I’m talking like one person brought in all the money for a decade, then a divorce happens. Some of it makes sense - a house with mortgage, one spouse buys the other out of the house. Which is great, but if one spouse doesn’t have the income to take a loan out to buy the other, does that mean that the spouse who does have the income has the choice to buy out or sell?
Similarly, things like 401ks and pensions I imagine you can’t just take out half the cash in them and give that to their spouse. Or does that have to be a loan for the amounts in those plans?
Is it debt all the way down for both?
This is actually where systems like alimony come from. If only one works, (or one makes significantly more than the other) it can kind of leave the other up the creek without a paddle.
If both parties are reasonable and working together you can do a lot to limit the damage. Focus on trying to end up with a fair and useful division instead of dividing each individual thing. It probably won’t all come out even, but if one party is willing to accept less it may make the overall division more valuable to both.
Remember that the partner without an income was probably contributing substantially in non-financial ways. (As an example, look up the cost of cleaning services.)
Consider a division based at least partially on needs instead of an even split. Who will benefit the most from getting the house? Who needs a car? Find solutions that you can both live. In the long run you will come out of it feeling better about yourselves.
I was in the same situation a long time back. We worked together, made a lot of compromises, and both came out of it in reasonable financial shape. It was difficult and sometimes painful, but I have no regrets.
I wish you the best!
A QDRO can be used to split retirement assets.
This is the stuff I’m looking for. Never heard of it before, and shows some beauty of the judicial system. Thanks!
It would usually be the case that the partner with no income had no income because they were raising children and taking care of the home so that the other partner could focus on paid work. In those circumstances, the earning partner would usually be expected to provide ongoing financial support, not just split all the existing assets.
It will always come down to circumstances, and sometimes expensive lawyers, but the financial settlement would often include the whole house if there are dependent children involved.
In terms of the house, if they aren’t able to come to any sort of agreement through consessions, and the one with the income doesn’t want the house, guess what? The house gets sold.
I got an email from my bank saying that life insurance was important for stay at home spouses, because if you had to hire for all of the stuff they do, it would run you at least 60k a year. Nanny, maid, accounting, cooking.
My boss just got divorced. Her husband never worked, got disability, did cook and drive the kids some but not at the level another working parent would have done (disability). They had lawyers and just split everything up but she also has to pay him spousal support for ten years. She keeps her 401k in this arrangement (I don’t know how much of it predates the marriage, that might be a factor) but they had to sell the house and didn’t make much on it. Thankfully her kids graduated this year and she’s gonna be ok.
I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure retirement accounts are still split (if no agreement can be reached). Half, or whatever amount is decided, gets rolled into an IRA in the other spouse’s name.
This is true. Spouse can get half of any money added to a retirement/savings account. For PA at least, don’t know if other states are different.
