Being forced to work more due to a divorce

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeadCactus said:
It's not the law's fault you married someone you apparently view as a non-contributory parasite.
Click to expand...

You really are the most lost in the sauce poster on this forum. I wanna live in the world you live in. Must be wild.
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
RustedFox said:
You really are the most lost in the sauce poster on this forum. I wanna live in the world you live in. Must be wild.
Click to expand...

I'm appreciative of an imperfect six-figure job and view my marriage as a partnership. So wild. Hopefully they show up with the butterfly nets and straight jacket soon to protect me from myself.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
DeadCactus said:
I'm appreciative of an imperfect six-figure job and view my marriage as a partnership. So wild. Hopefully they show up with the butterfly nets and straight jacket soon to protect me from myself.
Click to expand...

You also are often willfully ignorant of so many ways that things conceptualized don't actually work out that way, at all, in practice.
I said what I said.
 
1703184600179.png
 
I think there is a common sense middle ground. Some contributions to a relationship aren’t financial. There are personal financial sacrifices people make in a partnership so that one half of the partnership can contribute more financially less encumbered. Alimony is a tool the courts have decided is a fair settlement. Excessive alimony is overreach.

One house. One spouse. Some don’t end up following that wise mantra. I won’t cast judgement though. I certainly empathize with those challenged by divorce. There aren’t any winners other than possibly lawyers in those situations. Try to avoid divorce if all possible. Rationally mediate if necessary. Last resort is the messiness and costs of courts and lawyers.

This thread is sad and doesn’t need to be so acrimonious. We are better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Mount Asclepius said:
I think there is a common sense middle ground. Some contributions to a relationship aren’t financial. There are personal financial sacrifices people make in a partnership so that one half of the partnership can contribute more financially less encumbered. Alimony is a tool the courts have decided is a fair settlement. Excessive alimony is overreach.

One house. One spouse. Some don’t end up following that wise mantra. I won’t cast judgement though. I certainly empathize with those challenged by divorce. There aren’t any winners other than possibly lawyers in those situations. Try to avoid divorce if all possible. Rationally mediate if necessary. Last resort is the messiness and costs of courts and lawyers.

This thread is sad and doesn’t need to be so acrimonious. We are better than that.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing for the SAHM to be made destitute. Yes, alimony is warranted in that case.

The situation referenced is one in which partner A makes the money, manages the money, cooks, cleans, does the yardwork, etc, whilst partner B contributes little financially, abuses substances, commits adultery, etc.

In the eyes of the plague of "no fault" divorce courts that make up the majority of states, it doesn't matter. It's 50/50 split of assets + alimony based on whatever factors. Cash and prizes for the perpetrator simply because the courts cannot be bothered to delve into the intricacies of a separation.

That is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
RustedFox said:
You can put "spouse" in there, if you want. Equality means: "Half the responsibility and cost, too."
Click to expand...
Resolution/synthesis to this conflict:

Equality means whatever two (or more?) people in their right minds agree that it means, if they are in a committed, honest relationship with soul in the game all around.

After living in a lot of places, I think people are honestly pretty diverse in this respect. Wife and I are in a pretty conventionally equal relationship by (eg) NYT standards.

It is fantastic that in the modern age, people have a choice in this regard, and my understanding is that this is all originally thanks to the feminist movement (and also arguably industrialization need for new labor blahblahblah).

The legal system, modern media, and others that stand to profit from conflict don't always recognize this diversity. But more important for any individual relationship on the ground is to agree on what this and many other important words mean. Very frequently, partners do not agree, and this is never a good thing long-term.
 
Last edited:
This is a good lesson to the young docs. Get that prenup! Don't give someone the power to change your retirement dream overnight and take half of everything you own and indenture you to X years of alimony servitude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The Alimony laws are insane. There should be a defined limit on length of time that alimony is paid, up to maximum of a year. That theoretically gives the non-working spouse time to find a job and/or other financial arrangements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My opinion is that the courts are far too generic when it comes to divorce. The reason for divorce should play a role in division of assets and alimony. I think anyone should be able to divorce at anytime for any reason, but if there is no justifiable reason, that should be reflected in the settlement. Likewise, if there is spousal abuse or infidelity this should also be reflected in settlements.

The fact that it is not, is why I think there is a lot of acrimony from the responses here. There is no nuance or justice in court, only the letter of the law - and there is little wisdom in law.

It’s morally appropriate to strive for justice, it just devolves into a case of “who gets to decide what’s just?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yep, alimony is ridiculous especially in certain states. I was married 1.5 years. We had no kids. My wife never worked or contributed to the marriage financially in any way and I was making 45K as a resident. I ended up having to pay something on the order of 150K if memory serves. They even tried to go after my first attending gig sign on bonus. That divorce was such a miserable experience that it put me off marriage for a very long time. Luckily, my current wife had no problem with a prenup. I just told her there wasn't any way I would approach marriage without one. I'm just not going through that again and hopefully we'll never even have to worry about it for the rest of our lives. It's so terrifying to me to think that a person has so much control over your retirement and financial future and can pull that trigger at any point during a marriage downturn.

Can you imagine being 2 years from retiring at 59 only to have half your retirement savings ripped away, probably losing your house in the process and be facing years of alimony that takes away 30-50% of your income each month? You dreamed of retiring in comfort at 59 and now you're back in the pit working overtime and hoping to retire at 70. Anyone who doesn't have a prenup and has a good relationship with their spouse should get a postnuptial while you can. It's not too late.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 6 users
Groove said:
Yep, alimony is ridiculous especially in certain states. I was married 1.5 years. We had no kids. My wife never worked or contributed to the marriage financially in any way and I was making 45K as a resident. I ended up having to pay something on the order of 150K if memory serves. They even tried to go after my first attending gig sign on bonus. That divorce was such a miserable experience that it put me off marriage for a very long time. Luckily, my current wife had no problem with a prenup. I just told her there wasn't any way I would approach marriage without one. I'm just not going through that again and hopefully we'll never even have to worry about it for the rest of our lives. It's so terrifying to me to think that a person has so much control over your retirement and financial future and can pull that trigger at any point during a marriage downturn.

Can you imagine being 2 years from retiring at 59 only to have half your retirement savings ripped away, probably losing your house in the process and be facing years of alimony that takes away 30-50% of your income each month? You dreamed of retiring in comfort at 59 and now you're back in the pit working overtime and hoping to retire at 70. Anyone who doesn't have a prenup and has a good relationship with their spouse should get a postnuptial while you can. It's not too late.
Click to expand...
Was your ex-wife working when y'all met and were dating?

I don't mean this to sound judgmental or anything, but I can't imagine being with someone who's not either actively in school or working unless it was the case where she was working but then stopped working to become a stay-at-home mom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Tipsy McStagger said:
My opinion is that the courts are far too generic when it comes to divorce. The reason for divorce should play a role in division of assets and alimony. I think anyone should be able to divorce at anytime for any reason, but if there is no justifiable reason, that should be reflected in the settlement. Likewise, if there is spousal abuse or infidelity this should also be reflected in settlements.

The fact that it is not, is why I think there is a lot of acrimony from the responses here. There is no nuance or justice in court, only the letter of the law - and there is little wisdom in law.

It’s morally appropriate to strive for justice, it just devolves into a case of “who gets to decide what’s just?”
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Not long after we got married, my in-laws gave us a large number of incredibly nice Persian rugs. I've told my wife that if she divorces me because I do something terrible, I will not fight her over those. However, if we divorce because she cheats on me I am going to court over those rugs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
VA Hopeful Dr said:
Was your ex-wife working when y'all met and were dating?

I don't mean this to sound judgmental or anything, but I can't imagine being with someone who's not either actively in school or working unless it was the case where she was working but then stopped working to become a stay-at-home mom.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I very much think a mom taking care of 2-4 kids probably deserves to stay at home as that's most definitely a full time job. In my case, she was working when we married but lost her job shortly thereafter. We probably should have divorced sooner but I didn't want to divorce someone who was jobless. She would apply for jobs that were way outside her skillset so it appeared that she was trying to find work but was always unsuccessful. I remember finding her a medical secretary job in the hospital....anything to help. She told me she'd rather shoot herself than work at a desk or something to that effect. I'd try to give her tips on her resume because it looked like she hopped jobs every few months but that was never very productive. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't perfect in that marriage but the divorce was one of the absolute worst times in my life. I was way more stressed and depressed than my malpractice case and that's saying something. Divorce truly brings out the worst in people.
 
  • Care
Reactions: 1 user
Buddy of mine is a trauma surgeon and had a nasty divorce with his stay at home wife and they had 2 kids. No prenup. You guys don't even want to know about that alimony and child support. I would have been suicidal. If memory serves, the alimony alone was like...8-10K a month for several years. That's completely separate from the child support. He was in a 2 million dollar home when it happened, paying the mortgage and frantically trying to sell it.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Sad
Reactions: 4 users
RustedFox said:
A partnership would function as a partnership. Most of the time, it ends up being: "One makes the money. The other spends the money, then complains about life being unfulfilled for one reason or another and makes demands."

That's a hard stop there.

Once upon a time, many years ago; my wife complained vociferously that we "DiDn'T eVeN hAvE a JoInT BaNk AcCoUnT."

I said: "A joint bank account would be one where we contribute in equal or proportional fashion, then make shared decisions on how to spend that money for our collective needs. NOT; one puts money in and the other spends it after browbeating the other into agreement. How much would you have put into such an account in the past several years? Zero dollars? Okay, then."

I got a silence and a blank look, like it was some granted thing that everyone just got a joint bank account when they were married and then the wife threw a big enough tantrum where she spent it as she saw fit.

She learned.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that I see financial advice articles these days that argue vociferously that each partner should have their own bank accounts, assets, etc and that those should never be commingled.

I’m not sure I agree with that all the way, but apparently it is a fairly popular line of thought these days.
 
Usually if you hide assets they all go to the other spouse

Also if your spouse cheats on you well no one cares
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Goro said:
Judges take a dim view of hiding assets.
Click to expand...
My ex brother in law actually did this very simply leading up to the divorce of my sister. He must have been planning it for awhile. He just pulled out cash from the bank and purchased gold bars/coins. He did this over about 2-3 years while he fathered a child from an affair out of state. It could never be traced. She said she remembered a bunch of gold bars/coins in their house and he simply denied it. When he divorced her, they all disappeared from the house. You couldn’t really subpoena any specific transaction or evidence. It just looked like he was a reckless and irresponsible spender. Attorneys can dig into this stuff but forensic accounting starts getting ridiculously expensive and will blow up your legal fees.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If a guy(gal) doc gets divorced, the other person should not have the same lifestyle b/c the doc will not have the same lifestyle either b/c now you have two expense of everything.
But the other person should not have to retrain and get a real job either.

As an EM doc, we make 300K+/yr creating a nice lifestyle where the spouse adds little $$$. My wife is a nurse, could easily make 100k/yr but at a big family cost and after taxes will pull in 65k/yr which is pittance over me just working another shift a month.

I would not expect her to have to get a real job to support her/kids.

There is a happy medium but requires 2 mature adults who understand an amicable divorce is better for all sides especially kids.

If we divorced and I was making 200k/yr, I think it would be very fair for me to pay the kids expenses until they get out of college just as I would pre divorce. Also fair for me to support my spouse until kids get into college. I would have to work more but that is the cost of divorce.

After college is done, wife needs to find a job and I would be happy to send 5k/month until she hits retirement.

Divorce is expensive. Don't get married unless you know what/who you are getting involved with. If they are bat crazy but married b/c they are hot, then you are buying into a bat crazy fat/lazy 40 yr old getting ready for a divorce battle. Decisions have consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Married twice, divorced once. Both SAHMs. The first was a parasite. This one is awesome. Don't ignore any red flags (particularly selfishness or being a spendthrift) in dating relationships. Any red flags? Yes, any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
emergentmd said:
If a guy(gal) doc gets divorced, the other person should not have the same lifestyle b/c the doc will not have the same lifestyle either b/c now you have two expense of everything.
But the other person should not have to retrain and get a real job either.

As an EM doc, we make 300K+/yr creating a nice lifestyle where the spouse adds little $$$. My wife is a nurse, could easily make 100k/yr but at a big family cost and after taxes will pull in 65k/yr which is pittance over me just working another shift a month.

I would not expect her to have to get a real job to support her/kids.

There is a happy medium but requires 2 mature adults who understand an amicable divorce is better for all sides especially kids.

If we divorced and I was making 200k/yr, I think it would be very fair for me to pay the kids expenses until they get out of college just as I would pre divorce. Also fair for me to support my spouse until kids get into college. I would have to work more but that is the cost of divorce.

After college is done, wife needs to find a job and I would be happy to send 5k/month until she hits retirement.

Divorce is expensive. Don't get married unless you know what/who you are getting involved with. If they are bat crazy but married b/c they are hot, then you are buying into a bat crazy fat/lazy 40 yr old getting ready for a divorce battle. Decisions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.

There's a rational middle ground for sure, but most people here can't afford or are unwilling to pay an ex spouse 60k/yr alimony until retirement. On 200k / hr? That's over 40% of your post tax income. Why should you have to pay a dime if the other person committed infidelity or other abusive actions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Old_Mil said:
Married twice, divorced once. Both SAHMs. The first was a parasite. This one is awesome. Don't ignore any red flags (particularly selfishness or being a spendthrift) in dating relationships. Any red flags? Yes, any.
Click to expand...
What are some big red flags besides the obvious ones?
 
voxveritatisetlucis said:
What are some big red flags besides the obvious ones?
Click to expand...

[Applies to both sexes]
-poor relationship with parents
-One of their parents absent while growing up
-Alcoholism, obviously
-Marijuana use
-Several dietary restrictions for seemingly no reason (dairy,gluten, etc)
-abundance of tattoos
-chronic headaches not dx as migraine
-love bombing
-difficulty w pair bonding
-difficulty seeing issues from other perspectives
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 9 users
GonnaBeADoc2222 said:
[Applies to both sexes]
-poor relationship with parents
-One of their parents absent while growing up
-Alcoholism, obviously
-Marijuana use
-Several dietary restrictions for seemingly no reason (dairy,gluten, etc)
-abundance of tattoos
-chronic headaches not dx as migraine
-love bombing
-difficulty w pair bonding
-difficulty seeing issues from other perspectives
Click to expand...

Unfortunately true, but also unfortunately omnipresent in today's society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
GonnaBeADoc2222 said:
Speak for yourself.

There's a rational middle ground for sure, but most people here can't afford or are unwilling to pay an ex spouse 60k/yr alimony until retirement. On 200k / hr? That's over 40% of your post tax income. Why should you have to pay a dime if the other person committed infidelity or other abusive actions?
Click to expand...
Well what if you are the one that was cheating or abusive?
 
rokshana said:
Well what if you are the one that was cheating or abusive?
Click to expand...

The problem with the cheating argument is that if it’s the other way around no one cares also you can be abusive such as working to much which “causes her to cheat”
 
The judge's job is not to judge who was the crappier spouse. Assuming nothing crazy, then both should take a lifestyle cut as expenses essentially 2x.

If takes home 300K after taxes, and kids activities expenses are 100K/yr. Assuming wife stayed at home, then I think it is reasonable she gets 75K and doc gets 125K. Its the penalty of getting divorced.

Obviously much more complex but bottom line is both parents need to take a lifestyle cut. Neither should have a better lifestyle or live destitute. To say the SAHM should go get a job is silly esp if doc married her knowing this or agreed that it was best to stay home with kids. To say SAHM needs to go get a job and support herself is silly esp if she sacrificed her career for the better of the family.
 
emergentmd said:
The judge's job is not to judge who was the crappier spouse. Assuming nothing crazy, then both should take a lifestyle cut as expenses essentially 2x.

If takes home 300K after taxes, and kids activities expenses are 100K/yr. Assuming wife stayed at home, then I think it is reasonable she gets 75K and doc gets 125K. Its the penalty of getting divorced.

Obviously much more complex but bottom line is both parents need to take a lifestyle cut. Neither should have a better lifestyle or live destitute. To say the SAHM should go get a job is silly esp if doc married her knowing this or agreed that it was best to stay home with kids. To say SAHM needs to go get a job and support herself is silly esp if she sacrificed her career for the better of the family.
Click to expand...
It depends, if she was there and supported you throughout med school/residency then yes. If she married you for a year while an attending, then she definitely shouldn’t get that much. Just expenses for kids
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would be surprised if the ex wife does not have a deadbeat boyfriend yet.

If you are a male physician and you are single these days, you have targets on your back. Do NOT get married without a prenup.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Prenups are essentially if you go into a marriage with alot of $$$. But if you are a doc with little assets, get married, then prenups appears useless as wealth was accumulated together.

If you bring a bunch of money in, get an ironclad prenup/trust, etc.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Brigade4Radiant said:
His lawyer says that he has a case where a doctor had to pay alimony on a tune to 18k a month due to the three best years of income out of nine years

He says he will try to argue against it
Click to expand...
That is absurd.

Did he make > 1 mil each of those years?
 
emergentmd said:
The judge's job is not to judge who was the crappier spouse. Assuming nothing crazy, then both should take a lifestyle cut as expenses essentially 2x.

If takes home 300K after taxes, and kids activities expenses are 100K/yr. Assuming wife stayed at home, then I think it is reasonable she gets 75K and doc gets 125K. Its the penalty of getting divorced.

Obviously much more complex but bottom line is both parents need to take a lifestyle cut. Neither should have a better lifestyle or live destitute. To say the SAHM should go get a job is silly esp if doc married her knowing this or agreed that it was best to stay home with kids. To say SAHM needs to go get a job and support herself is silly esp if she sacrificed her career for the better of the family.
Click to expand...

1) what kids activities are 100k/year lol

2) why can't the SAHM go out and get a job? The penalty for divorce, as you say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
GonnaBeADoc2222 said:
1) what kids activities are 100k/year lol

2) why can't the SAHM go out and get a job? The penalty for divorce, as you say.
Click to expand...
Right I’m not understanding why the working spouse now has to figure out watching the kids or finding childcare half the time and has to do all their own housework but still has to pay for the spouse to have the pre divorce standard of living. I could see giving the stay at home parent some help for a year or two depending on the duration of the marriage, but of course they should get a job and be working towards supporting themselves.

Personally my husband and I do have a prenup and about the only thing it specifies is that he would not receive alimony if we got divorced. He was almost 40 when we got married and is perfectly capable of supporting himself. Over the years we have made sure he maintains all of his licenses and certifications so if he needed to he could jump back into FT work. But I would not just give him half my salary indefinitely if we were to divorce, and he knows that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
CoolDoc1729 said:
Right I’m not understanding why the working spouse now has to figure out watching the kids or finding childcare half the time and has to do all their own housework but still has to pay for the spouse to have the pre divorce standard of living. I could see giving the stay at home parent some help for a year or two depending on the duration of the marriage, but of course they should get a job and be working towards supporting themselves.

Personally my husband and I do have a prenup and about the only thing it specifies is that he would not receive alimony if we got divorced. He was almost 40 when we got married and is perfectly capable of supporting himself. Over the years we have made sure he maintains all of his licenses and certifications so if he needed to he could jump back into FT work. But I would not just give him half my salary indefinitely if we were to divorce, and he knows that.
Click to expand...
Right?!

Why tf does the other spouse have to maintain the other spouse’s lifestyle?

The idea that so many people here are totally ok with throwing huge amounts of money ($5k/month!) to an ex spouse for alimony just strikes me as nuts. Also note that most of the people saying this aren’t actually divorced - this is all hypothetical to them.

Trust me, guys, if you ever actually have to do this bull crap your tune will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
dozitgetchahi said:
Right?!

Why tf does the other spouse have to maintain the other spouse’s lifestyle?

The idea that so many people here are totally ok with throwing huge amounts of money ($5k/month!) to an ex spouse for alimony just strikes me as nuts. Also note that most of the people saying this aren’t actually divorced - this is all hypothetical to them.

Trust me, guys, if you ever actually have to do this bull crap your tune will change.
Click to expand...

It's gynocentric philosophy. If it were a SAHD the response would be "be a man!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I’ll ask a question. What exactly is the point of marriage anyway? What benefit does it offer in this day and age? I’m married and happy (I’m hoping it stays that way, we seem to be growing well together), but I honestly don’t see the point of marriage these days. Tax breaks? If my wife and I had decided not to get married but stay together and exclusive, our relationship would be no different.

If you are a high earner, male or female, what benefit does marriage offer you that just living with someone (assuming no common law) and being an exclusive “life partner” doesn’t offer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Tipsy McStagger said:
I’ll ask a question. What exactly is the point of marriage anyway? What benefit does it offer in this day and age? I’m married and happy (I’m hoping it stays that way, we seem to be growing well together), but I honestly don’t see the point of marriage these days. Tax breaks? If my wife and I had decided not to get married but stay together and exclusive, our relationship would be no different.

If you are a high earner, male or female, what benefit does marriage offer you that just living with someone (assuming no common law) and being an exclusive “life partner” doesn’t offer?
Click to expand...

I feel the same way.
The government shouldn't have any role here.
It just makes it difficult and expensive to "break-up".
Have a cousin in CA who has precisely the arrangement that you describe.
He's way smarter than I am.
 
Tipsy McStagger said:
I’ll ask a question. What exactly is the point of marriage anyway? What benefit does it offer in this day and age? I’m married and happy (I’m hoping it stays that way, we seem to be growing well together), but I honestly don’t see the point of marriage these days. Tax breaks? If my wife and I had decided not to get married but stay together and exclusive, our relationship would be no different.

If you are a high earner, male or female, what benefit does marriage offer you that just living with someone (assuming no common law) and being an exclusive “life partner” doesn’t offer?
Click to expand...

As someone who is not very pro marriage:

-ability to get health insurance if one partner goes 1099 or cannot work

-maybe cleaner estate planning

-cleaner laws regarding assets: for instance I think I'd rather have a prenup and have my house ownership governed under that rather than some weird amalgamation of real estate and civil law if I were to co-own a house w an unmarried partner

-more well defined paternity laws?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Darth Revan93
Reapplicant told will not be ranked at new program due to funding issue?
Replies
6
Views
972
CajunMedic
CajunMedic
han14tra
Deciding on where to work
Replies
22
Views
2K
trackrunner321
T
Birdstrike
Yale M.D. says all doctors should be forced to wear BODYCAMS because of racist “medial violence” against patients she personally witnessed by ED staff
2 3
Replies
135
Views
9K
dozitgetchahi
D
EctopicFetus
Match list due soon be careful
2 3
Replies
134
Views
9K
EctopicFetus
EctopicFetus
WitchDoctor
Advice needed: starting work as 1099, what do I need to do?
Replies
21
Views
3K
PianoMedic
PianoMedic
Top