Adrienne Keith Wills | Attorney and Mediator
Inc.com has this article about protecting your business from divorce. It’s got some good basic information, although I wouldn’t say that Washington is really a 50-50 state…it depends on the case. The author is a certified divorce financial analyst, and it’s great to see their expertise coming into mainstream media.
This story cites newer studies, the results of which are that living together before marriage doesn’t necessarily increase the risk of divorce. The old news was that having lived together before marriage meant that a couple was more likely to split up.
The take-home lesson? “It’s couples who give into the urge to merge households without a defining vision of their future who are more likely to divorce.” Yes! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The Huffington Post has this story about a couple who is in love and who made a decision to divorce because, for this rare pair, it’s actually financially beneficial to do so.
Following a series of incredibly costly medical issues, the couple is broke. They actually declared bankruptcy even before having to pay for her breast cancer surgery and his open heart surgery. Now, with their house repeatedly refinanced, this couple is looking to be financially “creative” in a sad way.
Ms. McCurnin was married once before, for over 20 years to a man who passed away. Now, if she were to be a “single” woman, she’d become eligible for survivor benefits when she turns 60 in a couple of months. In another weird twist, once she starts receiving the benefits, she can continue to receive them even if she remarries.
There are other “benefits” to divorcing. For this couple, their taxes could be lower. Also, by being unmarried, one person’s medical debts remain his or her own, rather than being the responsibility of both people in the relationship.
Both Ms. McCurnin and her husband (Ron Bednar) have moving things to say about this. Mary McCurnin said: “It’s absurd… Having to get divorced in order to be able to eat. I have no idea why it’s like that.” And Ron Bednar said: “It makes me feel awful, to tell you the truth…It makes me sad. It really does. I believe in the marriage. I believe in the whole act of marriage, to declare that we are married in front of friends and family and God and all that. It just makes me sad to have to go through that process.” It’s a sad story, indeed.
From Florida’s Bradenton Herald, here’s a Cliff Notes version of helpful post-divorce financial planning steps. (As I update this in 2016, the original post has been taken down. Still, these are valuable points to review.)
Although the story isn’t new, I think it’s worth connecting back to a Washington Post story from December 2007 with tips for a good divorce. Here are the tips, all smart ideas and cost-effective ones:
1. Face facts.
2. But get second opinions…about your options and about the law.
3. Set the tone: Be rational and save the drama.
4. Take your time [be patient, unless there are domestic violence issues].
5. Opt out of court.
6. Keep kids out of it.
7. Don’t assume that, because there are no kids, this will be easy.
8. Confide with care, or “Try not to bad-mouth your spouse to common friends or family.”
9. Get a grip [on your emotions].
10. Be well [in other words, take care of yourself].
Because divorce is a process, and because you and your ex can be connected for years after the divorce because of kids or property, it’s worth it to plan for a good divorce because it can give you a good life after divorce.
In Washington, an important part of dividing up the assets and debts in a divorce or legal separation is first determining what’s community property and what’s not. In New York, a judge may be called on to determine what kind of property a kidney is!
As you may have already read, there’s a New York couple in the process of divorcing and the unique property issue they have is over the wife’s kidney. It was donated to her by her husband, a vascular surgeon. I can’t speculate on how the case will turn out, as I’m not familiar with the law in New York, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that the judge will give Dr. Batista the relief he’s requested: Either a return of the kidney or $1.5 million in compensation.
In Washington, the legal analysis starts with whether disputed property is separate or community. (New York is not a community property state, although I suspect they have an analogous concept, such as “martial property”.) According to the law in Washington, property is characterized by when it is acquired. To start with, then, the kidney would be considered the husband’s separate property. But then he gave it to the wife…and I bet there was a heck of a lot of paperwork involved to record the “gift”. My vote: The kidney belongs to the wife, and not in the divorce negotiations.