Divorce and Unemployment Claim Payouts

Happenstance

New Member
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Hi - our divorce was finalized on Nov 23 2021. Earlier in 2021, we had both lost our jobs, and we were both getting UI payouts, and we both ended up getting extended benefits. Her benefits were set to expire before mine, but somehow a new claim was automatically filed for her (she says she did nothing to request it and has no idea why she got it) but now she is getting an entirely new round of benefit payments. My benefits simply expired, and I was unable to renew. My question is this. Since her benefits are based on her employment within the period of our marriage, and since her newly opened claim occurred prior to Nov 23, am I entitled to half of her weekly benefit payouts? Our divorce was a simple no contest with an equal splitting of all the assets. no alimony and children are grown and independent (one 23 and one 27). Thanks
 
am I entitled to half of her weekly benefit payouts?

Use your common sense, mate.

You can easily answer your own question.

Our divorce was a simple no contest with an equal splitting of all the assets. no alimony and children are grown and independent (one 23 and one 27).

RES JUDICATA is my hint, that you shouldn't need, because your common senses have already provided you with the correct answer.
 
Since her benefits are based on her employment within the period of our marriage, and since her newly opened claim occurred prior to Nov 23, am I entitled to half of her weekly benefit payouts?

I can't imagine you are, but we have no way of knowing what your divorce decree says. Does it say anything about either of you being entitled to post-divorce earnings of the other?

By the way, I'm curious why you even know about this.
 
Since her benefits are based on her employment within the period of our marriage, and since her newly opened claim occurred prior to Nov 23, am I entitled to half of her weekly benefit payouts?
You are misunderstanding how it works. The calculations for the payments are based on her prior income, but the money coming in now is new money. That means you are not entitled to a portion of it.
 
Thanks for all the responses, although I don't think there is a consensus. But Zigner's response seems to be most helpful. "The calculations for the payments are based on her prior income, but the money coming in now is new money. That means you are not entitled to a portion of it."
 
Thanks for all the responses, although I don't think there is a consensus. But Zigner's response seems to be most helpful. "The calculations for the payments are based on her prior income, but the money coming in now is new money. That means you are not entitled to a portion of it."
Well, to be fair, both of the other responses indicate another reason why you wouldn't be entitled to it, namely, your divorce is final. You can't go back for a do-over, unless specifically allowed in your decree.
 
I thank you all. My misgiving was that I assumed her benefit payments were initiated and based on earnings she made while we were married, hence they should be included in the asset split. But now I understand that her benefit is new money and not part of the assets.
 
I don't think there is a consensus.

You're right, and you won't get a consensus until you tell us what, if anything, your divorce decree says on this subject.

That said, let's suppose that you seek payment of social security old age benefits. Those benefits will be "based [at least in part] on [your] employment within the period of [y]our marriage." Do you think your ex should get half (or any other percentage of your social security benefits?
 
Do you think your ex should get half (or any other percentage of your social security benefits?


If the marriage lasted LONG enough, a former spouse (now divorced) can receive benefits under the former spouse's account.

As with most gubmint schemes, the accountholder has no say in the matter.

A gubmint bureacrat decides who gets what.

If granted, the former spouse drawing a set amount doesn't interfere in anyway with the account holder's share, a current spouse's share, a child's share, or even 100 former spouses shares.

This is one of the many reasons the SS system is nearing depletion.
 
The divorce decree does not mention unemployment benefits specifically, but it does say that neither of us has any claim to the future earnings of the other. However, here's another way to look at it. Her benefits claim was approved, and she started collecting on that claim prior to the official end of the marriage. Not to nickel and dime here, but for argument's sake, let's assume she collected 4 weeks of benefit at $700 each prior to the divorce date. Although I am not entitled to any of her new money earnings post-divorce date, shouldn't I be entitled to half the $2800 she collected while we were still married?
 
Are there really divorce settlements that are going to fight over UI benefits?

When the feds raise rates in March and all the covid foreclosures hit at once.

Better hold on it is going to be a wild ride. I would imagine what is yours is yours and what is your spouses is your spouses.
 
shouldn't I be entitled to half the $2800 she collected while we were still married?

Does your divorce decree say anything like the following: "Any property not mentioned in this decree and which is in the possession or under the control of the wife is conferred to the wife. Any property not mentioned in this decree and which is in the possession or under the control of the husband is conferred to the husband"?

The decree is designed to be final.
 
Only way I can think of that she'd be eligible for a new claim would be if, during the period of unemployment, she worked some temporary and part time jobs that gave her enough for a second claim. If that's the case, I can promise you that her new benefit isn't $700 a week or anything like it.
 
Thanks to all for your input. Based on the decree language and information garnered here, I will not pursue a portion of her UI benefits. But in response to Super M, I can tell you that she did not have any other jobs in the interim, and it appears simply to be a glitch in the NJ UI system. A new claim was opened for her without her taking any action, and the new claim is paying her the same amount she was getting from the first claim. Perhaps there is some special case for people working in the restaurant / hospitality business (she was a food and beverage director for a country club). But if not, then she just got very lucky, and hopefully NJ will not catch the error and ask her to repay the funds!
 
Hi - I'd like to ask a couple of questions about QDRO procedures, please. The company I worked for, which sponsored my 401k, offers QDRO support from QDRO Consultants. They prepared a sample DRO which I edited to create a draft for them to review. I am the Plan Participant, and my ex-wife is the Alternate Payee. My questions are:
1- once the draft is prequalified by the QDRO Consultants, can we submit to the NJ court on our own? Or is it mandatory for an attorney to submit it.
2 - Which party submits the DRO to the court: her or me (Alternate Payee or Plan Participant)? Or does it not matter.
3 - I imagine there is a court fee and forms to fill-out. Is there a website where I can download the form(s)?

Thanks
 
To the best of my knowledge, no one who follows these boards regularly is in NJ (much less is a NJ family law attorney). You're going to need to find someone local to answer questions about local procedures.
 
Back
Top