I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state. These are two unrelated things, as you say.
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true.
Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic.
Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks.
Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.
1) OP is just straight up lying
2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him
3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum.
Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
(Never hit a million, and falling fast these days.)