What's the point if it goes back into her purse?

[WolfParticipant 890]

Point Of No Return wrote:

I have a tendency to agree with this. I have a feeling I could better protect my money by getting the judge to order the sale and have the proceeds marked nonreturnable.

It doesn’t really work that way…

As Taxguy said, divorce proceedings involve spitting up the marital assets in a balance sheet whereby you both get 50%. If she wants to buy out your equity in the marital home, then there are different ways she may approach this.

She could buy you out and call it a day – you keep your money; or

She could forego her share of other marital assets which would offset/eliminate how much she has to pay you for the house; or

She could assume a higher percentage of marital debt to offset/eliminate how much she has to pay you for the house; or

Some other way of balancing the marriage balance sheet that enables her to keep the house.

After the marriage balance sheet is finalized, she may seek alimony and/or child support, if applicable. If she intends to seek alimony, she may seek a lump sum alimony payment that will help her buy out the house. If the judge grants her a lump sum alimony payment, then it would be deducted from the amount that she was originally supposed to give you for your share of the home equity. That is a common tactic which, as you stated, puts your money back in her purse. Marking your share of the house as “nonreturnable” wouldn’t clear you of the above scenario.

It’s hard to say what will ultimately happen, particularly when we don’t know all the details.

[Point Of No ReturnParticipant 4074]

The Family Courts stack it against the men. Read about the movie Divorce Corp. it’s clearly evident.

Know when it is your duty to give them zero explanations for your actions.

[Author]

Posts