• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

New Mexico Inheritance Law and divorce settlement

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
To mcquire538

There's a very good chance for the "MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO RULE 1-054" to be approved. "The court shall consider relevant factors presented by the parties, including but not limited to:

A. disparity of the parties' resources, including assets and incomes;
B. prior settlement offers;
C. the total amount of fees and costs expended by each party, the
amount paid from community property funds, any balances due and
any interim advance of funds ordered by the court; and
D. success on the merits."

Thirty seven years is considered a "long term" marriage in the State of New Mexico. This is what it means:

The forms of alimony are rehabilitative alimony, which is temporary support to allow for continued education and retraining, or PERMANENT alimony. Alimony can also be awarded in a lump sum, in periodic payments or both.
Primarily, the first consideration for alimony is the LENGTH OF THE MARRIAGE. The longer the marriage, the greater the possibility of an award for alimony. There are certainly other considerations, including, but not limited to the STANDARD OF LIVING ESTABLISHED DURING THE MARRIAGE, THE AGE AND PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL CONDITION of each party, and all sources of available income to either party.

"The traditional kind of long-term alimony - payable until the receiving spouse dies or remarries - is the hardest kind of alimony to get because the courts want to see the parties move on with their lives after the divorce and be financially self-sufficient. SUCH LONG-TERM ALIMONY IS USUALLY RESERVED FOR CASES OF LENGTHY MARRIAGES (20 YEARS OR MORE) where one spouse was mostly a homemaker, has limited education or employment skills, and there will likely always be a significant disparity in incomes. There are two other types of alimony of shorter duration: transitional alimony (usually for 6 - 24 months to help the receiving spouse get established and start working) and rehabilitative alimony (financial help while going to school to earn a degree that will lead to a decent-paying job)." www.Divorcenet.com

You didn't mention the reason why you aren't allowed to work in the gaming industry (casinos), or why your company was handed over to your husband. If this is the only field of work that you are trained in or ever worked and you are now barred from it, the interim support or alimony should reflect the need to "earn a degree that will lead to a decent-paying job" or train in another area of work that will help close the gap of "disparity in incomes". I commend you for taking any job to put food on the table and a roof over your family's heads, but the hardship that you are going through to work at 7/11 is beyond belief, but honorable.

Somewhere in all of this, there should have been arrangements for the support of your children. Is this support also not being paid? This is a no no and if you can't get anyone to enforce this, you might just go to the Human Services Dept. and file for assistance for the 17 year old. When they see that there is a court order for assistance, they may just step in and assist enforcement. OR, you may instead just casually mention to your attorney that since he hasn't done anything about it that you can't just let your child starve, while waiting for him to get his thumb out of his ***. This may prompt action to save embarrassment. I'm just throwing this thought in as it might or might not work...just a thought.

You mentioned that there was already an award of "alimony". Is this "alimony" or "interim support"? Your attorney should have filed a motion with the court that interim support is not being paid. This is in direct violation of a court order and has consequences.

You should not be without a vehicle. Obviously, you were awarded the use of a vehicle. This has to be maintained as well as the insurance on it. If the court is informed about this, then the court can do something about it. Your attorney should have made the court aware of this situation.
 
Last edited:


To mcquire538

Was your business started and maintained completely with inheritance money or was it just a down payment and a mortgage existed in which part of your salary and his salary paid for this monthly? How were the utilities, property taxes, and homeowner’s insurance paid? Was inheritance maintaining these payments or did marital income come into play? What about repair or upkeep?
I am curious to know if your husband had a job that paid a salary or did he consider the investments into the homes and a business, an income? If he worked a job that he brought home a paycheck, this money is marital. And if this money was used to help buy a house or used to upkeep or work on the house, that interest however small is marital.

You did not mention whether your company is in both names or if he put the business solely in your name (as this might be considered a gift). Even if the business ended up solely in your name, your husband legally retains a half interest because of the community property laws in New Mexico since he placed the asset in your name during the marriage . As I am neither an attorney nor a judge, my next statement expresses only my opinion: In 37 years of marriage with your husband placing assets in joint title (assuming that is what he did) I would tend to think that a true donative intent existed. When personal assets (such as an inheritance) have been placed in joint title with a spouse (depending on the true intent) you have personal property that has been “transmuted” to marital property (this subject is controversial in that there are many deciding factors that come into play and, of course, there are so many cases which in one state it would be considered transmuted but in another state with almost identical circumstances wouldn’t be considered transmuted.

You did not state the business form of your company i.e.: sole proprietorship, partnership, C corporation, or S corporation. If your company is a sole proprietorship there most likely was excessive ->->"commingling"<-<-of personal expenditures. Being that New Mexico is a community property state, you are entitled to half of all marital assets, and that includes assets that have not been "maintained as separate property". If bank accounts were used for business as well as personal then it becomes a messy job trying to sort it out. If this is a situation where it has become impossible to trace and separate the expenditures it may very well end up as community property.

When the second house was purchased, were you with him at the title company when both the names went on the title or was the home in his name and when it was sold the title company required your signature for the sale? You don't mention whether these homes were bought out right or whether inheritance money was used only for the down payment and whether the mortgage was paid by income derived from your work or from his salary. Same with "your" business. Did you pay yourself a salary from "your" business or did you put in all the sweat without compensation to get "your" business off the ground? In a community property state, such as New Mexico, "your" business is actually a community interest.

Your effort and work (sweat) should gain an interest in some of these assets (sweat equity) and if you were not taking a salary from "your" business in order to get it off the ground, you should be compensated fairly.
 
To mcquire538

So you see, mcquire538, Ldij and Happy Trails are correct when they advised you to get another attorney. And, without any detail, this is far to complicated for an online forum to handle as Happy Trails pointed out. It's not as though there isn't anyone out there to help, it is the lack of detail that makes it hard to even think about tackling. Hope some of this helps...and I am going by memory on the names of the motions and stuff, it's fairly similar at any rate. But, like I said before, I am not an attorney and what I have written is not legal advice. YOU DO NEED ANOTHER ATTORNEY ASAP.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
i2mscrewed said:
Originally posted by Bali Hai:

...Yep. The fool thought he loved her (maybe still does) and co-mingled
his inheritance money for her benefit. Sure sign of weakness on his part.

Now she's divorcing him (perhaps because no more inheritance) and
stands a CHANCE of taking what should have been seperate property.

Any lessons here???


Wow--that's cold... 37 years of marriage? And, you think he doesn't owe her? I believe the "fool" put the houses in both names in 1985. If it was really a case of her divorcing him "perhaps because no more inheritance" why wait until now. Why not divorce 20 years ago? Besides, it appears that "donative intent" was pretty clear.


Does he owe Her?

Does she owe Him?

Did SHE give him "the best years of HER life"?

Did HE give her "the best years of HIS life"?

You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying him should realize that crap works both ways.

Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.
 
QUOTE, Quote, quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
Originally posted by Bali Hai:

...Yep. The fool thought he loved her (maybe still does) and co-mingled
his inheritance money for her benefit. Sure sign of weakness on his part.

Now she's divorcing him (perhaps because no more inheritance) and
stands a CHANCE of taking what should have been separate property.

Any lessons here???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow--that's cold... 37 years of marriage? And, you think he doesn't owe her? I believe the "fool" put the houses in both names in 1985. If it was really a case of her divorcing him "perhaps because no more inheritance" why wait until now. Why not divorce 20 years ago? Besides, it appears that "donative intent" was pretty clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does he owe Her?

Does she owe Him?

Did SHE give him "the best years of HER life"?

Did HE give her "the best years of HIS life"?

You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying him should realize that crap works both ways.

Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously it seems like they gave each other "the best years of THEIR lives". I don't really give a "crap" who was doing who a "favor". If mcquire538 were a male and was in the exact situation, I would write the same thing to try to help. BUT, I must admit that your last statement ("Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.") has a lot of truth to it. If the situation were reversed and Mrs. mcquire538 took off with $100,000. out of the safe and ransacked the kids' college funds of $50,000 each (another $100,000) equaling half of her $400,000. inheritance and then ousted the husband and kids without a roof or vehicle...took away his business and found a way for the court to bar him from working in his field of work altogether, the court would have seen to it that she would have already been behind bars (so to speak)...it is ONE WAY.

Anyways, Bali Hai, please don't insult me for just trying to help. I don't advocate that either spouse make a windfall. But, I do think that it should be 50/50. And if it seems like one spouse, being awarded support, is "making off like a bandit", put the shoe on the other foot. Fairness includes being able to live in the same style in the coming years as the spouse that has the means to recoup because of higher wages due to the years of wage increase from being able to work. I say being able to work because having had a child, I can speak from experience that I couldn't wait to get out the door to go to work and leave father and son at home, especially from 0-3 years of age. I couldn't help but feel guilty that I got to escape each day and he had to do the hard work of Mr. Mom. He got everything without any complaint here and my son and I ventured forth. Then I met a man that refused to let me work. It was his way or no marriage. Boy, was I stupid. Men and Women fall in love and get married and fall out of love and get divorced. Very few men or women stick around for over 30 years to do someone a favor. Realistically, those 30 years without "doing a favor" of remaining married would probably have yielded a higher return than the pittance received from "doing a favor". I'd call that a deep loyalty and devotion AND keeping the promise and commitment of "For better or worse", ya know...remember? clue...wedding ceremony...vows...to God...there ya go. It's hardly a favor. No one sticks around getting abused as a favor... some people actually respect their vows even after getting blindsided and suckerpunched with a divorce not believing (denial) that their true love ripped the bank accounts, investment portfolios, retirement, company finances, closed or ruined credit, and ran with the dough. Most of these abandoned spouses are just trying to hope for enough money to put a roof over their heads and eat in their old age. This pittance received has to stretch. There isn't a chance for a homemaker (male or female) to make their dreams come true. Do you think this is fair? The way you seethe your statement "You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying" (and then bilking him 30 years later), almost seems like in some kind of warped way, you are trying to compare housewives/mothers to the oldest profession. Putting out and then cleaning up, eh...Bali Hai? Except most housewives/mothers aren’t smart enough to bilk the spouse first. They fall in love and wait 30 some years. Um…they would be fired on the first day, me thinks.

Enough of wasting mcquire538's space with innane babble from the both of us this round. Let's both try to help not vent rage on your part and I, a sucker for a challenge should maybe try to understand where you are coming from, because I sense a defense mechanism of bitterness and hurt. Want to talk about it on a new post? I mean it, let's talk. I'm new to this forum stuff and maybe I'm naive, but I am honest and say what I feel. Perhaps, you too, are honest. If so, maybe a lesson for me to be more thick skinned, and a lesson for you not to be so "in for the kill". Chao, Bali Hai...
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
i2mscrewed said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
Originally posted by Bali Hai:

...Yep. The fool thought he loved her (maybe still does) and co-mingled
his inheritance money for her benefit. Sure sign of weakness on his part.

Now she's divorcing him (perhaps because no more inheritance) and
stands a CHANCE of taking what should have been separate property.

Any lessons here???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow--that's cold... 37 years of marriage? And, you think he doesn't owe her? I believe the "fool" put the houses in both names in 1985. If it was really a case of her divorcing him "perhaps because no more inheritance" why wait until now. Why not divorce 20 years ago? Besides, it appears that "donative intent" was pretty clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does he owe Her?

Does she owe Him?

Did SHE give him "the best years of HER life"?

Did HE give her "the best years of HIS life"?

You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying him should realize that crap works both ways.

Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously it seems like they gave each other "the best years of THEIR lives". I don't really give a "crap" who was doing who a "favor". If mcquire538 were a male and was in the exact situation, I would write the same thing to try to help. BUT, I must admit that your last statement ("Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.") has a lot of truth to it. If the situation were reversed and Mrs. mcquire538 took off with $100,000. out of the safe and ransacked the kids' college funds of $50,000 each (another $100,000) equaling half of her $400,000. inheritance and then ousted the husband and kids without a roof or vehicle...took away his business and found a way for the court to bar him from working in his field of work altogether, the court would have seen to it that she would have already been behind bars (so to speak)...it is ONE WAY.

Anyways, Bali Hai, please don't insult me for just trying to help. I don't advocate that either spouse make a windfall. But, I do think that it should be 50/50. And if it seems like one spouse, being awarded support, is "making off like a bandit", put the shoe on the other foot. Fairness includes being able to live in the same style in the coming years as the spouse that has the means to recoup because of higher wages due to the years of wage increase from being able to work. I say being able to work because having had a child, I can speak from experience that I couldn't wait to get out the door to go to work and leave father and son at home, especially from 0-3 years of age. I couldn't help but feel guilty that I got to escape each day and he had to do the hard work of Mr. Mom. He got everything without any complaint here and my son and I ventured forth. Then I met a man that refused to let me work. It was his way or no marriage. Boy, was I stupid. Men and Women fall in love and get married and fall out of love and get divorced. Very few men or women stick around for over 30 years to do someone a favor. Realistically, those 30 years without "doing a favor" of remaining married would probably have yielded a higher return than the pittance received from "doing a favor". I'd call that a deep loyalty and devotion AND keeping the promise and commitment of "For better or worse", ya know...remember? clue...wedding ceremony...vows...to God...there ya go. It's hardly a favor. No one sticks around getting abused as a favor... some people actually respect their vows even after getting blindsided and suckerpunched with a divorce not believing (denial) that their true love ripped the bank accounts, investment portfolios, retirement, company finances, closed or ruined credit, and ran with the dough. Most of these abandoned spouses are just trying to hope for enough money to put a roof over their heads and eat in their old age. This pittance received has to stretch. There isn't a chance for a homemaker (male or female) to make their dreams come true. Do you think this is fair? The way you seethe your statement "You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying" (and then bilking him 30 years later), almost seems like in some kind of warped way, you are trying to compare housewives/mothers to the oldest profession. Putting out and then cleaning up, eh...Bali Hai? Except most housewives/mothers aren’t smart enough to bilk the spouse first. They fall in love and wait 30 some years. Um…they would be fired on the first day, me thinks.

Enough of wasting mcquire538's space with innane babble from the both of us this round. Let's both try to help not vent rage on your part and I, a sucker for a challenge should maybe try to understand where you are coming from, because I sense a defense mechanism of bitterness and hurt. Want to talk about it on a new post? I mean it, let's talk. I'm new to this forum stuff and maybe I'm naive, but I am honest and say what I feel. Perhaps, you too, are honest. If so, maybe a lesson for me to be more thick skinned, and a lesson for you not to be so "in for the kill". Chao, Bali Hai...

You talk way too much for me.

It appears that impediment comes from a life of never feeling you were heard. That's your problem, not mine.

Thanks anyway.
 
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
Originally posted by Bali Hai:

...Yep. The fool thought he loved her (maybe still does) and co-mingled
his inheritance money for her benefit. Sure sign of weakness on his part.

Now she's divorcing him (perhaps because no more inheritance) and
stands a CHANCE of taking what should have been separate property.

Any lessons here???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow--that's cold... 37 years of marriage? And, you think he doesn't owe her? I believe the "fool" put the houses in both names in 1985. If it was really a case of her divorcing him "perhaps because no more inheritance" why wait until now. Why not divorce 20 years ago? Besides, it appears that "donative intent" was pretty clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does he owe Her?

Does she owe Him?

Did SHE give him "the best years of HER life"?

Did HE give her "the best years of HIS life"?

You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying him should realize that crap works both ways.

Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously it seems like they gave each other "the best years of THEIR lives". I don't really give a "crap" who was doing who a "favor". If mcquire538 were a male and was in the exact situation, I would write the same thing to try to help. BUT, I must admit that your last statement ("Although I do realize that when it goes to court it's ONE WAY. For now.") has a lot of truth to it. If the situation were reversed and Mrs. mcquire538 took off with $100,000. out of the safe and ransacked the kids' college funds of $50,000 each (another $100,000) equaling half of her $400,000. inheritance and then ousted the husband and kids without a roof or vehicle...took away his business and found a way for the court to bar him from working in his field of work altogether, the court would have seen to it that she would have already been behind bars (so to speak)...it is ONE WAY.

Anyways, Bali Hai, please don't insult me for just trying to help. I don't advocate that either spouse make a windfall. But, I do think that it should be 50/50. And if it seems like one spouse, being awarded support, is "making off like a bandit", put the shoe on the other foot. Fairness includes being able to live in the same style in the coming years as the spouse that has the means to recoup because of higher wages due to the years of wage increase from being able to work. I say being able to work because having had a child, I can speak from experience that I couldn't wait to get out the door to go to work and leave father and son at home, especially from 0-3 years of age. I couldn't help but feel guilty that I got to escape each day and he had to do the hard work of Mr. Mom. He got everything without any complaint here and my son and I ventured forth. Then I met a man that refused to let me work. It was his way or no marriage. Boy, was I stupid. Men and Women fall in love and get married and fall out of love and get divorced. Very few men or women stick around for over 30 years to do someone a favor. Realistically, those 30 years without "doing a favor" of remaining married would probably have yielded a higher return than the pittance received from "doing a favor". I'd call that a deep loyalty and devotion AND keeping the promise and commitment of "For better or worse", ya know...remember? clue...wedding ceremony...vows...to God...there ya go. It's hardly a favor. No one sticks around getting abused as a favor... some people actually respect their vows even after getting blindsided and suckerpunched with a divorce not believing (denial) that their true love ripped the bank accounts, investment portfolios, retirement, company finances, closed or ruined credit, and ran with the dough. Most of these abandoned spouses are just trying to hope for enough money to put a roof over their heads and eat in their old age. This pittance received has to stretch. There isn't a chance for a homemaker (male or female) to make their dreams come true. Do you think this is fair? The way you seethe your statement "You women that think and talk that you are doing a man a "favor" in marrying" (and then bilking him 30 years later), almost seems like in some kind of warped way, you are trying to compare housewives/mothers to the oldest profession. Putting out and then cleaning up, eh...Bali Hai? Except most housewives/mothers aren’t smart enough to bilk the spouse first. They fall in love and wait 30 some years. Um…they would be fired on the first day, me thinks.

Enough of wasting mcquire538's space with innane babble from the both of us this round. Let's both try to help not vent rage on your part and I, a sucker for a challenge should maybe try to understand where you are coming from, because I sense a defense mechanism of bitterness and hurt. Want to talk about it on a new post? I mean it, let's talk. I'm new to this forum stuff and maybe I'm naive, but I am honest and say what I feel. Perhaps, you too, are honest. If so, maybe a lesson for me to be more thick skinned, and a lesson for you not to be so "in for the kill". Chao, Bali Hai...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You talk way too much for me.

It appears that impediment comes from a life of never feeling you were heard. That's your problem, not mine.

Thanks anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep...being the youngest of 25 kids, I was always the last to be heard...
kidding...

Your welcome anyway. By the way, what happened to mcquire538? Maybe she traded her computer to get her car fixed? Or...with the utilities cut off, maybe she couldn't recharge her computer battery? Maybe cut costs and canceled her internet connection for a couple of bucks to feed the kids? Maybe she got enough sympathy for the day? Maybe wasn't really interested enough to find a solution? Maybe a victim in life and likes the role? Maybe she was banned from working in the gaming (casino) industry because she considered gambling her husband's inheritance away, a job? Ouch, did I say that out loud? You're rubbing off on me, but I still used too many words...damn...
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
i2mscrewed said:
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
I mean it, let's talk. I'm new to this forum stuff and maybe I'm naive, but I am honest and say what I feel. Perhaps, you too, are honest. If so, maybe a lesson for me to be more thick skinned, and a lesson for you not to be so "in for the kill". Chao, Bali Hai...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You talk way too much for me.

It appears that impediment comes from a life of never feeling you were heard. That's your problem, not mine.

Thanks anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep...being the youngest of 25 kids, I was always the last to be heard...
kidding...

Your welcome anyway. By the way, what happened to mcquire538? Maybe she traded her computer to get her car fixed? Or...with the utilities cut off, maybe she couldn't recharge her computer battery? Maybe cut costs and canceled her internet connection for a couple of bucks to feed the kids? Maybe she got enough sympathy for the day? Maybe wasn't really interested enough to find a solution? Maybe a victim in life and likes the role? Maybe she was banned from working in the gaming (casino) industry because she considered gambling her husband's inheritance away, a job? Ouch, did I say that out loud? You're rubbing off on me, but I still used too many words...damn...


None of the above.

She has her hands full with getting her STBX husbands inheritance money that the mediator says she doesn't deserve.
 
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
Originally Posted by Bali Hai
Originally Posted by i2mscrewed
I mean it, let's talk. I'm new to this forum stuff and maybe I'm naive, but I am honest and say what I feel. Perhaps, you too, are honest. If so, maybe a lesson for me to be more thick skinned, and a lesson for you not to be so "in for the kill". Chao, Bali Hai...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You talk way too much for me.

It appears that impediment comes from a life of never feeling you were heard. That's your problem, not mine.

Thanks anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep...being the youngest of 25 kids, I was always the last to be heard...
kidding...

Your welcome anyway. By the way, what happened to mcquire538? Maybe she traded her computer to get her car fixed? Or...with the utilities cut off, maybe she couldn't recharge her computer battery? Maybe cut costs and canceled her internet connection for a couple of bucks to feed the kids? Maybe she got enough sympathy for the day? Maybe wasn't really interested enough to find a solution? Maybe a victim in life and likes the role? Maybe she was banned from working in the gaming (casino) industry because she considered gambling her husband's inheritance away, a job? Ouch, did I say that out loud? You're rubbing off on me, but I still used too many words...damn...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the above.

She has her hands full with getting her STBX husbands inheritance money that the mediator says she doesn't deserve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're cool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top