Initial settlement offer

[VIDEO: "What is parental alienation?"]

Here's what she wants:

1. Sell the house - split profits (?) so we each can find housing closer to employment opportunities and medical resources. (She already did find new housing when she abandoned the marriage in August.)

2. Each keep his/her car (They are both in my name)

3. Neither responsible for each other's debts

I purchased the house with inheritance money, which in my state is not marital property.

I put her on the deed, so it can be considered a gift.

We were only married 2.5 years.

She didn't invest in the property, taxes, water, etc.

My lawyer will provide a counter offer next week.

How did I get myself into this?

[oblivian2013]

Here's what she wants:

1. Sell the house - split profits (?) so we each can find housing closer to employment opportunities and medical resources. (She already did find new housing when she abandoned the marriage in August.)

2. Each keep his/her car (They are both in my name)

3. Neither responsible for each other's debts

I purchased the house with inheritance money, which in my state is not marital property.

I put her on the deed, so it can be considered a gift.

We were only married 2.5 years.

She didn't invest in the property, taxes, water, etc.

My lawyer will provide a counter offer next week.

How did I get myself into this?

[ForeverDad]

Split profits?  Do you mean she will let you take your original investment and then split the rest of the equity equally? Or do you mean she wants to split the entire equity equally?

I'm guessing your lawyer will respond with the first scenario in the counter offer?  (You reclaim your original investment and then split the rest of the equity equally with her.)

Once that is rejected then your lawyer can take the figures for housing expenses she didn't split with you and deduct them from what she wants?  (Sell house, deduct her portion of housing expenses during the marriage, then split the rest.)

Just wondering, was adding her to the deed your idea or hers?  I wouldn't be surprised if it was yours, most members here are of the personality type to be overly fair, overly trusting, overly whatever.

[oblivian2013]

I think putting her on the deed was my idea. I thought I was so in love... .

[maxen]

hi oblivian. i'm very sorry to hear about what you're going through.

How did I get myself into this?

Just wondering, was adding her to the deed your idea or hers?  I wouldn't be surprised if it was yours, most members here are of the personality type to be overly fair, overly trusting, overly whatever.

i certainly was!

[david]

Remember each state has their own guidelines for equitable distribution if the parties can not find their own agreement. You can google it and see what it is in your state.

1) I live in Pa. I put a large chunk of money down on our house. The state pro rates it over 20 years. After 20 years the down payment if split 50/50.

2) Didn't have this issue. Perhaps she can purchase the car from you for a reasonable price or to put it another way she can give you money to transfer the title. If she doesn't want to transfer the title you can always transfer the title to someone else. Talk to your atty about that.

3) I insisted on this and also that all retirement accounts be untouched. Whatever was in ex's name belonged to her and whatever was in my name belonged to me.

I tried to make it as simple as possible. Ex wanted to fight about the retirement accounts but my atty countered that if that happened he would request (some legal term that required a forensic accountant/ ie lots of money). Her atty talked her out of it fortunately since it would have cost her more than what she could have potentially gotten.

I found that if you stay on a reasonable path and you are forced into court you will get most of what you are seeking.

We went through equitable distribution and my ex gave her offer first. She made many false claims. However, I found that if I agreed to the false claims and followed the law of my state I actually made out much better. In fact it made my atty laugh because ex would have owed me close to $700,000 and we were not dealing with anything close to that amount. Many of the claims were ridiculous and made no sense. An example, she claimed our house was valued at three times the real rate. That gave me a larger claim of the equity. I actually wound up with a 75/25 split of the actual money. If she had told the truth it would have been closer to 60/40.

It's strictly a negotiation unless the parties can not agree and than the state makes the decision for you based on the facts they are presented with. That is why I agreed with her false claims.

[whirlpoollife]

david, what kind of false claims? Monetary or affairs like? I ask because in the next month or two I will be in the equitable distribution stage of divorce and I'm not sure if its strictly split finances or is the why of divorce is involved. I am in an equitable state. 

oblivion don't feel bad . The large down payment on our house was from my inheritance too.    Deed is in both our names because to get a loan for the rest, xtbh was the income earner ( whoa a work when I feel like it handyman) and I was unemployed at the time.  I do have a paper trail on the down payment.  Pretty sure that will be considered a gift to the marriage but it also shows I contributed to the marriage. 

[livednlearned]

The qualities that FD mentions -- being overly fair, etc. Where are you right now on that?

Because if there is any part of you that feels like giving her more than what the state guidelines are, make a therapy appointment 

2.5 years in my state would amount to nothing for her. Maybe she gets to keep a car, but that's it.

But it's different in every state, county, and varies by judge.

[david]

It was all monetary claims. She made claims that that house was 3 to 4 times more valuable than it was, that I stole everything out of our house (I had proof that she actually did) and that we had antiques worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that all belonged to her, all of her jewlery again worth lots and lots of money (she had them itemized and priced out), etc. It was two years ago and I really don't remember all the stuff. Her valuations were extremely high and way off. Since I had proof that she took everything (photos in her new residence of many of the items she claimed I had taken, receipts for a storage unit in her name where she put everything else) it was easy for me to show that she in fact had most of the things she claimed I had taken. That is why I agreed with her valuations. All I wanted was the cash and she could keep all the things. They were not worth anything near what she claimed but I saw no need to disagree with her. Her atty had to talk to her outside of the room and explain this wasn't going well for her and that my offer was more than reasonable. If we went to court I would have made an extra 8,000 to 10,000 but half that would be taken by my atty. Also, it would have taken 6 to 10 months more and I figured it was worth the 4,000 to 5,000 to get it over with right then.

[Matt]

Was her offer in writing?

I think FD and everybody are on the right trail here - "profits" should mean the increase in the value of the house during the time you owned it and were married, and it's reasonable to split that, but the part that represents your initial investment - your inheritance - you should probably get back.

I also think everybody is right to suggest finding out exactly what guidelines are used for alimony and separation of assets where you live, and make a counter-offer based on those guidelines, and then stick to that - don't give much, since if you don't agree, and a judge decides, it will probably be based on the guidelines.  You don't have to react to what she proposed, you can focus on your state's guidelines and customs - what judges there usually decide.

Also, if her "offer" wasn't in writing, you don't need to respond to it at all, except to say, "If you put that in writing we will respond to it in a timely way."  Responding to verbal offers is almost always a mistake.

[livednlearned]

Do either of you have substantial debt?

[oblivian2013]

No substantial debts on my part, about 5 thousand on my credit card since she left. Had to fix the other car, town taxes, etc.

She has student loan, vet bills, etc. Not sure of the amount... .

The offer was in writing.

My attorney's response:

My client has countered with the following:

1.) A would like the house at hit_ and to have B’s

name removed from the deed;

2.) In exchange for B’s cooperation with regard to the house, A will offer

her the car and the computers she has in her possession, both the car

and the computers being non-marital property;

3.) A would like for B to retrieve the remainder of her personal belongings

from the house in accordance with the parameters of the PFA in place; and

4.) A feels the PFA is affecting his ability to find a job and would like B to

request it be dissolved. He has made no efforts to communicate with her and has

no idea where she lives, and will continue to respect her privacy and desire to

have no communications with him.

A purchased the car prior to their marriage, and he purchased the

computers (a laptop and a desktop) from inherited funds. The vehicle’s title and

registration establish that he is the sole owner of the vehicle and that he purchased it prior

to his marriage to B.

His paper trail of deposits and receipts establishes he inherited approximately

$100,000.00 from his parents and he used some of these funds to purchase the computers.

The house was purchased for only $45,000.00 and, given both its current condition and

the state of the real estate market, it is unlikely that selling this house would yield

a profit after real estate commissions are paid, assuming that it sells at all.

The vehicle and computers, on the other hand, are worth between $6 – 8,000.00, making

this offer more attractive to B.

A’s offer of a judicial separation in lieu of a divorce remains open.

Sincerely, Esq.

Well, that's about all we can do at this point. See what happens next. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Matt]

That seems very practical and sensible.