Met with Lawyer yesterday and this is her advice for my mediation appointment next week.
...
1. Equalization: Two options since I have no equity to make a loan.
a) I can defer my equalization payout till I retire (13 years) age 65. However, my pension does not allow lump sum payouts. It would be paid out monthly at source and to a max ie maybe $2000 per month. It will take about 65 or so months or 5.5 years. Husband and I would be around 70 years old.
b) I can pay monthly installments with provision that lumpsums can
paydown earlier. I was looking at $1000.00/month. With my salary I can pay this off within next 10 years or earlier.
These sound fine - both ideas must include interest. Is the pension invested, meaning if you did not contribute anymore to it, does it grow in value? If so that growth should be shared until payout.
I am a little confused - is ((your pension / 2) - (total equity in home / 2)) = $130K? For example the equity in the home is $40k (20K each), and your pension is $300K ($150K each), (ie total equity is $340K, 170K each) such that you are keeping the pension and he is keeping the house and its equity so you owe him $300 - 170K = 130K??
Also, my lawyer noted that husband took $80,000 from home equity to start his business, 5 year ago. I felt pressure to sign the document with his promises to 'change our family wealth and for him to have a pension'. I made this a requirement. As it turns out, he lost everything and did not start a pension. (just found out) Lawyer says I am paying for this twice,' unequal-equalization' and should consider he lost his half, $40,000, but not my portion. His NET worth shows a "0" claiming he lost everything. Lawyer finds that odd.
That kind of logic is exactly what my former spouses' lawyer would spout and I don't agree, nor hopefully the courts.
You were married, you take chances together. The money is gone and both of you must take the hit for that. If the opposite happened and his business was a raving success and he created a pension, would you (or your lawyer) only want your $40K back? Probably not.
2. Child support - both adult children live with father in marital home.
Son, age 23, in school full-time, fourth year coming up. He does not qualify for support after his degree. Education expenses have aleady been addressed. 50% son, 25% mother, 25% father. He has a job and makes good money for a student. Owns his own car and pays for almost all his own needs. She suggests that the child support tables are not applicable here. We could come up with another reasonable figure reflecting what we really pay for such as food.
Daughter, age 19 lives at house with father. Not in school and works two part-time jobs. She again, pays her way for all her own personal needs. She is not eligible until she is in school full-time.
I was considering offering $500 per month for formal support for son/daughter. Once she decides to start school full-time, son will be finished.
Given that you are just separating, I think that the equal payments for the olders ones school is fair (rather than splitting according to income).
If you accept that the daughter should be paying for all her expenses, including rent, and encourage the father to charge rent, then CS can be 0, otherwise you should pay the table amount as he is supporting her as a child still and you agree with that.
It was suggested that should husband not be willing to accept above, I can force him to sell house and force him to wait till I retire to start receiving equalization payments.
Forcing the sale of the matrimonial home - what good would come of that ? What would be the purpose, as you owe him money.
Waiting until retirement is fine with me I think because you really can't get to the money so it seems reasonable that he has to wait as do you.
