Rawd: I never said she wasn't entitled to any value, just not the entire value since (in reality) she didn't put any money into it. Now we're talking purely monetary value right now. At most IMO she should have been entitled to a portion of the initial purchase price of the home since there were no plans to sell it off while they were married, she shouldn't have received a portion of the value HAD they sold it. IMO she was paid on the possible value of the home should they have decided to sell it.
See, the way I see things, a spouse (male or female) should not benefit by leaving over the situation had they stayed. For eg: this home. Would she have $150,000.00 in cash in HER account had she stayed? No. So, why should she reap the benefits of bailing on the relationship? She shouldn't that's why.
Now you could argue that she would have the security, knowing the house was worth $300K. But as with all things, that value is only realized when and if they sold it, and if they found a buyer, and if the market didn't crash (like it is forecast to). That's a lot of ifs......
I've used this example before: if a husband is the sole earner and supports a certain lifestyle, and the couple remains together, and he loses his job, her lifestyle is affected. If he can't get another equally lucrative paying job then they would have to adjust their lifestyle.
Now in many cases (and I know you've said you've seen alimony adjusted) the husband loses his job and has to adjust HIS lifestyle, but the wife doesn't. She keeps on getting the same amount as if he never lost his job. Again, she benefits far greater by leaving than staying in the relationship.
Now I'm of the opinion that, male or female, if you cheat during the marriage, and you don't have one of those open marriages, you get zilch. I think that if things were set up like this, people would think long and fricken hard before taking that risk. Right now, what's the downside? For the wife, nothing. She has nothing to lose. Now the husband risks losing 50% (or more) and you'd think that would be enough to think twice but as we know, it doesn't.
The funny thing is, as I read more and learn more about this whole marriage thing, it occurs to me that the very second the wife says "I do", the husband automatically and without any recourse, has given up 50% of everything he has, and ever will have, earn or accrue. Doesn't matter if the wife decides to never sleep with him again, is a crackhead, fucks every visiting hockey team, he still has lost 50%.
Now this is all based on the generalization that the husband typically earns more than the wife. I know that is changing and have only ever heard of 1 relationship where the wife earned more than the husband (personally speaking, I know they are all over the news but I know not of more than 1 in my personal life).
Now since we're talking purely monetary or material property, your idea of 'screwed' is kind of different than mine. I don't see that a wife who leaves her husband should be automatically entitled to keep the same lifestyle if that lifestyle is 100% supported by the husband.
My reasoning behind this is:
1) Would she have had that lifestyle had she not married? In most cases, no.
2) I don't know of many families where the husband demands the wife not pursue her career. I know in most cases they decide to have kids, the wife takes off her maternity leave, then the kid goes into daycare.
So, unless her career takes off, and his fails, her lifestyle wouldn't be as nice (big supposition here) as if she never married.
So no, I don't agree that she should be able to maintain the same lifestyle when divorced as when she was married. In fact, she should only have the lifestyle that she would have had had she never married. If she didn't attend college or University, if she could only hold down a job at timmies, then that's all she should have. Whether she leaves him, or he leaves her.
The same goes for the husband. He shouldn't have a lifestyle different than if he never married. This is especially true if the wife didn't work.
Now with kids, if she can't support her lifestyle on her own, and support the kids, she shouldn't be allowed to. EOS. If the husband can provide the kids with the same lifestyle because of his earnings, he should get custody. If the wife can't, then again, she shouldn't benefit by leaving.
Again, I'm not saying being a homemaker and raising the kids doesn't have ANY value, but as stated, you can get a nanny for $2000 a month (or less) so that is the MOST she should be entitled to. Then you have to reduce that income by the cost of maintaining that lifestyle, ie: taxes on the home, foot, clothing, repairs and upkeep. If the marriage is supposed to be split 50/50 (since that's what happens when she leaves) the value of the cost of living that lifestyle over x years they were married should be factored in.
For eg: $24,000 less taxes should be about $20K. If it costs $20K per year to maintain that lifestyle, her "value" per year should be reduced by her share, or $10K. So her "value" per year is $10K. Now I don't know many who could live on $10K per year, so from that, the courts should deduct a reasonable COL. Say they took a 2 week vacay in the carribean each year. A good average for two would be around $4000.00. Since hubby paid for the whole thing, her portion per year would be $2000. Therefore her "value" per year would now be $8K. Now did she buy clothes (of course she did). Did she own a car? etc etc etc.
Of course the courts don't look at this at all when determining alimony or lifestyle......
One more reason I'm SO fricken glad I never got married.......
Now if she worked fulltime? Then when determining settlement (no alimony as far as I'm concerned) it is only the value of her earnings that should determine settlement. ie: if she made 3/4 of what the husband made, then (other than personal items such as clothes) then she should only receive 3/4 of 50% of the value of the common goods (home, cottage, trailer, boat whatever).
