Divorce in California

Yesterday, I learned that my SIL is getting a divorce...

Three kids, all from my BIL with the oldest being 14.5.

28 year long marriage.

She has a masters degree in education but hasn't worked since getting married. 

He's a doctor and sits on the board of directors at a major hospital chain...no idea what he makes but lets say at least 450K based on what Glass Door shows for experienced doctors at that hospital chain / location and adding some more for the board position.

Anyway, my SIL told my wife last night that my BIL demands that the house be sold ASAP.

Why??? it's a nice house but modest relative to how much he makes, Zillow sez' 1.15M.  Can't she insist that they hang onto the house until the courts decide how much she gets (one time and support payments) and if she wants to throw some of the money towards the house, who would care or be able to stop her.

She also told my wife that she will have to go back to work.  It seems if she even gets 1/3 of her husbands income, she should be fine and the "stories" I keep hearing are that men get destroyed in California so I would think she'd get 2/3 until the youngest turns 18 and then 1/2 or something until retirement age.

The reason I'm asking is that my SIL has done some sneaky stuff trying to get my wife removed from being a co-executer on their family will (my BIL is no better, he used his medical connections to have a psychologist declare my MIL incompetent to strip control of the money away from her) so I'm a little suspicious that she may be trying to garner unwarranted sympathy from my wife "i.e., help me out sis, I'm getting crushed"

Anyway, thank you in advance for sharing anything you know about what's typical in a situation like this.

Added later...

This is only one of three marriages that are blowing up at the same time in my circle.

Unhappy people just waiting out COVID probably explains much of it but perhaps we're seeing something of an awakening...I don't want to be in an office...I don't want to be with this person...etc.

California real estate is white hot right now so maybe the Doc is just trying to get the both of them as much $ as possible? (I mean anything is possible, right?)

Yes child support payments are going to happen.

Alimony to the SIL is not necessarily an "until retirement" thing. And it's definitely not a thing if/when she starts having a new relationship. If they mediate their divorce then either side can amend the structure down the road if they structure it up front. I don't know how/if this works the same after a lawsuit style divorce.

$.02

I have heard a few time, after 10 years in CA, it's alimony for life.  I find it VERY hard to believe he could in anyway force the the distribution of anything while in the process of a divorce.

With the money involved, I am very sure there are a number of professional douche..., uhm, I mean divorce lawyers who would LOVE to talk to her (that of course will suck up a good amount of money also).  I am sure John Gleese would agree (he got completely taken by his ex-wife and had to go back to work in his 70's because he got married in CA)

Houses can be contentious points, especially if there has been significant income invested in them.

If, at the time of divorce, it is agreed that the proceeds from the house will be split 50/50, then the Doc might do better than if he sold his equity in the house to the SIL. If, say, the house has cost "them" $500k, and they split that, she'll get'll get a good deal on a house worth a lot more. If they sell at market rate, they are both forced to deal with current prices in the market. 

That's just it, if he's getting kicked out, he wants her to feel the pain equally having to deal with the current housing market the way it is. 

My babysitter just went through this. Her ex did something similar. He wanted the house sold ASAP because he wanted her to feel the financial pain he was feeling. 

I never quite understood how child support works, despite my own parents getting divorced. I thought at least back then it was relative to the amount of time kiddos spent with a given parent. If Mom had the kids during the week, and Dad on the weekends, then mom got child support based on her keeping them 75% of the time. What about in 50/50 custody splits? Both parents in theory have equal "financial burden" of children. 

Not your circus, not your monkeys. 
 

Maybe he wants the house sold because she cheated, and he doesn't think she should be rewarded for doing that, maybe he will retire and raise the kids while she works so there will be no child support. Maybe he had 2 girlfriends and she was only ok with 1.  We don't know, you don't know, and it's really only between them. 

If they already filed for divorce, I doubt he can force the sale of the house or do anything that will affect assets until the case goes to court.

I would say that your help for all of this would be to recommend a lawyer if you know of a good one. 

mtn said:

I would say that your help for all of this would be to recommend a lawyer if you know of a good one. 

Or, frankly, let her twist in the wind if she really was that underhanded with your MIL.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

First off: totally agree about the circus monkeys.  Anyone that touches this E36 M3 show is likely to get smeared with it.

Secondly: Infidelity doesn't matter, nearly every state is "no fault" anymore.  But the fact he makes bank while she has kept the house and kids means that (most likely) the court will hang all the financial burden on him.   Meaning he's basically gonna be an indentured servant until the courts let him off the hook.  Voluntarily retiring to get out of it won't be an option.

Community property state.  They both have to agree to sell the house.  If SIL won't sign the docs, the house can't sell. 

BIL can try to force anything he wants.  All SIL has to do is say "No".

CJ (FS) said:

Community property state.  They both have to agree to sell the house.  If SIL won't sign the docs, the house can't sell. 

BIL can try to force anything he wants.  All SIL has to do is say "No".

That's what I imagined to be the case which makes me a little suspicious that my SIL is exaggerating the situation to garner support from my wife.

BTW, he's asking for the divorce not her, they've both lawyered up, and they're both money grabbers (he got a psychologist to declare my MIL mentally incompetent so she no longer has control of her money and my SIL tried to have my wife removed as co-executor of the trust).

I don't think he wants the house sold because the market is hot as they're now going to need two houses and the property tax is going to be reset to current values (California's Prop 13 limits property tax increases to 2% per year and they've had the house for ~12 years) - Ouch.

His demand to immediately sell the house appears to be driven by spite...maybe it's deserved, maybe it's not...as was said earlier "not my circus" true so long as there's no impact on me.  

pheller said:

I never quite understood how child support works, despite my own parents getting divorced. I thought at least back then it was relative to the amount of time kiddos spent with a given parent. If Mom had the kids during the week, and Dad on the weekends, then mom got child support based on her keeping them 75% of the time. What about in 50/50 custody splits? Both parents in theory have equal "financial burden" of children. 

Since no one has addressed this I will.  In my divorce we have 50/50.  Florida has a spreadsheet you put everything into including time spent and income levels.  It even took into account that Lil Stampie was on my insurance.  In our case it came out that I would owe her $50 a month because of difference in income.  Now we'll ignore the fact that her attorney did the spreadsheet and had my income way higher than it was actually.  It was moot anyway because she waved child support for other reasons.

If your sister hasn't spoken to an attorney yet, it's time to and right quick.  A good lawyer will stop this bullE36 M3 immediately.  A really good lawyer will make BIL understand this could get costly if he doesn't come to the table and negotiate, especially since he is the petitioner in this action.