Jump to content

"I took him to the cleaners"


NancyBotwin

Recommended Posts

I overheard this today. Actually, I didn't really overhear, she intentionally said it loud enough for everyone to hear..

 

"I'm moving back home. My husband got caught with his mistress, and I took him to the cleaners! He had a $900,000 retirement account, and guess who got all of it? I did! And guess who got everything else? She (the mistress) tried to tell me that he was divorced, but I didn't believe any of it. I've bought a nice new car, and a nice new home. With everything I got, I am set for life. I got it all, and she got a big sack of sh-, well, nothin!"

 

Anyway, I thought some might get a kick out of that.

Edited by NancyBotwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

good for her...you play you pay.

 

 

I have an enormous amount coming to me in CS from my ex, because he worked for cash during our post-divorce years while I scrapped and suffered and hired a lawyer to have him do right. He will not have a pot to piss in in his golden years, and it's all because he chose to avoid paying three hundred dollars a month to support his own kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I thought some might get a kick out of that.

 

I'd say he got the better deal. I'd pay anything to get rid of a nasty woman like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jennie-jennie

I'd rather live in a shed with my MM than be without him. Let the wife have the money, as long as I get the love and the man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say he got the better deal. I'd pay anything to get rid of a nasty woman like that.

Ya give nasty, ya get nasty. ;)

 

He merely got what was coming to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan
I overheard this today. Actually, I didn't really overhear, she intentionally said it loud enough for everyone to hear..

 

"I'm moving back home. My husband got caught with his mistress, and I took him to the cleaners! He had a $900,000 retirement account, and guess who got all of it? I did! And guess who got everything else? She (the mistress) tried to tell me that he was divorced, but I didn't believe any of it. I've bought a nice new car, and a nice new home. With everything I got, I am set for life. I got it all, and she got a big sack of sh-, well, nothin!"

 

Anyway, I thought some might get a kick out of that.

 

I would absolutely get a kick out of someone taking a cheater to the cleaners. Its the way it ought to be.

 

But I have a problem with the bolded part. I believe she is telling a tall tale. Unless her X willingly gave her all of his retirement, she is only entitled by law to get 1/2 while they were married.

 

that is unless he negotiated that he keeps his half another way, like keeping all the equity in a house and other assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I have to tell you - I am in the midst of divorce and admittedly fighting hard to get everything I can...but I'm impressed by one thing:

 

It is common in most states for a spouse (either one) in a marriage of 10 years or more (remember that magic #) to get 50% of a retirement account right down the middle with little negotiation. For her to have gotten ALL of it....means there was probably a LOT more that she couldnt touch. I mean, who in their right mind keeps 900 large in a retirement account??

 

But I digress. There is another reason to "take a man to the cleaners" that doesnt have a thing to do with being a greedy ex wife. Really.

 

When I married my H I did so because HE was important to me. I married him at a time of his life when he was changing careers & needed support. I married him having no real idea what the financial future held - but knew if it didnt work out for him I could pull the weight for both of us. It worked out well for him , which is a good thing because MONEY is very very important to him. I know that my particular position & support was a big factor in his choosing to marry me. I increased his odds for sucess. All that is OK, I know he loved me, we were a good team. Thing is...the MONEY was more important to him than the marriage was, than I was. He cheated continually.

 

He and the marriage were important to me. HE TOOK THAT . His money is important to him. I'M TAKING IT. All that I can. And you know what??? I DONT NEED IT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bentnotbroken

I got what I got because I earned it. The things he didn't hire someone to do, yard work, home repairs, car maintenance(within reason of course), personal shopper, party coordinator....and he didn't care about any of it or he wouldn't have given it up for his thrills. I married him when he had nothing. I began dating him when I had the car, job and the place to live. We were both in college and he only worked part time...I was glad to let him because I wanted him to succeed in his studies. I am glad to take what it mine also..which, is everything:laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is common in most states for a spouse (either one) in a marriage of 10 years or more (remember that magic #) to get 50% of a retirement account right down the middle with little negotiation. For her to have gotten ALL of it....means there was probably a LOT more that she couldnt touch. I mean, who in their right mind keeps 900 large in a retirement account??

Good question... this is almost certainly someone who has lots of assets in other places as well...

 

More generally speaking, it's common for spouses in many states to approach a property settlement by splitting the entire sum of their assets (and liabilities) right down the middle. It's not necessarily stated that each individual asset is suppoed to get split and each side takes half.

 

If she got the "entire" $900k of that retirement fund on her side of the balance sheet, plus other impressive sounding stuff, it doesn't really mean anything to me, until I see what he had on his side of the balance sheet - the $2.2M vacation home on the shore of Tahoe, say? Or his stock options that are vesting in the next couple of years?

 

So she may enjoy talking about "Getting it all" but unless you have a view of the whole balance sheet that was a result of the settlement, that's bragging that may sound cool, but doesn't mean much by itself.

 

But I have a problem with the bolded part. I believe she is telling a tall tale. Unless her X willingly gave her all of his retirement, she is only entitled by law to get 1/2 while they were married.

 

that is unless he negotiated that he keeps his half another way, like keeping all the equity in a house and other assets.

Exactly - the real story of the "division of assets" is about the bottom line, not each individual piece. And as I pointed out above, if there was $900k in one retirement fund, I bet there were a lot of other assets around to be divided up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is common in most states for a spouse (either one) in a marriage of 10 years or more (remember that magic #) to get 50% of a retirement account right down the middle with little negotiation. For her to have gotten ALL of it....means there was probably a LOT more that she couldnt touch. I mean, who in their right mind keeps 900 large in a retirement account??

 

 

Good question... this is almost certainly someone who has lots of assets in other places as well...

 

More generally speaking, it's common for spouses in many states to approach a property settlement by splitting the entire sum of their assets (and liabilities) right down the middle. It's not necessarily stated that each individual asset is suppoed to get split and each side takes half.

 

If she got the "entire" $900k of that retirement fund on her side of the balance sheet, plus other impressive sounding stuff, it doesn't really mean anything to me, until I see what he had on his side of the balance sheet - the $2.2M vacation home on the shore of Tahoe, say? Or his stock options that are vesting in the next couple of years?

 

So she may enjoy talking about "Getting it all" but unless you have a view of the whole balance sheet that was a result of the settlement, that's bragging that may sound cool, but doesn't mean much by itself.

 

The above is not necessarily true. Especially in the case of a stay-at-homer with no income of their own. They often do get FAR MORE than 50% in settlement (if they get a good lawyer). Pair that with a "Fault" state, and YES - you certainly can take them to the cleaners.

 

I bet the woman celebrating got everything just like she said. My old doctor lost his entire medical practice ownership to his W that he cheated the whole marriage while she never worked.

 

The 50% rule is not written in stone. There are always ways of getting more (or less) with creative negotiating. Maybe the man in this case had something to hide and was more than willing to lose the money to keep it hidden?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
I would absolutely get a kick out of someone taking a cheater to the cleaners. Its the way it ought to be.

 

But I have a problem with the bolded part. I believe she is telling a tall tale. Unless her X willingly gave her all of his retirement, she is only entitled by law to get 1/2 while they were married.

 

that is unless he negotiated that he keeps his half another way, like keeping all the equity in a house and other assets.

She also mentioned something later about someone having a black eye and police being called. I didn't understand it, so I didn't recall it here.

 

I got the feeling, though, that she got a payoff because she had the goods on him. Perhaps he bought her silence (everywhere but the doctor's office anyway.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The above is not necessarily true. Especially in the case of a stay-at-homer with no income of their own. They often do get FAR MORE than 50% in settlement (if they get a good lawyer). Pair that with a "Fault" state, and YES - you certainly can take them to the cleaners.

 

I bet the woman celebrating got everything just like she said. My old doctor lost his entire medical practice ownership to his W that he cheated the whole marriage while she never worked.

Fair enough - it may well not have been a "no-fault" state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In most divorce cases assets are split 50/50..But, sometimes a good private detective and a sharp lawyer can change that..

 

my 2 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%............

Love? Thats just downright gross. I don't care how bad a marriage is, it doesn't give you the right to jump right in there and pleasure someone else's spouse. And the fact that you think that you get the love and the man??? PUH-LEASE. You get the leftovers. He is MARRIED. Doesn't that mean anything to people anymore? Its women like you who make me so mad and disgusted and embarrassed to be a woman. I could and would never hurt anyone like that, I cannot comprehend how empty your life is that you would willingly hurt someone (or lots of someone's, if there are children in the picture). Get a real life and a single man.
Link to post
Share on other sites
edgeofdarkness

what is it they say, oh yea, cheats never prosper, well in this case they got that right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan
She also mentioned something later about someone having a black eye and police being called. I didn't understand it, so I didn't recall it here.

 

I got the feeling, though, that she got a payoff because she had the goods on him. Perhaps he bought her silence (everywhere but the doctor's office anyway.)

 

well legally it wouldn't matter if he hospitalized her (with the exception of paying a hospital bill).

 

now if he let her have it to keep quiet, then maybe. but still it wouldn't have just been awarded to her....her X would have had to just let her have it for one reason or another.

 

If it was left up to the court, they'd split it down the middle.

 

and if she did get it all because of something like you said, then good for her. cheaters deserve to lose everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
well legally it wouldn't matter if he hospitalized her (with the exception of paying a hospital bill).

 

now if he let her have it to keep quiet, then maybe. but still it wouldn't have just been awarded to her....her X would have had to just let her have it for one reason or another.

 

If it was left up to the court, they'd split it down the middle.

 

and if she did get it all because of something like you said, then good for her. cheaters deserve to lose everything.

Hi Dex,

We live in a fault-based state. My husband thought the WS might have had an asset he wanted to hold onto (such as a business), and gave his spouse whatever to keep it. Since we live in a fault-based state, this makes a little more sense. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Dex,

We live in a fault-based state. My husband thought the WS might have had an asset he wanted to hold onto (such as a business), and gave his spouse whatever to keep it. Since we live in a fault-based state, this makes a little more sense. :)

But doesn't that theoretical scenario support my point? If he kept something of value on his side and it was balanced out by putting something of value on her side, then they accomplished some kind of an equitable (if not necessarily numerically equal) split...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say he got the better deal. I'd pay anything to get rid of a nasty woman like that.

 

Yep...and I bet home boy had a nice little stash. I've just seen the stash part way too many times to think different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dexter Morgan
I'd say he got the better deal. I'd pay anything to get rid of a nasty woman like that.

 

her attitude wouldn't by chance have to do anything with him being a cheating SOB would it?

 

she got the money and got rid of a d!cksmoke. She wins as far as I'm concerned. And rightfully so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
But doesn't that theoretical scenario support my point? If he kept something of value on his side and it was balanced out by putting something of value on her side, then they accomplished some kind of an equitable (if not necessarily numerically equal) split...
I don't know Trimmer. She portrayed it like he paid dearly, and to me, it sounds like he did. Whatever he was left with was something she didn't want anyway. Who knows if it was equal. She felt that she made him pay, and she was happy with her settlement. Whether it was equal isn't important. That she felt she got her pound of flesh is.

 

her attitude wouldn't by chance have to do anything with him being a cheating SOB would it?

 

she got the money and got rid of a d!cksmoke. She wins as far as I'm concerned. And rightfully so.

Exactly Dexter! I posted her story because she felt like she won. She got his money and she got rid of the mess in one fell swoop.

 

I'm confused by those that think that what she did was nastier than what he did. IMO, they are not even in the same ballpark.

 

Was she supposed to just lay down and take it? Was she supposed to make it easy for him, or let him off scot-free? I don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...