That doesn't make any sense at all to me. For one thing, a divorce isn't an instant thing. If you're worried about motion in your assets over the next year, you won't be splitting them for about that long. If you're worried about a longer timeline, I don't think anyone has a good sense of what the markets will do at that distance.
The article mentioned that other NY lawyers were suggesting that wasnt the best strategy.
It sounds more like a strategy to increase her business.
Alimony and the division of assets are two separate issues. Anything you earn after separation is not subject to division from a division of assets standpoint (equitable division). To that extent, the earlier you separate, the earlier you start keeping more of your assets.
Since that is true in a bear or a bull market, her advice doesnt make sense. But, I am not a NY Lawyer (although I did spend a summer in the SDNY US Attorney's office).
It is more important to understand the possibility of how each asset's value might change in the coming years. In other words, is the house, business, or 401K value artificially high right now?
With regard to spousal support, the payor wants it decided while money is tight. The payee wants spousal support decided while the payor has lots of money.
Anything you earn after separation is not subject to division from a division of assets standpoint (equitable division). To that extent, the earlier you separate, the earlier you start keeping more of your assets.
With that caveat of "not true in all states and under all circumstances."
For one thing, a divorce isn't an instant thing.>/i>
So true. So very, very true.
Nice catch Di Kotimy! So true. Each state is different.
this is quite the "I can't operate on that boy! He's my son!" moment. AFAICS, the lawyer quoted is advising the non-paying half of the partnership and has dropped in a reference to one of her clients who is a trophy husband in order to confuse things.
Aside from being inconsistent with the headline "Dump Your Wife", and the text of the article, referring to "Wall Street clients", that explains everything!
D-squared is banned until he publishes the oft-promised "Freakonomics" post.
I think the journalist just basically didn't understand his source (and the sub who wrote the headline still less). The lawyer is cited as having acted in a high-rolling divorce case for the wife of a Wall Street banker and "my Wall Street clients" is a bit ambiguous.
I have already established that the Freakonomics post is being held hostage pending a sufficient number of my commenters writing to their MPs about Iraqi employees.
To that extent, the earlier you separate, the earlier you start keeping more of your assets.
It sounds like the safest approach is for everyone to divorce immediately.
There was an article in the Styles section a while ago about how couples are divorcing when their assets greatly increase in value, too.
Some people cannot afford to divorce or sell the house bc their debts far exceed their assets. Or they simply cannot afford to live apart. So a rise in housing value helps them pay things off.
re: 12
So the consensus is, rich people are bastards?
I can get behind that.
I think I'm beginning to understand how the dynamic works: it's very much like standard portfolio realignment. When markets are buoyant, the financial titans can afford to divorce and upgrade to younger, more desirable spouses. On the other hand, when markets sag it provides a nice opportunity to offload the current spouse on the cheap. Booms and busts are facts of life; this is really just prudent business-cycle planning.
16 - No, really what you want to do is establish hedges. When the markets are flying high, you want to lock in your profits, perhaps by writing covered calls on your trophy wife; when things are low, that's the time to buy long-term options on a saucy young co-ed in case of a market rebound.
This is probably a better place than the erection thread to mention the movie "The War of the Roses" which my sisters had me see this weekend. They loved Kathleen Turner and thought of her character as a heroine.
And obviously the entire time you should be diversifying your assets with mistresses.
19: Ahem -- I assume you meant "or misters"?
also, if you are going to argue some kinds of irreconcilable differences, lack of consortium, etc., it is smart to stop riding your wife well in advance of the actual filing date.
hard to believe she actually said something that coarse.
Weaknesses in subprime and the subsequent credit crunch have brought the Dillon-Crenna Cabana Boy Index to lows not seen since the early '90s, Di.
Cicisbeos: A professed admirer of a married woman; a dangler about women.
Per WordWeb. (Not that I'm suggesting that this is a reliable dictionary for actual speaking purposes, mind you; Merriam-Webster says "lover.")
17: you want to lock in your profits, perhaps by writing covered calls on your trophy wife; when things are low, that's the time to buy long-term options on a saucy young co-ed in case of a market rebound.
No, on the co-ed, you should sell naked puts.
Some of you might find it interesting that adultery by the low income spouse is much more problematic than adultery by the higher income spouse.
It is a bar to receiving spousal support unless you can show that it would be a manifest injustice not to award spousal support.
will (or anyone else): what's the burden of proof for infidelity? Certainly the alleged cheater must deny it in some cases, yes?
[N.B., not asking for personal reasons, you bastards.]
Stanley,
Your gf's husband can prove it with circumstantial evidence. "Stanley spent the night with wife" or "Stanley was at her house for lunch and walked out zipping up his pants and buttoning his shirt."
Then, the burden basically shifts to you to deny it convincingly under oath. "Your honor, I was teaching her yoga. We were focusing on downward dog."
long-term options on a saucy young co-ed
Isn't subservient obedience in private the relevant attribute rather than public wittiness or eye-appeal? That doesn't explain Ashton Kutcher, though.
a dangler about women
Hello? Anybody home?
22, 24: Grazi for the vocab assist!
23: Believe me, snark, I am well aware of the current low in the Cabana Boy market. Seems far worse than the early '90s, by my recollection...
26 doesn't surprise me one little bit. Money = power.
Cicisbeos: A professed admirer of a married woman; a dangler about women.
A dangler? Like a gigolo, but impotent?
Thanks, C-Ned. You've restored a little of my faith in the Unfoggedatariat.
The glasses store was closed over the weekend, so I couldn't go back to make a final decision. I'm torn between the Candies and the Vera Wangs (as are the voters).
I didn't weigh in on the other thread, but I vote for the Vera Wangs because a) they look better and b) you could say that you have a pair of Wangs. Which you might find amusing.
It is a bar to receiving spousal support unless you can show that it would be a manifest injustice not to award spousal support.
Other way around in Ireland, that is, bad marital behaviour is not a factor in dividing property or awarding support unless it would be repugnant to justice to ignore it. Mind you, you have to be separated for 4 out the last 5 years to get a divorce.
Other way around in Ireland, that is, bad marital behaviour is not a factor in dividing property or awarding support unless it would be repugnant to justice to ignore it.
This is, from what I understand, true in New York State, too. My ex bought a brownstone with his wife, who, it seems, pushed the purchase in part because she wanted big bucks in the divorce. Shortly after the sale was final, she brought her affair to light and moved in with her boyfriend. When she realized the housing boom was still on its way up, she withheld the divorce proceedings until the house had gone from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. The only protection my ex had from losing the house altogether was trying to prove that he'd made the down payment with inherited money, which is somewhat protected.
In the end, he kept the house, but she cleaned him out. I think she ended up with a $500,000 settlement.
All this made me very glad that I am poor.
That's an odd reaction. I'd still be happy to have the 2.5 million in assets.
You know that Lou Reed song "Men of Good Fortune"? I sang that under my breath for two and a half years. It was so weird to me how money shaped every emotional interaction in Max's life. He had strained relations with his wealthy father, and so was deeply relieved when he died. And his mother, who controls all the family assets, holds money over his head in return for basic affection. Max is a pretty cold motherfucker, but without the money flying around, that coldness could be evaluated as an emotional issue, not a financial one. He never knew whether he actually resented his mom for something or whether he just wanted the inheritance.
Escaping the domination of money is much more difficult than people think. Whether you have it or don't have it, it controls everything. My family was lucky to survive disagreements over an inheritance that amounted to about $20,000 per person.
Fuck, I'd fight for a $20k inheritance. All my sis and I are likely to fight about is who's going to pay mom's rent next month.
The fight was over about $3500 apiece. Several of us wanted to reduce our shares in order to keep the house in the family.
47: Sounds like you should amend the no relationships policy to include a no deaths in the family clause.
I was out of town for the glasses thread, but for those of you in the market for backup glasses, let me say that I spend $58 on two pairs of specs from optical4less.com and I couldn't be happier. Shipping free from Hong Kong with the second pair.
(OK, I could technically be happier, as neither pair looks quite as good on me as my expensive glasses. But still, way cool bargain.)
No relationships ∴ No family ∴ No deaths in the family
17:
What you really want is an Iron Butterfly Spread: Write slightly in-the-money calls on Spouse #1, and write slightly in-the-money puts on Lover #1, then, buy long out-of-the-money calls on Nubile Coed/Cabana Boy, and buy long out-of-the-money puts on Wealthy Older Admirer. Most people's lives really aren't that exciting, you see, so if the market is between the strikes on your short options at expiration (which is likely), you'll wind up with the highest return.