> In civilised jurisdictions these rules apply to unmarried couples too. The amount of economic violence, historically, perpetrated by men over women has been huge.
I’m guessing we are talking about two different things.
I will also add that, in my circle, women are getting screwed as much by this as men, so “the worm has turned” might better be “be careful what you wish for”.
I largely have no issues with approximately equal division of assets acquired during a marriage.
The two main issues I have are:
1. Determining what counts as an asset.
2. The method of contesting anything in a contested divorce.
For 1, appreciation of any asset counts as an asset that should be divided.
If you came into a marriage with $1 million in ETFs and a $1.5m house free and clear, and those go up to $1.7m etfs and $2.5m house, spouse gets half of $1.7m asset appreciation for…. I struggle to answer this question in a way that us not “being lucky”.
Note that they do not owe half of losses if assets lose value.
Meanwhile, somehow inheritance is treated as largely untouchable money. How does that make sense?
For 2, if a divorce is not amicable, sometimes the party that feels scorned takes a scorched earth approach and basically is willing to give a ton of money to lawyers (“spouse doesn’t get it!”) while also freezing assets.
I’ve seen some very asset rich people be cash poor because their former spouse just wouldn’t let them sell anything, even when they split the proceeds. This was just nothing other than malice. Sure, you can go to court to force them to let you sell for cash, but this is just another example of a pathological aspect of our current system.
This aspect can also create complications in things like limited partnerships and other businesses in which it can be really hard to assign values to the asset and even harder divide the value of the asset without simultaneously destroying that value.
Pre-nups can help, but they largely make the outcome slightly more certain while still leaving much to be contested via litigation if the party that feels scorned chooses to do so.
I know a lot of these rules are in place because of the historical economic shenanigans that men have subjected women to, but that doesn’t mean that the system is reasonable, fair, or not pathological for certain (perhaps many or even most) cases.
>Meanwhile, somehow inheritance is treated as largely untouchable money. How does that make sense?
That depends on how one's finances are set up beforehand. There are quite a few financial instruments that are almost always untouchable. One such instrument is the irrevocable trust. In short, an irrevocable trust isn't owned by the trustee/divorcée. As a result, anything awarded from it is not subject to property division.
I’m guessing we are talking about two different things.
I will also add that, in my circle, women are getting screwed as much by this as men, so “the worm has turned” might better be “be careful what you wish for”.
I largely have no issues with approximately equal division of assets acquired during a marriage.
The two main issues I have are:
1. Determining what counts as an asset.
2. The method of contesting anything in a contested divorce.
For 1, appreciation of any asset counts as an asset that should be divided.
If you came into a marriage with $1 million in ETFs and a $1.5m house free and clear, and those go up to $1.7m etfs and $2.5m house, spouse gets half of $1.7m asset appreciation for…. I struggle to answer this question in a way that us not “being lucky”.
Note that they do not owe half of losses if assets lose value.
Meanwhile, somehow inheritance is treated as largely untouchable money. How does that make sense?
For 2, if a divorce is not amicable, sometimes the party that feels scorned takes a scorched earth approach and basically is willing to give a ton of money to lawyers (“spouse doesn’t get it!”) while also freezing assets.
I’ve seen some very asset rich people be cash poor because their former spouse just wouldn’t let them sell anything, even when they split the proceeds. This was just nothing other than malice. Sure, you can go to court to force them to let you sell for cash, but this is just another example of a pathological aspect of our current system.
This aspect can also create complications in things like limited partnerships and other businesses in which it can be really hard to assign values to the asset and even harder divide the value of the asset without simultaneously destroying that value.
Pre-nups can help, but they largely make the outcome slightly more certain while still leaving much to be contested via litigation if the party that feels scorned chooses to do so.
I know a lot of these rules are in place because of the historical economic shenanigans that men have subjected women to, but that doesn’t mean that the system is reasonable, fair, or not pathological for certain (perhaps many or even most) cases.