Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
Cheater Refuses To Pay Ex What He Owes, Shocked When His Retirement Fund Gets Cleaned Out Instead
Very few divorces end amicably because most folks tend to fight over child and spousal support or other trivial matters. This kind of argument can sometimes turn into a big deal and actually have horrible legal consequences.
This is what one man found out the hard way after taking his ex to court and trying to skip out on paying her and his kids’ financial support, which led to her being awarded a large chunk of his 401(k). Even though the woman hadn’t been planning on this, she was glad to get revenge on her toxic ex.
More info: Reddit
RELATED:
When people don’t follow the law, that decision might end up coming to haunt them later on
Image credits: freepik / Magnififc (not the actual photo)
The poster explained that her ex-husband had been quite controlling, which is why she finally divorced him, but he refused to pay the $2,562 monthly child support he owed her
Image credits: Stockbusters / Magnific (not the actual photo)
Since the woman remarried after her divorce, her ex got mad when he actually had to pay her child support, and tried to contest that, along with the custody of the kids
Image credits: Anna Tolipova / Magnific (not the actual photo)
After years of legal fighting with her ex, the woman filed for half of his retirement fund, which she was later awarded, and this angered the man’s new partner
Image credits: anonymous
The man’s fiancée accused the poster of “robbing” him and stated that it was affecting their decision to get married
The woman explained that her husband had been very controlling and told her to leave her job when their first child was born. He also had been having an affair, which he expected her to put up with, even though he was mistreating her and their kids. That’s why the woman eventually filed for divorce, but was shocked when her ex refused to pay child support.
According to legal experts, when your former partner doesn’t want to pay maintenance despite a court order, it’s important to speak to your lawyer about the situation. They will be able to collect evidence of the individual’s actions and appeal to the judge again, which can result in a penalty, garnishment, or even a warrant for their arrest.
Since the woman was fed up with her ex’s lack of spousal and child support, she appealed to the court, and they ordered a garnishment because he still owed $6k in support. This continued for quite a while until the woman got hitched to her new partner, but she didn’t check the box that would stop spousal support after remarriage.
Although it might seem odd for a person to still receive maintenance from their ex even after they’ve got a new spouse, that’s how the law is in certain places in the U.S. It’s based on the idea that remarrying might not improve a person’s financial circumstances, which is why they could still need monetary support.
Image credits: noohsaob974 / Magnific (not the actual photo)
The poster ended up facing a whole lot of legal problems when her ex spitefully filed for sole custody of their kids and also tried to get back the maintenance he had paid her after she remarried. This left the woman shocked, and she decided to pursue half of his retirement fund unless he allowed her to keep the spousal support he had already paid.
The reason why a person’s 401(k) can be split with their ex-wife or husband is that whatever savings they accrue after marriage is technically considered marital property. That’s why professionals advise folks to speak to their financial advisor or attorney about the situation to estimate exactly how much of the fund is likely to be split.
Since the man was not budging on giving his ex the spousal support, she finally decided to pursue his 401(k). This ended up hitting him quite hard and taking a big chunk of his money, which also affected his relationship after that, since his fiancée felt that he had essentially been robbed.
Even though the other woman tried her best to guilt-trip the poster about her decision, the OP felt completely justified in her actions. She even explained that she had given her ex the option to pay spousal support, but since he didn’t listen, he was ultimately facing the consequences of his actions.
Do you think the woman did the right thing by taking a large part of her ex-spouse’s retirement fund? Let us know your honest thoughts down below.
Folks were overjoyed for the woman and felt that she did the right thing by making the man face a strict legal penalty
Poll Question
Total votes ·
Thanks! Check out the results:
Total votes ·
Newsletter
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
Explore more of these tags
What do you think ?
JB 14 hours ago (edited)
There’s some questions in my mind about OP’s reliability as a narrator. The only lie a bank might accept for freezing an individual (personal) account is being told the account holder is deceased. Thing is, they typically don’t take an individual’s word for it, not even the supposed widow(er). From a legal standpoint, they are required to insist on proof (dèath certificate) &/or formal communication from an identifiable executor or legal representative, both of which require paperwork signed by a lawyer to be submitted. If a bank rep incorrectly froze OP’s accounts based on a verbal interaction, without said paperwork, it’s a significant violation of process. If they were joint accounts, it’s standard procedure to freeze them on request of one of the account holders, so the other party can’t unilaterally drain all funds. Joint accounts are not the same thing as personal accounts. It’s fairly common, often recommended, that neither child nor spousal support be paid until the court decides on the amounts due. This avoids a spouse setting precedent for paying more than they should, appearing to tacitly agree to a higher amount. Once I started questioning these things, it caused me to wonder about the rest of it.
Janelle Collard 20 hours ago
OP is NTA. Good thing for the ex that OP is not a vengeful person and didn't post all of his abvsive nastiness on all platforms. If his new side piece marries him, she'll find out who jerkface really is.
JB 14 hours ago (edited)
There’s some questions in my mind about OP’s reliability as a narrator. The only lie a bank might accept for freezing an individual (personal) account is being told the account holder is deceased. Thing is, they typically don’t take an individual’s word for it, not even the supposed widow(er). From a legal standpoint, they are required to insist on proof (dèath certificate) &/or formal communication from an identifiable executor or legal representative, both of which require paperwork signed by a lawyer to be submitted. If a bank rep incorrectly froze OP’s accounts based on a verbal interaction, without said paperwork, it’s a significant violation of process. If they were joint accounts, it’s standard procedure to freeze them on request of one of the account holders, so the other party can’t unilaterally drain all funds. Joint accounts are not the same thing as personal accounts. It’s fairly common, often recommended, that neither child nor spousal support be paid until the court decides on the amounts due. This avoids a spouse setting precedent for paying more than they should, appearing to tacitly agree to a higher amount. Once I started questioning these things, it caused me to wonder about the rest of it.
Janelle Collard 20 hours ago
OP is NTA. Good thing for the ex that OP is not a vengeful person and didn't post all of his abvsive nastiness on all platforms. If his new side piece marries him, she'll find out who jerkface really is.
Related on Bored Panda
34
5