full custody of the kids, full ownership of the house, full ownership of the family car, and of course, full child support. If I had agreed to that and signed for it in her initial separation agreement, then that would be the legal, binding term, regardless of state laws.

Thinking back, I still chuckle at that bit of personal history because my divorce lawyer pointed out that with joint custody and our assets split 50/50, she actually owed ME money for alimony and child support!

In other words, she wanted me to reward her with large sums of money to commit adultery, leave me, and worst of all, relinquish all my legal rights as a father. Absolutely ridiculous! Looking back, I can't believe she even had the gall to ask for such a thing.

Given my state laws, I could have cleaned her out the same way she tried to clean me out, and even put down the legal hurt on the cheating boyfriend. BUT.... For some inexplicable reason, my sense of fairness kicked in. I don't know why. She hurt me, and here I am trying to be fair and kind....

So, I only fought for 50/50 asset split, joint custody, and rather than expecting her to pay alimony, I waived it if she would agree to waive any presents and future rights to child support, regardless of situation. (And let me emphasize again that she owed ME money. But knowing the kind of person I'm dealing with, I felt that it was good enough if we agree not to owe each other anything. She jumped on it immediately, but to add insult to injury, insisted that I also waive any rights to pursue legal actions against any "3rd parties involved". She really pissed me off with that. After all, she had no leverage whatsoever, tried to clean me out, and despite me giving her a more than fair deal, she still had the audacity to ask for more. But I agreed to it. Again... trying to be fair and give both of us a "clean slate".)

I'm sorry, I'm rambling. The bottom line is I did what our state would consider as a "collaborative divorce" where we tweaked the state default rules to come up with our own separation and divorce agreement. This is basically the only way to get certain things on your own term. Yeah, you can go to court over it too, but while a judge will listen to you, the final decision rests with him or her.

However, you're obviously going to need a divorce lawyer.

[Scanner]

BA,

It's okay to ramble. . .I am interested and it's hard to not ramble when you are giving details of a divorce. And oh yeah, I have an attorney and the best thing I do is pay for advice. I am meeting with him again in 2 weeks post-mediation.

Mediation was definitely worth it in my opinion as you sort of get a bastardized "negotiator" and an "arbritrator" all in one to come up with how perhaps a court would rule on it - so it's a "creative equitable settlement" and "legal opinion."

However, mediation is not the same as colloborative divorce. I tired to convince her of that. . .but she said it was too far to travel to a firm that specialized in it (whether we needed a firm that specialized or not is debatable).

What I am trying to avoid is if I get my cut (about 38% of the house based on mediation), she's really going to hurt and it will hurt hte kids, although she can swallow her pride and ask her parents (but I am trying to avoid that too, I feel we should be able to work it out). I am willing to delay my cut in 2 ways.

1. Retain 38% ownership and when the market is better, sell then and take my distribution then. I'll gain on appreciation and we are at a good spot on the amortization fo the mortage (paying down prinicipal now)

2. Take an interest payment of 2-4%/year on my 38% so I don't have "lost opportunity". I would then remove myself as owner and mortgagee.

In exchange, all I was asking for was access to the house to parent the kids 4 days/month. It's much easier to parent them at their home where they have their friends, their toys, a swimming pool, etc.

And she could buzz off for those 4 days (2 weekends on average - maybe 1 weekend and 2 weekdays).

But that's entirely unacceptable to her. . .like your ex (edited out - "like you"), she wants her cake and to eat it too so she kind of forces me to play the heavy - I'll just take my 38% and be on my way then. She then gets mad I am sitting on all that liquid money.

What I am learning is there are a million ways to work it out, but only if the other party is willing to collaborate with you.

[Broken Arrow]

In an odd way, I did luck out in that my ex committed adultery, and there are legal penalties in our state against that. She didn't realize that at first, and fought me bitterly to grab everything I had... But once she did find out about that legal tidbit, she was willing to play ball in almost any way so long as I didn't press charges against her boyfriend. It was very sickening to me that she felt that way. But, that's life I guess.

Anyway, good luck.

[Scanner]

I am sorry that happened to your relationship, BA. Luckily there was really no infidelity on either of our parts. . .couple little phone calls here or there, some emailing, but when there was full disclosure, it was really nothing (could have evolved that way, I suppose). I suppose I was being flirty too with co-workers. But we never crossed that boundary, at least as far as I know.

There are no financial penalties for adultery in NJ, although it's grounds for divorce. But it doesn't land you any more or less money. It's a no-fault state. In fact, we are both purseing "irreconciable differences" as the grounds. In fact, my attorney advised me that I am free to sleep with the Dallas Cheerleaders and she's free to sleep with the NY Yankees if I or her wants.

Just doesn't matter and the courts don't give a rats ass about our drama - just like Judge Judy - "I don't care."

I actually have a great book for "Defensive football" that I would absolutely recommend to any man going thru a divorce - just p.m. me and I'll provide a link. Worth every penny.

But that being said, that's only a "defensive plan". Right now, I am trying to move towards a "diplomatic solution" and be creative so she doesn't have to re-fi and be hurt too much. It does me no good selfishly if she's ruined and teetering. And beyond selfishly, I don't want her financially hurt. I think we will eventually be friends but it's hard to get her to entertain alternatives to traditional divorce (split assets and move on). I can understand her perspective though - she doesn't want me around in her life, in her house. . .I can dig it and I would limit it and probably not need it as much as the years go on. I just kinda need the kids environment now and would even pay above and beyond child support for that premium.

[Broken Arrow]

Remind me not to move to New Jersey.

I think if people wanted to ever consider a more open relationship, they shouldn't marry then.

I rather like our state laws. It exists because too many guys were cheating on their wives, running off with their mistresses, then leaving the women and their children to fend for themselves with little to no legal or financial consequences. With these laws, it gives the estranged party additional teeth to draw financial compensation, especially for those with children.

Of course, the way the laws are stated, it is gender-neutral, so they were able to apply to me as well. But enough about my political views.

Personally, we did opt for the "clean and easy" route. That is, we both agreed to sell the house and the family car, and split the proceeds 50/50. This did occur when the housing market was still peaking, so we lucked out and made a small profit. But it did make life a lot easier for the both of us that way....

I suppose it also couldn't be helped. One day, she just unexpectedly moved out, taking whatever she wanted, and left the rest littered all over the house. She sent me one email stating that she moved out, and that I need to clean the house and get it ready to sell on the market. No details on where the children are. Just, get to work BA. That was probably the darkest month of my life, doing nothing else but coming home from work, cleaning all night even scrubbing toilets, and then sleeping there with an old mattress, listening to the eerie silence knowing that my family is gone.

Yeah, rambling again. Bitter memories. I don't know. To me, it would have been a lot worse by trying to keep the house.

[lovcom]

I was wondering if the forum wouldn't address a sensitive subject for me.

Has anyone done any kind of "non-traditional" divorce settlements and had it work out nicely (well as "nicely" as any divorce can work out)?

Typical divorce settlements result in a 50/50 split of assets (maybe weighted a little more one or the other). . .child suport +/- alimony and that's where we are headed but I am trying to do a "collaborative divorce" with my soon-to-be-x. Slowly she is thawing on the idea.

Has anyone done something "alternative" with their ex and it worked well?

Whatever you do, get the agreement in writing and entered into the court.

There is no such thing as a nice divorce.

"nice", "good", "wonderful", "equitable" agreements can never be sustained for long unless the agreement is entered into a court order, because otherwise the agreement will only be good until the next fight, or disagreement.

Your ex may be nice, understanding, etc, but that is just a facade. He/She is not, and they are thinking about thier own interests, even as they put a good face on it.

Get it in writing and reviewed by an attorney, and entered into a court order.

People change. Entered orders don't.

[lovcom]

Legally, you can pretty much have any kind of arrangement you would like so long as both party agrees to it in writing.

For example, my ex-wife pushed for full custody of the kids, full ownership of the house, full ownership of the family car, and of course, full child support. If I had agreed to that and signed for it in her initial separation agreement, then that would be the legal, binding term, regardless of state laws.

Thinking back, I still chuckle at that bit of personal history because my divorce lawyer pointed out that with joint custody and our assets split 50/50, she actually owed ME money for alimony and child support!

In other words, she wanted me to reward her with large sums of money to commit adultery, leave me, and worst of all, relinquish all my legal rights as a father. Absolutely ridiculous! Looking back, I can't believe she even had the gall to ask for such a thing.

Given my state laws, I could have cleaned her out the same way she tried to clean me out, and even put down the legal hurt on the cheating boyfriend. BUT.... For some inexplicable reason, my sense of fairness kicked in. I don't know why. She hurt me, and here I am trying to be fair and kind....

So, I only fought for 50/50 asset split, joint custody, and rather than expecting her to pay alimony, I waived it if she would agree to waive any presents and future rights to child support, regardless of situation. (And let me emphasize again that she owed ME money. But knowing the kind of person I'm dealing with, I felt that it was good enough if we agree not to owe each other anything. She jumped on it immediately, but to add insult to injury, insisted that I also waive any rights to pursue legal actions against any "3rd parties involved". She really pissed me off with that. After all, she had no leverage whatsoever, tried to clean me out, and despite me giving her a more than fair deal, she still had the audacity to ask for more. But I agreed to it. Again... trying to be fair and give both of us a "clean slate".)

I'm sorry, I'm rambling. The bottom line is I did what our state would consider as a "collaborative divorce" where we tweaked the state default rules to come up with our own separation and divorce agreement. This is basically the only way to get certain things on your own term. Yeah, you can go to court over it too, but while a judge will listen to you, the final decision rests with him or her.

However, you're obviously going to need a divorce lawyer.

No state allows you to waive child support, no not one.

So how did you do this?

Regardless of what the contract says, child support is ALWAYS chanagable buy either party or unilaterally by the judge, and this is true for all states.

[lovcom]

BA,

It's okay to ramble. . .I am interested and it's hard to not ramble when you are giving details of a divorce. And oh yeah, I have an attorney and the best thing I do is pay for advice. I am meeting with him again in 2 weeks post-mediation.

Mediation was definitely worth it in my opinion as you sort of get a bastardized "negotiator" and an "arbritrator" all in one to come up with how perhaps a court would rule on it - so it's a "creative equitable settlement" and "legal opinion."

However, mediation is not the same as colloborative divorce. I tired to convince her of that. . .but she said it was too far to travel to a firm that specialized in it (whether we needed a firm that specialized or not is debatable).

What I am trying to avoid is if I get my cut (about 38% of the house based on mediation), she's really going to hurt and it will hurt hte kids, although she can swallow her pride and ask her parents (but I am trying to avoid that too, I feel we should be able to work it out). I am willing to delay my cut in 2 ways.

1. Retain 38% ownership and when the market is better, sell then and take my distribution then. I'll gain on appreciation and we are at a good spot on the amortization fo the mortage (paying down prinicipal now)

2. Take an interest payment of 2-4%/year on my 38% so I don't have "lost opportunity". I would then remove myself as owner and mortgagee.

In exchange, all I was asking for was access to the house to parent the kids 4 days/month. It's much easier to parent them at their home where they have their friends, their toys, a swimming pool, etc.

And she could buzz off for those 4 days (2 weekends on average - maybe 1 weekend and 2 weekdays).

But that's entirely unacceptable to her. . .like your ex (edited out - "like you"), she wants her cake and to eat it too so she kind of forces me to play the heavy - I'll just take my 38% and be on my way then. She then gets mad I am sitting on all that liquid money.

What I am learning is there are a million ways to work it out, but only if the other party is willing to collaborate with you.

You want to parent your children just 4 days a month?

What a self-serving, selfish man you are!!! If you were a good father, you'd INSIST on parenting the children at the very least 15 days a month. They deserve better then just 4 days, and it seems you want it that way because it is more convenient for you, and would cost you a lot less money...what a selfish boy you are!

I INSISTED on at the very least 15 days a month shen I divorced the mother of my two little girls, and it would have been a lot more fun, easy, and convenient if she just took them most of the time, but unlike you, I thought of the little girls FIRST and FOREMOST and so I had them at my place 15 days a month.

You disgust me, as a man.

[Broken Arrow]

No state allows you to waive child support, no not one.

So how did you do this?

Bottom line, I owed her a little bit of child support and she owed me alimony. The numbers roughly even out, give or take $60. She agreed to waive child support so long as I waived my alimony... and agreed not to sue the boyfriend she had an affair with.

Child support can be waived if both parties consent.

[lovcom]

BA, and in what state?

[Broken Arrow]

lovcom, I think you are being extremely judgmental. No two marriages are the same, and it's even more so with divorces.

My ex owed me child support, and when I finally came asking for it, her response was that she wanted "more time with the children". I was just about to go to court over that when my oldest son came to me and told me that the kids agree it would be best to stay with mom more often.

I asked him why, and he said that they do miss having her around, even with her issues, and moreover, to quote my son, "I know you'll be fine on your own, dad. But mom needs me. I have to take care of her. That's why I've decided to stay with her, not because I care more about her than you or anything."

I grilled him some more and asked the kids to be absolutely sure if that's what they want. They still nodded. So... that's what I went with. Child custody is suppose to be the toughest and messiest part of divorce. But, ironically, it was dead simple for me.

But in the end, I agree that we do have to do what is best for the children. I certainly didn't want this reduced arrangement. In fact, I could have fought for it in court, and get more child support money from her in the process. But I didn't, because that would have been what I wanted and not what the kids wanted.

Anyways, today, the kids and I get along great!