Suckerpunch down to the wire

[AnotherStander]

SP, just take this for what it's worth, I'm not trying to tell you that you're right or wrong, I'm just trying to prepare you for what is probably going to happen in the D. I see a lot of expectations on your part that I think are not going to be met, I just want you to be as prepared as you can be.

She wants her initial investment plus a return. I think that is selfish. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but she is the one who is choosing to leave the family unit based on her owns needs and decisions.

I understand your anger about her leaving the family, but I'm just asking you to try and step outside of the anger and see your sitch from the perspective of a truly neutral third party (a judge). He is going to view the D as totally "no fault". As such, it is up to him to try and come up with an equitable division of assets with no "blame" for the sitch being assigned to either party. It makes his job more difficult because your home is tied up in the business. It is tough to anticipate what he may say about that, but I would think he might just say "fine, then your W is entitled to half of your share of the business, so now we have to determine the value of your share of the business so we can award her half of that." Then he will likely include the home value in the business assets, because of this:

The house being included in the loan increased the overall value, increasing the collateral.

The home increases the value of the business.

You can argue that the home isn't worth anything and the business isn't worth anything. But I doubt a judge will agree with you. If you're deriving financial benefit from the business, then it has value. And it sounds like it is based on this:

Our business has been successfully running and supporting several families for over 40 years. It does not make a mint. Actually it nets a fairly small amount after everything is said and done.

You're saying there's little to no profits left after your basic living expenses, but, the fact that the business is covering your living expenses means there IS financial benefit coming out of the business, and therefore the business has some value as does your portion of it.

I wished to fix our problems. She did not, so why should it be fair?

This is not a factor, divorce is "no fault" which means the court doesn't assign any blame to either party.

It just doesn't seem right to me that my financial security, as well as my daughers, will be damaged while W walks away with a pocket full of cash to start her new life.

But you have the business and the house, so both of you are walking away with part of the marital assets. That's the way the court will see it, you basically have to "buy out" your W's portion of the business.

It has not made a single dollar more through the benefit of my wife.

Again, I'm just trying to help you understand how a neutral judge is going to see this. He will say that you derived financial benefit from being married, whether that was through a better personal outlook that improved your productivity or because she watched D while you worked or whatever.

The thing is, in a divorce often both parties want to be made whole, but neither will be. She won't get everything she wants, you won't get everything you want. The court has to divide things up and they know they're not going to make any friends in the process, so they'll just do what they think is equitable. Unless you had your W sign a prenup that waives any claim to the business I just don't see you getting out of this without having to pay her something.