SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

This question came up recently, and I’m interested in this group’s take on it. Briefly, the WS is asking the BS to take a huge emotional risk in reconciliation and trust that the WS will follow through. Would it be financially equivalent to a formal financial settlement of something like 80/20 in the BS’ favor, and the WS just TRUST that the BS would provide additional $s to WS if needed? They could give them the additional 30 to get to 50/50, but the WS would have to trust that to be the case. This could be either through a divorce, after which they seek reconciliation, a post-nup (although is sounds like those don’t stand up in court), or maybe putting assets in one person’s name.

From a business POV, this seems terrible, but if you view the emotional risk a BS has to take in reconciliation, that could be considered terrible, too.

The other reason that’s been plaguing me is that desperate people will promise anything. When it’s time for substance, whether it be financial, or something else, that’s when you find out how serious they were. A company will apologize for bad service, but will they take 30% off the price to prove it? Likely not. WS’ seem to promise the world for reconciliation, but what tangible sacrifices are they making? For a truly remorseful WS, I like to think their self-realization and remorse is that price, but, again, not tangible.

I see the other side of this, that a BS could take terrible advantage of a WS this way, and leave them desolate, especially when a partner is stay at home, so it can be played from both sides.

For me, talk is cheap, and accountability is real. Reconciliation is a big risk. Would it be reasonable to assume a financial risk, too?

I think in theory, yes. But for the very reasons you've pointed out, agreements of this nature don't tend to stand up all that well. Any such agreement will not be enforced if it is unconscionable at the time it is made, or at the time of divorce. Generally speaking, it would only be enforceable if it is fair and equitable at the time it is made, if it is made voluntarily without fraud, coercion, duress, undue influence etc etc etc. No self-respecting lawyer would ever advise a WS client to sign something that would leave their WS client destitute.

Aren't most states No Fault? The state I was divorced in was At Fault. But it has changed to No Fault since then.

To add:

For me, talk is cheap, and accountability is real.

If a grossly one-sided agreement will certainly not be enforced should the marriage fail, is it really accountability for the WS to sign it? Or is it just the WS saying what the BS wants to hear in order to placate them (you know... the same way they did in the A - ie. more Wayward behaviour).

I understand the gross unfairness of it all (trust me) and I understand the instinct to want to protect yourself, but the law doesn't really consider/weigh out "emotional risk" the same way a BS does when considering R.

Thanks for the replies. I agree this is a tough space legally. The only scenario that covers that seems to be if divorce was done immediately with intent to try reconciliation afterwards.

Maybe my question is more of an emotional one. The WS is asking a lot of the BS with reconciliation. Legal considerations aside, would it be reasonable for the BS to ask for this same financial trust from the WS? The emotional risk a BS takes feels enormous, and difficult to translate to something equivalent for a WS. Financial makes it real, and accountable.

I keep coming back to how the guilty party promises the world. Then, when you try and quantify that world, do they back off? If there was a legally enforceable way to do this, would it be reasonable to expect the WS to take that risk given the risk they want the BS to take?

Again, I think "in theory" yes - but the issue become practicalities/logistics of application. Is it fair for the BS to get the WS to make this agreement even if they have no intention of actually trying to R and are just taking advantage of the WS's desperation? How long does the "penalty" last? If the reconciliation does go on to be successful and the couple goes on to be married for 20 more happy infidelity-free years and then the BS decides to leave the fWS for his/her 22 year old assistant, would it be fair/just for the penalty to continue to apply? In my mind, no.

It gives the BS an escape hatch but if that escape hatch is too attractive, is the BS really going to be motivated to be "all in"? Is it really true R if they are not? As someone who has reconciled with their WS, the goal is to return to a place of equity in the relationship and I don't think you can truly do that if you have something like this existing for all time.

Are financial consequences the only consequences we should consider - obviously such an agreement would not be legally enforceable but I have seen BSs here make the argument that their WS should voluntarily agree to give up parenting time with their kids in the event of a subsequent marriage breakdown, as a term of R. Again, I understand the emotion behind it "why should the BS have to give up parenting time with their kids when they didn't choose any of this", but in my mind, taking a kid away from their parent is fucked up and any parent willing to make such an agreement is probably not doing so from a place of equity.

At the end of the day, I just don't think there is or can be any TRUE justice to an A.

It’s impossible to answer that in an a blanket way.

Here is the thing, let’s say I was a SAHM. I wasn’t but for argument. My ability to completely handle every kids appointment, every oil change, every factor of life that allows my husband to succeed at work because so much is off his plate. We divorce. I have missed out on building my career because I took that role, and now I have 3 kids to support on minimum wage. It may not seem fair for me to get half but what supplements? Welfare? No way you are going to get states to pass laws on that.

And then what if I was a SAHM. And he cheated. Likely he would have child support and other things a lot of times that would put him at a maximum. There is no more money to split.

Truth is I made half the money. We had the same income. I built businesses with him. When we drew up divorce papers I was willing to leave him with the business that had significant equity (real estate portfolio) We never filed.

He cheated nd I ripped them up. In hindsight I am not sure it was ever fair to agree to walk away from all that money that I helped earn. Even if we halved it we both would live very well. It’s not going to fix the emotional trauma he went through. Likely he still would have needed me to help with that business for some time.

There is just no size fits all.

Hikingout, I understand what you are saying. FWIW, I consider being a stay-at-home parent a more difficult job due to it being full-time with your life, as opposed to being within specific hours, and that takes a toll. Hiring someone for a 24/7 job for 18 years of a child’s life would be massive.

I was just trying to come up with some contrasting scenarios where the WS has to put up or shut up regarding the trust level they are asking from the BS. Maybe such a thing simply doesn’t exist.

In my job, I’ve seen hypocrisy between someone’s words and real actions. Hypocrisy is ripe in many cheating situations.

Oh I didn’t think you were being disparaging about sahm’s I just used common examples of why it would be hard to create a rule on. Often times laws can begin to hinder the thing it tries to grow, especially when hard to apply.

It’s an interesting question, which is the only reason I took a stab at answering it.

I am going to guess the only thing you could impose is more of a preventative law- such as anyone divorcing and infidelity occurred, the cheating party shall incur a 10 percent penalty in the financial settlement.

Maybe instead of punishing a crime more people will stop to think a little harder about it.

And maybe in the cases it’s awarded it could give the bs a small justice.

It might be this was what you are already saying, or this may not be where you are going at all, but I love cerebral questions!