|
 |
 TAKING THE MONEY AND RUNNING |
|
If you don't
own it now, don't buy it
Darrell and Laurie argued all the time about money. When they decided
to get divorced, they made an effort to stay out of the war zones and
make sensible decisions to make it as easy as possible through a trying
time. One day when Laurie got home from work, Darrell was unpacking a
new computer. Laurie blasted at him about his irresponsible spending habits
-- he had just spent the money they were going to pay to the attorney.
Darrell tried to defend himself by explaining that he was expecting to
learn new computer skills that would help him earn enough to ease their
financial situation and besides, he felt he deserved the computer to help
him through this emotionally difficult time.
Needless to say, with this additional financial burden, Laurie became
so angry that their efforts to have a friendly divorce were sabotaged.
During the divorce process is not the time to buy the new house or a new
car. This is also not the time to invest in any product or to shift investment
assets. Investments that you make during this time could have enormous
financial strings attached -- and enormous tax implications. Your property
may be divided in a different way than you thought it could be. There'll
be costs to split it up, even penalties in shifting assets from one spouse
to the other.
Unless the property division has already been decided before you make
a purchase, how do you know who is going to get which asset? Shifting
assets could create difficulty in tracking the location and ownership
of the asset, and a suspicion that someone is hiding assets.
Guerrilla warfare -- do you or don't you raid
the accounts?
This is a tricky one. There's a balance between having enough to live
on and taking money just to be vindictive. Then there's the situation
where you may just want to make sure you get what is rightfully yours
before it disappears.
Take Molly. Her husband, Daniel, walked out after years of bitter fighting.
He was the breadwinner, and she stayed home and raised their four kids.
Before he left, he gave her money each month for bills and groceries.
After he left, she didn't hear from him, nor did he leave any money for
her. She did hear from the bank. Nothing had been paid on the car or mortgage.
She borrowed from friends to feed the kids until she could borrow no more.
Molly knew it was time to hire an attorney. The first three attorneys
she called wouldn't take her case because she had no money to pay a retainer.
The moral here is that it would have been prudent for her to have taken
money from a bank account immediately when Daniel left home to allow for
such emergencies.
Then there's the opposite. Consider the case of Patricia and Ken. When
Ken left, Patricia was so angry that she went to their bank and raided
their accounts. She depleted them and moved the money to a different bank
in a different city. Now, Ken had a hard time making ends meet when he
needed cash. That point was brought out strongly in their court trial,
which prejudiced the judge against Patricia.
|
|
.gif){kind=small}
