Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
[quote]I'm assuming that Miranda would not ever mention retirement to a military spouse. I don't get that. [/quote]
I would not mention it to someone who was married for 13 months, I know that much.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
I don't believe in the way the law was crafted. Retroactive to nullify a Supreme court decision. There are so many things wrong with it. But it does exist. Although many judges do use length of marriage while on active duty, they do nto have to. A judge has total discretion, and it is not even a fightable issue. Miranda has mentioned it more than one time to people when they ask questions, and about other benefits as well. I think it is purely the length of the marriage. I do agree a very short term marriage should not automatically qualify, but it does. It does not mean it will be awarded, but it leaves it open to the judge. She would, and does mention it.
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
In the states I have lived in and dealt with it was never awarded in short term marriages. I was married almost 3, and it was not award, especially since my ex had 15 years in and separated (like a moron). I had a friend divorce in OK after 7 years and it was not awarded either, when I thought she would have gotten something. My husband was married for 2 years and no mention of it either.
I was told in OK by a lawyer that it had to vest, but military retirement never vests, so I never got that whole argument.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
OK has to be strange, I know a guy who was getting 30% disability, and the judge awarded his wife the same percentage of that, the he awarded her of his retirement. One guy in LA, he was retired, we were working in WA for a little while, he had divorced up there 10 years earlier, while on active duty. He went to visit his daughter, his ex found out, guy got served at the hotel, and was told by a lawyer in WA that he was SOL. He ended up giving her some back pay and a percentage every month.
The whole vesting thing is not even an argument, although if the divorce happens when the member is on active duty, they can seperate before they are eligible, but who knows. It is very random, not well written the way it is.
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
Here is my problem English...
I was active duty for 4 years, guard for 2 years after that. Deployed to Cuba, Saudi, and UAE. A single parent for 3 of those years. I have been married to my ADAF spouse for nearly 13 years now. I have put in some time, I have contributed, I have done my part and it really annoys me when I see/hear/meet spouses that have short term military marraiges and as soon as things go sour they cannot wait to call the first sgt./commander/Cheif demand "their share" of whatever they want and expect $$$ for nothing. It really bothers me.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3001
|
|
"demand "their share" of whatever they want and expect $$$ for nothing."
Which is why I'm not asking for his retirement. I initiated the BAH b/c I had to. I had no choice. He knew he was supposed to give it to me, but figured it was better off in his bank account.
Do you call leaving b/c of assault "nothing"? I'm not asking for equitable distribution and temp. spousal support because he is in the military, if that's what you think.
BTW, you've told me about your military experiences. Was your husband married before he met you?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"Do you call leaving b/c of assault "nothing"?"
I think she meant that it's not something to expect money for. From what I understood, the monies you're asking for don't include $$ for the abuse, as in, he abused me, he owes me $5k for that?
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3001
|
|
Okay. But it certainly is something to leave a guy for. Hence, it is not "nothing."
Maybe she means the length of marriage is nothing. But if so, I'd have to counter with the obvious: it ended quickly because of the abuse. That is why the courts take into consideration the way the parties treated each other, the reasons the marriage ended, when looking at spousal support.
So I guess his behavior does come into it. I'm not expecting to be paid for the abuse. I am expecting the court to make a decision about property and support. The abuse is part of it.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"But it certainly is something to leave a guy for. "
I don't think that was ever questioned. Only everything else lol.
"I am expecting the court to make a decision about property and support."
I guess in the end... it doesn't matte what anyone on here thinks, whether they agree or disagree with your actions... it'll be up to the judge to decide. Best of luck.
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6458
|
|
[quote]"She handled it how she handled it."
One size does not fit all. We've all made decisions that turned out not so good in hind sight. To beat someone up for not acting rationally or logically in an abusive situation is sad at best. As to what is fair and isn't fair for her to receive... too many factors I'm not familiar with for me to judge. I hope the outcome will be fair for all parties involved and will give some closure on these events, an opportunity to move on and start over. [/quote]
*****************************************************
Just to comment on that, I want to be clear that I don't thing she's wrong for not following the most well thought out course of action when she was in a panic. That's totally understandable. I am saying that I don't think she should be allowed to profit from the situation MORE because she reacted emotionally rather than logically.
I believe a short marriage after relocating and giving up a good job for love should result in a few grand to get back on your feet.....pay moving expenses, security deposit on a rental, and maybe a few months rent until you can get a new job.
If she had moved forward with the divorce process then, that's what I think she SHOULD have been entitled to. I would hope the court would have supported that. E7 has a variety of excuses, but basically......she did not make sure this was moving forward for over a year.
I don't have direct experience with this either, but my assumption is if you are married to someone who is active military during wartime, you are supposed to consider that there is more than a remote possibility that they might be deployed. I'm a master procrastinator, but I'm thinking if I wanted my marriage to be OVER, I wouldn't let things stall for that amount of time. Well, I might.......if I felt like 'something' might happen to him when deployed and I could get his life insurance and widow's benefits, BUT I think a person who wanted the marriage to be over would be more motivated to end it.
So then he gets deployed and things can't progess/she can't get temporary orders because he is deployed. In my mind, that was over a year later.....she should have already been 'settled' by then.
I don't think a few grand should turn into $50,000 because of the choices she made.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
