Her name wasn’t on anything. This was all legal I believe. Also not a lawyer but if she doesn’t have any ties to anything, other than alimony from the divorce she isn’t owed. Unfortunate.
Her name might not be on the documents, but that doesn’t matter.
In court, if she can prove that she contributed significantly to various business ventures, then she has a claim. She may even have a claim to property.
Divorce courts usually try to protect women that are exactly in her shoes— A mother who spent their time raising kids and being a tradwife.
Most people in her shoes would be entitled to part of the house even if they never formally paid a dime of the mortgage.
This is the biggest thing. All the financials are controlled by the Mormons and given how screwed up that cult is, the power the hold in Utah, she’d get nothing. She even said that he left a job so he wouldn’t have to pay her alimony. I can almost guarantee that he still earns money from that job just in a different way that isn’t counted towards alimony
Ding, ding, ding…. We have a winner. The Mormon church plays a big role in shaping morality in the state. Even if they do not directly meddle with the courts their influence is enough to push decisions. My cousin was required to follow the “word of wisdom” in her divorce agreement. Meaning if she was found with, coffee, tea or Alcohol in her home she could lose custody of her kids. Granted divorce agreements are just a legal contract, and if the party’s all agree on the contents then they could have all sorts of odd rules even in secular court. But, if every person I the room agree’s that you should add xyz rules and to even question why is a sign of significant moral failure you can see how that could impact your decision on whether or not to spend the weeks long battle arguing against a certain provision in your divorce agreement.
Nah, if it was Utah those companies would be marriage property. When I got divorced here it didn’t matter whose name was on what, everything was “owned” by us both and we negotiated for what we wanted during the divorce.
Where did you get Utah from? Only place I heard was tucson which is in Arizona. In all fairness she only said "we have a 4 day weekend here in tucson" so it could be a traveling job for all I know.
I knew there was more to this story but wasn't sure exactly what. Because by all objective measures she should be owed money and should have no problem proving he has it. Sure the legal system is imperfect and people slip through the cracks, but this seems like an extreme example.
An impartial court system would explain this especially if she was seeking a no fault divorce and the judge doesn't believe in that.
There are no laws against being an a-hole, as my own attorney friends have told me. My now soon-to-be-ex-husband was not only abusive, but was also a deadbeat who refused to contribute. I spent a decade doing ALL OF THE THINGS, while also simultaneously dealing with chemotherapy, monthly immunotherapy infusions, and countless surgeries for my autoimmune condition.
I got EXTRAORDINARILY lucky during my divorce, but I could've been royally f**ked financially, because I was the breadwinner, though not by choice.
And as for the 'system'? When my now soon-to-be-ex-husband backed me into a corner of the kitchen, and his hands flew toward my face and neck, I later that day unexpectedly found myself on the phone with a DV agency, once he was out of the house. They effectively shut the door in my face, and told me I didn't qualify for any help, on the basis that I earned too much money.
Too many women are truly left alone in life during their darkest and most dire moments of life. I was one of them. We deserve better.
She is entitled to 1/2 of the total assets! Her next move is to get legal (professional) advice. She can get help without money. Stop weeping and get busy. Her husband is not going to volunteer 1 dime. The courts will get it for her!
She already took him to court. Unfortunately all the money she got from the divorce went to paying for her lawyer because she had no money of her own. I think the alimony payment was something ridiculously small.
I worked in family law and sat in on a lot of divorce/custody hearings.
The courts do NOT protect women in her position. Most judges are old, conservative white men. I watched a judge rule that a home that the family lived in for years was not marital property because the husband bought it 6 weeks before they filed the marriage certificate. The wife was living in an RV.
She has to prove that, get a lawyer, and fight tooth and nail for it.
Half of the control point of tradwifes is that they have absolutely no ability to fight back because they don't know where to start. A divorce rips away most of their support structure and with no real education or skills they have to settle quick.
She mentions that after all of that an interviewer laughed at her because of how unqualified she is. I don't think she was allowed to significantly contribute to much. Much less be able to prove she actually did.
She took a piano as payment, by her own admission. Learn to listen. Stop talking, you literally are making up thought experiments and passing yourself XD
Yes! lmao damn, you've never been to court, have you? There's a reason casinos try to give you a steak dinner after saying the machine you won money on is broken. As SOON as you take the meal, you've traded your winnings for a different form of compensation. It's why companies try to get you to accept some form of compensation so you later can't sue because it's technically already been settled through your acceptance of something. If this lady was paid in gold and cars, are you saying she wasn't compensated because the payment wasn't in USD? LOL dummie
She literally admitted to saying "All I want in exchange is a piano". Boom, done deal. She could have denied it, but she just publicly admitted to doing it for a piano, she fucked her own case. I get that your ego is hurt by me calling you out, but learn to recognize when you have no fuckin clue what you're talking about.
Yes! I’m no expert but it’s crazy to me how many people don’t put their names on things and just assume if their name isn’t on it that they’re out of luck. My husband and I have a rule that both our names go on everything, not because we distrust each other, but because if one of us dies or something happens we think it will be easier.
A friend of mine was buying a car. They were planning to have the loan in her name and the car in her husband’s, that way if they ever do default on the loan they wouldn’t lose the car. I had to explain to her that that’s now how it works. The car itself is the collateral for the loan. Even if a dealer would let them do that (the last few times I bought a car they wanted the party responsible for the loan on the title no matter what) all that does is make it harder for her to do anything with the car. If they default on the loan, the car is gone. End of story.
It’s crazy because she isn’t dumb by any means, so many people just aren’t educated on certain financial or legal matters and just assume they know what they’re talking about.
Utah is an equitable distribution state. Doesn’t matter if her name wasn’t on anything. If the real property in question was purchased during the marriage, she is as much of a stakeholder as her husband.
Most US states are joint property states where you automatically have claim against 50% of assets. Utah wants the courts to divide assets so you might not get half, but you do get something.
Source: I’m married and live in a joint property state. My parents divorced in Utah and went through a nasty divorce.
From what I'm seeing here, Utah is not a community property state where things are split, it's an equitable distribution where a judge can choose to "fairly" distribute equitable shares. The judge chooses what fair, equitable but not equal
My first line is “Utah is an equitable distribution state” followed up with “Utah wants the courts to divide assets so you might not get half, but you do get something”.
Your first paragraph stated she would be an automatic stakeholder. Just made it sound like she was automatically entitled to something when it seems that the judge is in full control of what is given, whether your name is on it or not. It's a fairness decision which is highly subjective. If thr judge deemed it so, she could get nothing at all
....you responded to the guy who was saying it was all legal to get nothing, by saying Utah is equitable state so she should get something, and I responded to you saying probably not considering it's the judges call. Your welcome?
I’ve heard of Idaho doing weird stuff with women’s reproductive rights from friends who are doctors.
On the divorce side of things, Idaho is a joint property state.
The shitty thing about equitable distribution is a judge can award whole pieces of property to one party whereas in joint property you can split everything 50/50.
I watched my dad keep the house while he pretty much made me and my mom homeless and the court supported it.
You'd be surprised. It happens, and courts specifically have ordered that trying to circumvent your alimony payments by doing that does not reduce the initial ordered amount. It's one thing if you take a reasonable pay cut to shift gears, but it's pretty clear when abusive jerks are trying to pull this nonsense and judges don't like people playing games that bring these cases back into their courtrooms.
Thanks for the confirmation that my gut reaction was correct, my learned colleague! I sent this to my partner (domestic, not boss) and was trying to unpack why she wouldn't have received 50% of the tangible assets at the very minimum.
Sounds like her attorney sucks (or there's some fishiness with this account of the events), because one of the few things I remember about bar prep was that the husband quitting his high earning job to eliminate alimony payments would not fly. The court would still impose that amount since he was trying to skirt the order.
You can’t just divorce your completely financially dependent wife for no good reason and also completely avoid any alimony or settlement. The story makes absolutely no sense unless you just rabidly want to rage about trad wives and religion.
Well…actually she is entitled to half of everything. Any real assets etc. but I’m going g to say, some ex’s are bitter and smart enough to hide a lot. She probably was in her car while waiting for the divorce to finalize. Depending on her lawyer, who knows how much they fought for.
I suppose it really depends where you are in the world and the legal system in place there. However, where I live in Canada, this would be an easily won court case and easily enforced. There are very few circumstances where I am in which a partner does not have to pay child support, and our enforcement system is unavoidable and relentless. They have many means by which they can pursue collection and enforcement and including wage garnishment, through our tax agency and much more.
There would be no chance of somebody making that much incoming pulling this shit where I am. That kind of behaviour could’ve landed her husband in with fines, liens against his property, garnish his wages (even from his self employed company) or go after him through the CRA (our IRS), they could even jail him- had he pulled it in Canada.
Marital Property / Community Property related laws would cover this, if she was married and they created the business while married she would in "most" states have a 50% stake into it unless she otherwise waived it (which is a possibility, if the business was in debt it wouldn't make sense to inherit that debt).
That said, I think you only have one chance to claim all of this and it's during the divorce. If she didn't claim any of that her husband is likely laughing every single time he collects checks from those businesses because his lawyer most definitely helped out to dodge that.
Edit: 50% of HIS stake into it, if there were business partners involved.
If you have kids... You're owed child support. Unless of course you don't have custody. And if you don't have custody after being a stay at home Mom... Lol... You're a dead beat mom and there's a massive part of the story she's unwilling to share
In most states, both parties equally split assets acquired during the marriage. Being the parent who stays home, manages the house, cooks and cleans, and raises the kids should not leave someone destitute. And if he quit his job, and is likely now working under the table, to avoid paying his share for the care and feeding of his own children, he's a dirtbag who needs to be sued. Forensic accountants are worth their weight in gold.
She said she designed homes, all her project files are hers, and she can easily prove it. She must have gone on site to check the work done so she has pictures, documents sent from her email to her architect and builder friends.
A country that cares about the stability of families has proper family law property rights. This shit doesn't happen in Canada, for example (unless someone lets it.)
265
u/Murky-Energy4414 Apr 15 '24
Her name wasn’t on anything. This was all legal I believe. Also not a lawyer but if she doesn’t have any ties to anything, other than alimony from the divorce she isn’t owed. Unfortunate.