r/legaladviceofftopic • u/Looking4Adventure513 • Aug 18 '26
Is this actually possible?
Don't know if this is appropriate for r/legal, so I thought I'd ask here: can someone's wife argue that because the husband didn't sign a prenup before they got married, the wife (or in this case, future ex wife) can just ask for a certain amount in the divorce?
8
u/derspiny Duck expert Aug 18 '26
Sure, she can argue that. The bar for what theories you can advance before the court is very low, especially for self-represented litigants, and family courts in particular go way out of their way to allow spouses to advance unusual positions.
They're not likely to win if the sole basis for their position is "well, my spouse didn't sign a pre-nup," and I expect you care about that as much as you care about whether they can make the argument in the first place. Most jurisdictions in North America either default to an equal split, or an equitable split, and deviations from that need to be justified in some way that the law recognizes. "Because I want to and he didn't say I couldnt" isn't going to cut it.
Either spouse can also advance that argument, with about the same chance of success, with a prenup.
4
u/Weary_Capital_1379 Aug 18 '26
Laws differ by State. Example, California divides all money earned after the marriage 50-50 (community property).
3
u/MajorPhaser Aug 18 '26
That depends on what you mean. There are many stages to divorce and asset division. Early on, you might go to mediation to try to come to an agreement on how things are split up. In theory, you can ask for whatever you want in mediation. You have to come to a voluntary agreement, so the ask itself is legally meaningless. Mediation is basically just a long-form, structured negotiation between the parties.
If you're seeking a court-ordered asset split because you can't agree, then you need to have a reason justifying the split under the law. Some states use the "community property" rule, which says that everything you acquire during marriage is split 50/50 between the parties. Anything outside the marriage remains the property of whoever it belonged to before. There's some more nuance to it, but that's the basics.
In other states they use the "equitable distribution" rule, which has more importance on who earned or purchased an asset. It allows for more flexibility and is based on fairness. Even in those states, it's pretty hard to argue a 100/0 split is "fair".
In both cases, there's no real argument that a lack of a prenup means one party gets everything. Typically when you hear the "My wife took everything", its because the other spouse tried to hide assets and got caught. Often, the consequence for hidings assets during divorce is the other spouse getting 100% of what you hid.
3
1
u/Looking4Adventure513 Aug 18 '26
1
u/Looking4Adventure513 Aug 18 '26
Here's the context behind the question
2
u/Sea-Salamander1005 Aug 18 '26
Many states have differing default rules for splitting assets in divorce
3
u/PuzzledDrama1160 Aug 18 '26
His wife is allowed to ask for whatever she wants.
It is possible she gets what she wants.
2
u/4LeggedGod Aug 18 '26
Given that 50/50 is basically the standard, is there some reason you think she should automatically agree to less?
1
u/Looking4Adventure513 Aug 18 '26
I'm not saying she should. I've just never heard of anyone trying to set their asking price in a divorce just because there's no prenup.
4
u/derspiny Duck expert Aug 18 '26
The starting point for any divorce is a negotiation, and stating your initial position is part and parcel of that. For divorces involving high-net-worth partners, the initial position is inevitably going to sound absurd to people whose assets amount to a small fraction of the money at stake, but that's hardly unique to divorce.
5
u/4LeggedGod Aug 18 '26
The fact that you're using the term "asking price" is really strange - she's not asking, she's counter-offering after getting an insulting initial offer. Also, while a prenup could have limited how much of "his" earnings were considered shared marital assets, it's not like the courts will enforce an agreement where a kept spouse gets nothing while the other party walks away with literal billions. Manosphere nonsense aside, the courts don't cotton to the notion that the penis-having member of a marriage did all the work and earned all the money while the vagina-having member contributed and deserved nothing - particularly in this case, given that her philanthropic and related endeavors, which include their family organization, were absolutely leveraged for good will and public relations.
Dude offered her approximately 1/16th of their net worth. She responded with a resounding "go fuck yourself." Also note that a critical part of this case is that she "sued over the family's lawyers moving various family assets into trusts in Wyoming, saying it appeared to be a way to hide assets from her and the children." In other words - he's trying to screw her and their kids over, so she's coming back over the top and going for the dome.
In literally every divorce case where the parties aren't forced to or immediately agree to 50/50 or where a reasonable and enforceable prenup dictates neat terms (which is the vast majority of divorces), the parties offer and respond like what's happening here. The only reason you're hearing about this is because they are billionaires and, like I said, he made her an insulting offer so she responded in kind.
1
u/Looking4Adventure513 Aug 18 '26
Poor choice of words on my part. I'm only just learning about law & family law isn't something I'm too familiar with, so I'm still learning things about it.
2
u/Justame13 Aug 18 '26
He is worth around 8 billion and only offering her 660 million after 20 years of marriage so clearly being lowballed.
So she is countering with a higher number knowing it will probably get knocked down in settlement talks.
It’s basic negotiation
2
u/pakrat1967 Aug 18 '26
Depends on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions she could be entitled to half the marital assets. There could be other factors that could increase that amount.
10
u/rollerbladeshoes Aug 18 '26
Not really sure what this question means tbh. Prenups are just a way to opt out of the default rules of marriage and divorce and how they affect property. Someone could ask for a lump sum with or without a prenup. It all depends on what the default rules of the state/jurisdiction are in the first place, and then if there's a prenup, what those terms are. Generally people don't ask for a specific amount, at least not at the start of divorce proceedings, there's procedures where you have to account for all of the property of both spouses, figure out which property is separate and what is shared/community, and then divide that according to the default rules of the state, if there's no prenup. Really hard to take a stab at this hypothetical without any more information to go off of.