Divorce, why is it so complicated when most people don't have much?

Because one side is usually entitled and wants at least half when they didn't earn at least half of the assets. Typical.

how much of her 401k does he get?

I met a guy he said he was married 3 times. He lost 3 houses, 6 cars, 3 boats, 225 acres in land, 1.3 million additional dollars and his dignity. He told me he wished he just gambled it all on one spin on red. At least that way he could have doubled his money instead of losing it all. Damn.

If the guy you met managed to double his assets through gambling, then he would have to report all of it on his sworn financial disclosures (SFS) to the court during the divorce process, so I’m not sure how/why it would benefit him. It sounds like he’s wishing he was a gambler and he’s wishing he lied to the courts if he won or that he wishes his ex wife got half his winnings because he’d have what he had from his own successes pre gambling winnings instead of ending up totally broke? i understand some sleazy spouses try to hide/understate assets on the sworn financials

It's about ego and entitlement. Of course it gets more complicated when kids are involved.

If you are in the right state you might be able to divorce just on your own at the county clerks office. Mine was just that. Some paperwork, one meeting and that was it.

He was primary breadwinner and she raised the kids and didn't go into the workforce until the kids were school age.

401ks are considered marital property and are to be split through a qualified domestic relations order.

Go talk to a family law attorney as all depends on the state. I remember in some states (not legal advice) the portion of the 401(k) pre marital is separate property

Since you are only hearing her side of situation, maybe there is more she is leaving out. Like maybe he doesn’t have cash to buy out her half of house. Would be easiest if they sold 5he house and then just spilt the dollars.

It's complicated for several reasons.

First, at least in my state, it's not split "50/50", it's split "equitably" - which is open to interpretation. Equitably might mean 50/50 in one person's opinion and 75/25 in another's.

Second, assets acquired prior to marriage are not split - they belong to the original owner. So if some of the money in that 401k or house predates the marriage - that amount of money PLUS any money made off that money belongs to the original owner. It can be VERY complicated to split up a 401k.

I went through this in my own divorce, although we were able to figure it out without lawyering up. My ex wanted to sell our house and split the proceeds and also split the 401k in half - similar to your friend. However, it costs tens of thousands in fees to sell a house, and many thousands to split a 401k, because it requires complicated accounting. I thought this was a waste of money.

I wanted to keep the house and live in it (only about 80k in equity in the house) and let him keep the 401k (120k). Money-wise he came out on top with my strategy, but he didn't want to do this because he wanted the immediate cash from the sale of the house. Eventually he saw my point of view.

I was surpised how even "simple" divorces can be quite complicated.

I'm guessing kids makes divorce a lot more complicated. Arguing over how much access each parent gets.

It's funny how people try to normalize divorce when in fact it's merely an utter failure on the part of both parties. Could also traumatize children if they're involved with adverse childhood experiences that impact quality of life. They also broke your vows. You're not true to your word on top of the other transgressions from one party or both during the marriage. People can't take the responsibility on an L the vast majority of the time. I'd actually have immense respect for anyone taking accountability for the L in a failed marriage. But you know most of these matriages are already destined to fail the day they happen. It's just a soap opera of cringe ready to unfold.

High earning women get screwed too.

washingtonian.com

More and More Women Are Paying Alimony to Failure-to-Launch Ex-Husbands. And They’re Really, Really Not Happy About It.

Jessica M. Goldstein

Her husband was supposed to be looking for a job. He’d promised her over and over: “I’ll work on my résumé, I’ll set up the informational interviews, I’ll reach out to my contacts.” Instead, he sat on her couch and watched ma...

Open link

Pride

Your friend sounds a lot like you - a real winner!

Yes that's why he's my friend we have a lot in common although I have not been married or divorced as of yet but I did recently purchase a ring on a whim.

Sh*tcoin gamblers unite?

Simple divorces are complicated because emotions are involved. A 3rd party can see very clearly how it needs to play out. But the two that are getting a divorce are rarely thinking rationally. Instead, they have anger, jealousy and if the marriage has been a disaster, it is likely that they can't talk to each other without fighting. When emotions get involved common sense goes out the window. Lawyers love this because they are paid big bucks to be mediators between two immature children.

The house was purchased when they were and married and probably 99% of the 401k was contributed to during their marriage. It just seems like this is just a math problem.

The house is worth X, the 401k is worth Y, therefore you give me Z and the divorce is done. Everybody goes their separate ways.

It does make it less complicated but neither the house or the 401k are liquid assets, and therefore difficult to split. Also, if one party wants to sell the house but the other wants to continue living in it, it gets complicated. Or if one person takes the house (X) and the other takes the 401k (Y) one will owe the other Z - but what if they don't have Z in cash - then they have to refi the house or do an early withdrawal of the 401k. Again, complicated.