LdiJ - 401K question

[candg918]

What is the name of your state? OK

Are the funds contributed to a 401K by the EMPLOYER during a marriage considered marital assets?

If each spouse contributes an identical amount to individual accounts and the accounts have different appreciation due to the individual owner's investment choices, is it likely that the accounts would be divided equally or left with the individual owner?

Thanks.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? OK

Are the funds contributed to a 401K by the EMPLOYER during a marriage considered marital assets?

If each spouse contributes an identical amount to individual accounts and the accounts have different appreciation due to the individual owner's investment choices, is it likely that the accounts would be divided equally or left with the individual owner?

Thanks.

Any increase in a 401k during a marriage is generally considered to be marital property.

The parties can certainly agree to leave the accounts with the individual owner. However if a judge has to decide, they are going to be divided equally.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state? OK

Are the funds contributed to a 401K by the EMPLOYER during a marriage considered marital assets?

Yes of course, ANY contributions during the marriage would be marital.

If each spouse contributes an identical amount to individual accounts and the accounts have different appreciation due to the individual owner's investment choices, is it likely that the accounts would be divided equally or left with the individual owner?

Thanks.

They should be divided equally, however, there is the fact that if the parties had 401k accounts prior to the marriage that balance is NOT a marital asset, and, I believe any earnings on that balance AFTER the date of the marriage should NOT be considered a marital asset.

 

[candg918]

Unfortunately, it seems that should not and will not are not necessarily equivalent.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Bali Hai]

Unfortunately, it seems that should not and will not are not necessarily equivalent.

Thanks for the info.

I agree. Now you're getting the picture.