[FONT="]What if you owned a $100,000 (marital) home at the start of the marriage, and stocks worth $100,000 for a total net worth of $200,000. The stocks went to zero by the end of the marriage and the house was still worth $100,000 at the end. So, the net family property is $0 -- but does the other spouse still get half the marital house ($50,000) or not?[/FONT]
How is net family property calculated?
- Thread starter toby
- Start date
The net family property is $100,000 not zero.
There is way more that goes on an NFP beside just that. Cars / Bank Account / Mortgages / Loans / Cash / Stocks / Pensions
You need to completely fill out the form. There are some strange things that happens if one person's net worth is < $0. I am not familiar with them though.
OK, I am tripping on terminology. It is the net increase in net family property that is divisible by two, one half retained by spouse A and the other half awarded to spouse B.
Let's ignore the other assets which of course impact the calculation, in order focus on how the marital home is treated.
In my example, there is no increase in net family property for spouse A. The loss in the stocks offsets the value of the marital home at separation.
What I am wondering is whether spouse B gets half the value of the marital home regardless of what happens to spouse A's other assets. In other words, is the "poorer" spouse guaranteed half the value of the marital home even if the spouse who owned the house at marriage suffered losses on all other assets?
Let's ignore the other assets which of course impact the calculation, in order focus on how the marital home is treated.
In my example, there is no increase in net family property for spouse A. The loss in the stocks offsets the value of the marital home at separation.
What I am wondering is whether spouse B gets half the value of the marital home regardless of what happens to spouse A's other assets. In other words, is the "poorer" spouse guaranteed half the value of the marital home even if the spouse who owned the house at marriage suffered losses on all other assets?
DowntroddenDad
New member
OK, think of it this way. First you do the calculation without the home.
Then you split the home 50/50.
But be aware that the value of the NFP assets isn't allowed to be lower than zero.
So if you lost money elsewhere, the value of the house would still be split 50/50.
Thats my understanding.
That's why "the Law is an ass" (whoever said that was right). This special treatment of the marital home encourages the one with the house to sell it before marriage, so that s/he may include the net proceeds of sale in his or her starting assets. This way, if there is a divorce later, he or she doesn't automatically lose half the value of the home.
DowntroddenDad
New member
Everyone who loses something financially thinks the law is an ass. But the law existed before you got married.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but if a Law seems (or is) unjust, the fact that it has existed for some time doesn't make it any less unjust.
True, it's better to be aware of the laws governing divorce before marrying, to avoid unpleasant surprises if the marriage should fail later. But most people don't bone up on divorce law before proposing. There's usually too much else going on to remember this detail. So to say that the Law existed before the marriage and so don't complain if you get ambushed by the law -- in effect to say that we all should become amateur lawyers and study up before doing anything major in life -- is not realistic.
Contracts can be invalidated even where the plaintiff signed it, if the contract is deemed to be unreasonable by the court. If this law (about matrimonial homes) seems unjust, unreasonable, let's challenge it. The law will stay on the books until we do. And challenges start with people expressing their criticisms, not by accepting the law simply because it happens to exist at present.
Pant pant. End of rant.
True, it's better to be aware of the laws governing divorce before marrying, to avoid unpleasant surprises if the marriage should fail later. But most people don't bone up on divorce law before proposing. There's usually too much else going on to remember this detail. So to say that the Law existed before the marriage and so don't complain if you get ambushed by the law -- in effect to say that we all should become amateur lawyers and study up before doing anything major in life -- is not realistic.
Contracts can be invalidated even where the plaintiff signed it, if the contract is deemed to be unreasonable by the court. If this law (about matrimonial homes) seems unjust, unreasonable, let's challenge it. The law will stay on the books until we do. And challenges start with people expressing their criticisms, not by accepting the law simply because it happens to exist at present.
Pant pant. End of rant.
Helpinghands
New member
yes matrimonial home even if it was inheritance is considered property and therefore split between the two.
Not so sure. Needs to be discussed with a lawyer. With normal bequests, if the parents' Wills stipulated that the bequest was not to be considered common property, the bequest would not be subject to the rules governing division of common property.
However,the inheritance has to be kept separate, as I understand it. You would not want to put a cash inheritance into a joint bank account, for example.
So too with a house inherited from parents. If you and your spouse did not live in it, then hubby does not get half. But if you lived in it, hubby does.
Is there anyone who can explain why the matrimonial home is treated differently from all other assets? The rues do impose injustices at times.
Helpinghands
New member
yes if you live together in the house it is called "matrimonial home" and hence considered property to be split. I am sure I read that even if the house is inherited it is considered matrimonial home. however , you might be right if its stipulated in the will then its different. Best to get lawyer advise.
Rioe
Well-known member
As I understand it, it's a holdover from times when men were the breadwinners and women were housewives. The matrimonial home was often the only asset of note that the marriage had, and was often only in the man's name, so it was always divided 50-50 in divorce so that the woman would have some assets afterwards. Otherwise, women would be too frightened of economic devastation to consider divorce even in bad marriages.
It's outdated now, of course, but we're still stuck with it.