Hacker News Reader

Comment by DannyBee | Hacker News Reader

Depends heavily on the state (community property vs not)

They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators

Unless I'm missing something, community property doesn't affect alimony, it affects division of assets acquired during marriage (that is a community property state, generally assets acquired during marriage are treated as shared 50/50 in divorce.) Though I suppose a settlement of divorce could trade off one for the other, and having more claim on marital assets to trade could lead to higher average alimony when settlements are considered.

Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers).

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.

> 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'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 agree, i'm not aware of a state where it does (except by settlement agreement, as you say). I think i misunderstood the question. I thought they were asking whether there was a standard way alimony is calculated, and whether there is a standard way to do asset division.

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.

I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.

Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.

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.

That does suck. Ideally you should have waited a few years after you quit before initiating the divorce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com