Not a bad paycheck for 4 years....

[Guest]

Jane Lynch was married to her wife Dr. Lara Embry for just 4 years, and look at what she gets!

http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/28/jane-lynch-divorce-official-property-settlement-lara-embry-money/

 

I guess there was no prenuptial agreement. Well, I find this property settlement disgusting. I could understand maybe half of what Ms. Lynch earned during their 4 years together (or from the wedding date until the date the first divorce papers were filed, whichever is shorter) but half of everything?! Absurd and preposterous. In related news, I just got back from a medical conference, and I found out that my domestic partner of 12 1/2 years left me. Much easier than a messy divorce, though--he just took his stuff (much of which I had paid for, however), and left me staring at my house being the cleanest it's been in years. Almost as quick as that famous Arnold Schwarzenegger line from the original Total Recall: "consider this a divorce!".

[MiamiLooker]

I just got back from a medical conference, and I found out that my domestic partner of 12 1/2 years left me. Much easier than a messy divorce, though--he just took his stuff (much of which I had paid for, however), and left me staring at my house being the cleanest it's been in years. Almost as quick as that famous Arnold Schwarzenegger line from the original Total Recall: "consider this a divorce!".

 

Were you totally surprised or did you kind of expect it?

[bigvalboy]

I don't necessarily find it disgusting. On the surface, it might appear overly generous, but we don't know the particulars or the reasons the property was split.

[+ deej]

but we don't know the particulars or the reasons the property was split.

 

Yup. A star like Lynch spent years as a struggling actor, probably not making a lot. For all we know, the Dr. may have contributed most of the property that was split so she's the one getting screwed.

[+ quoththeraven]

Divorce has to do with a division of assets (and sometimes alimony, but that's usually temporary), not income. Assuming that they're domiciled in California, which is a community property state, money either spouse earned during the marriage (to the extent still on hand), items bought with money either spouse earned during the marriage, and separate property that has become so mixed with community property that it can't be identified is split 50/50. This suggests that Lynch outearned Embry by quite a bit. (Which wouldn't surprise me at all.)

 

Source: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/what-s-mine-is-mine-what-s-yours-is-mine-who-owns-what-in.html#sthash.sz75dJte.dpuf

 

No matter what the situation was, it must have come as a shock for your partner to leave without telling you. But I hope you don't live in California, because if you do and you had a state-recognized domestic partnership, the same rules regarding splitting property apply to you as would apply to a marriage. Which makes me wonder: when the law was changed to add that as a consequence of California domestic partnerships (it wasn't originally), was it too late to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement? I'm sure some lawyer(s) somewhere thought about this at the time.

 

And BVB is right -- we don't have enough details. Calling it a "settlement" suggests that it's an arrangement reached by the parties, not one ordered by the court. If that's the case, I'm sure Lynch had competent counsel representing her, in which case it was her decision to settle.

[Guest]

Were you totally surprised or did you kind of expect it?

 

I was only surprised by the way he did it (i.e. leaving without saying good-bye). He had become increasingly distant, and had mysterious absences, so I figured he was seeing someone else. In fact, I was thinking of asking him to leave. I was wise enough not to file for a formal domestic partnership with the state, otherwise, yes, I could have been on the hook for quite a bit. I just signed him up as my domestic partner with my employer so he could get health and dental benefits. I would never enter a formal domestic partnership or marriage without a prenuptial agreement stating that each person gets to take out what he put in if there's a break-up, and that's that. Even then, there's a law (I don't know if it's state or federal) which states that even a prenuptial agreement can't prevent my spouse from getting half of my 457 retirement account, so I would be hesitant to even agree to a marriage if there were a satisfactory prenuptial agreement.

[+ purplekow]

Call me old fashioned, but I would not enter a marriage with a prenuptial agreement. Either you are looking to start a life together or you are preparing to end a life together just as it is formalized. In either case, I vote for shacking up until you are sure. I guess if there is a vast difference in income and initial wealth, then a prenuptial agreement makes financial sense, but for me not emotional sense. Just consider me a Beatle and crush me like a bug and take half my billions and I will take half of your prosthetic leg collection.

[gallahadesquire]

Call me old fashioned, but I would not enter a marriage with a prenuptial agreement. Either you are looking to start a life together or you are preparing to end a life together just as it is formalized. In either case, I vote for shacking up until you are sure. I guess if there is a vast difference in income and initial wealth, then a prenuptial agreement makes financial sense, but for me not emotional sense. Just consider me a Beatle and crush me like a bug and take half my billions and I will take half of your prosthetic leg collection.

 

You're old fashioned. But getting the dog??

[Frequentflier]

Too many people stress out more about money (what they have or wish they had) than focus on their health, happiness and doing what they want so they have no regrets when their last day comes. Splitting millions in a divorce - so what! Both still have...well....millions. Sorry to admit that I've known too many people with less money than I that are happier. When all that's talked about in a divorce is money or fighting over it, people have lost focus.

 

Regardless of how much wealth we accumulated while alive, we all leave this life with the same amount in our pockets!

 

I recently changed investment advisers and realized that no matter how much I have currently or will (based on my plan) when I retire they all say I need more. "Save until it hurts". So if I spend less and contribute more for retirement I'll have x million plus. So what. I'll still have y million even if I don't contribute more and spend what I want now on trips, toys, etc. Of course people should save for retirement, health care costs then, etc., etc. but some put themselves (or let themselves be put into) a frenzy that they need to turn the thermostat down, keep the car until 200,000 miles, etc., etc. now to build a nest egg that never seems big enough. And for many when they retire they may have no teeth, diminished capacity, etc. and no way to enjoy their saved up zillions of dollars. Heck, I'd hate to be told tomorrow is my last day and I'm leaving all this money unspent. Balance...balance...balance...nothing too extreme. Do today/tomorrow what makes you happy so you'll never regret not doing so and you've not willingly wasted a moment of your life.

[Bart]

Pre-nups can cause a great deal of stress, but one thing that actually may be better served is to get a credit check on your future partner. More and more these days you are finding one of the persons coming into the relationship has huge debt or horrible credit rating. Yah, yah they tell you that will not effect you just wait until the partner is taken to court and sued and see what kind of nightmare occurs then or try to buy something than its all your shoulders and owe yeah break up and don't see if those creditors don't come after you. Even if they don't have a claim, still the hassle of putting a claim on your credit rating or taking you to court even if you win it still costs you money and time.

 

As to Frequent, you are right money causes more problems than it solves. More relationships have splits over money than infidelity or abuse, go figure. We just had our 401k annual meeting yesterday and you are right save until it hurts is true. It takes 80% of your current income to live on in retirement provided your debts are not overwhelming. Fortunately I was one of those buggers that put extra money away as soon as I started my job right out of school. While not a stunning amount that little extra $25-30 a paycheck has added an extra $6 figure amount to my overall figure and the difference between doing just okay and actually well ahead of the game. While I will be moving into that next decade that retirement will happen, I like my job and luckily if I stay healthy should be able to keep it if I want for another decade. But I do agree what is the point of saving everything if you cant enjoy it, my younger brother's death 2 years ago made me realize I want to enjoy some things now so I have rearranged some things in my life because I don't want to be the person that says "I regret I never did that. . ." My goal is No Regrets and I had fun doing it.

[Guest]

Well, it's easy to say "It's only money," but the whole point is that if my partner had been able to take half of my nest egg away, it would have a significant impact as to when I could comfortably retire. I have been working my ass off for decades, and saving the max towards retirement. My financial advisers say I can easily retire comfortably in my late 50s. At that age, I feel I should be able to travel around with ease, hike up and down mountains and hills, scuba dive, etc. Take away my nest egg, and I would be retiring in my late 60s, when my health status might be quite a bit more iffy. And I haven't even mentioned another issue important to us all, namely sexual health. The other issue I have is one of justice. I find it completely off the wall that a person who has contributed quite a bit less into a relationship should be able make off like a bandit. This does not mean that if one spouse helped another spouse get ahead in his or her career, of if the spouse helped raise a family in lieu of a career, that this wouldn't count. That certainly did not seem to be the case for the Lynch/Embry marriage, nor was it at all the case in my partnership. In fact, while he now has a fairly lucrative career, everything he has or knows is thanks to my support for him.

Of course, I agree that one can over-plan for retirement. All those ads that say you have to be prepared to live into your 90s is fine, but if I make it into my 90s, I doubt I'll be traveling all over the world, so I don't think it's necessary to count on a similar income to that which I hope to be able to enjoy in my 60s. (Although I do have a friend who was skiing in Austria well into her 90s!). Another issue about retiring late is that travel gets increasingly difficult. In most countries, for instance, one can't rent a car once one hits 70 of so.

[+ purplekow]

Frequentflier, congrats on frugality and your prosperity. If you are having trouble spending those millions let me know. I am a purplekow but I never was a cash cow, so I was never able to put the mmmmm into millions. But I am still content.

[Rudynate]

Jane Lynch was married to her wife Dr. Lara Embry for just 4 years, and look at what she gets!

http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/28/jane-lynch-divorce-official-property-settlement-lara-embry-money/

 

I guess there was no prenuptial agreement. Well, I find this property settlement disgusting. I could understand maybe half of what Ms. Lynch earned during their 4 years together (or from the wedding date until the date the first divorce papers were filed, whichever is shorter) but half of everything?! Absurd and preposterous. In related news, I just got back from a medical conference, and I found out that my domestic partner of 12 1/2 years left me. Much easier than a messy divorce, though--he just took his stuff (much of which I had paid for, however), and left me staring at my house being the cleanest it's been in years. Almost as quick as that famous Arnold Schwarzenegger line from the original Total Recall: "consider this a divorce!".

 

 

Was it "half of everything?" California is a community property state. Each party, on dissolution, is entitled to half of the community assets. Each party gets to keep his/her "separate" assets, and all assets issuing from the separate assets. Some of the assets may have started out as separate assets, but the spouses may have agreed to consider them community assets. For example, the retirement account may have started out a separate asset, but then, if after marriage, the owner of the account named her spouse as a beneficiary on the retirement account, it may have had the effect of transmuting the retirement account from a separate asset to a community asset.