smart or stupid? A marriage and money question

[tall73]

I'd advise keeping that shielded from bankruptcy if at all possible unless her husband has found a way to contribute to the finances satisfactory to her desires.

Part of the issue throughout these threads is whether his PTSD is a valid reason for him not to be able to work or go to school. And it sounds like he is still undergoing treatment with the VA, and still receiving benefits from them. It may not be just his choice, even if it is her desire. And while the VA check I am sure is small, it not like he is not adding to the finances at all.

Or he could be using it as an excuse. But if he is still undergoing VA treatment, they must think there is still something to be done.

 

[Endeavourer]

Do the creditors have anything to do with her husband's lack of work? Does her potential resentment at her husband make their debts any less valid to these third parties?

No, they do not.

However, laws were created to not allow creditors to consider or claw into 401(k)'s to protect foolish people like the OP. If I were her, I'd find a different way to pay these debts than draw down the 401(k) because she will permanently resent the loss of it without her husband working.

To my perspective, it would be far worse to enhance the original bargain with the creditors (the original bargain with the creditors did not include use of 401(k) for payment) than to suffer further deterioration of the marriage.

I would recommend that temporarily a second job to get them through hard times would be better for the marriage than permanently eliminating the 401(k).

Because she has been all over this board resenting her husband not working, whatever facts she has about his PTSD is not changing her emotions about it. She needs to find a way to reconcile her reality with her emotions. It's possible her husband could so **something** to contribute if he was well enough to attend school. They need to run that option out to prove it one way or another in a way they both agree before increasing the number and severity of issues she will be resenting him for.

That she played a role in the credit situation will not change her future resentment. Obviously their financial situation wold be greatly improved if he could contribute, and she will continue resenting that until the two of them come to an enthusiastic agreement on a future path.

If you can pay your debts, even if it means bringing in funds earned before the marriage, why wouldn't you? For better or worse means you are in it together.

I feel very strong agreement with this. I am in the lending industry and need all my debtors to repay the loans I've issued. I was REALLY ticked off when people started buying new fancy homes before purposely defaulting on their old fancy homes during the housing crisis.

This is a different situation altogether. There is a legal clause that I never agree to in contracts called "best efforts". I only agree to "all reasonable efforts". Best efforts means by all means necessary, even if it means running over your own mother. All reasonable efforts means by all means necessary short of stupidity such as running over your own mother.

I would not apply a "best efforts" standards to her debt (just like I don't to my debtors), which in her case would be destroying her marriage to pay her debts by providing a credit enhancement (i.e. offering her 401(k) which was not part of the original deal. Due to the state of her marriage and her particular issues, she should stick with "reasonable efforts" and not offer "best efforts", and particularly the credit enhancement of her 401(k).

Reasonable efforts would include such actions as a temporary job to meet payment obligations, selling any valuables, downsizing the car if possible, moving to a cheaper apartment, etc etc etc.

 

[Endeavourer]

Reasonable efforts would include such actions as a temporary job to meet payment obligations, selling any valuables, downsizing the car if possible, moving to a cheaper apartment, etc etc etc.

If reasonable efforts cannot get the job done, then the law provides bankruptcy protection for the debtors. I would recommend utilizing this protection, afforded by law, instead of touching the 401(k) for HER situation.

If the situation were mine, I would draw down my 401(k) to repay what I owe. I firmly believe that it's not my creditor's problem if I were foolish and I would not be able to sleep at night knowing I took on an obligation and then shafted someone even though I had the ability to pay.

At this moment, the OP doesn't have the ability to repay from her 401(k) without grave harm to herself given how she will further damage her marriage with resentment, unless she can come to an agreement with her husband they are both enthusiastic about for their financial future.

Right now her giver is being coerced into providing for the whole household on her own, against her desires. Her situation already won't end well --> she needs to change this situation asap.

 

[Endeavourer]

Part of the issue throughout these threads is whether his PTSD is a valid reason for him not to be able to work or go to school. And it sounds like he is still undergoing treatment with the VA, and still receiving benefits from them. It may not be just his choice, even if it is her desire. And while the VA check I am sure is small, it not like he is not adding to the finances at all.

Or he could be using it as an excuse. But if he is still undergoing VA treatment, they must think there is still something to be done.

I feel this is irrelevant to the marriage unless SHE embraces a truth that his PTSD is in "sickness" and he truly can't provide.

Pursuant to her other posts, she believes he is capable of contributing financially. Until her belief changes or he does something to help financially, she will continue to resent him and continue to feel coerced into supporting him.

 

[tall73]

I feel this is irrelevant to the marriage unless SHE embraces a truth that his PTSD is in "sickness" and he truly can't provide.

Pursuant to her other posts, she believes he is capable of contributing financially. Until her belief changes or he does something to help financially, she will continue to resent him and continue to feel coerced into supporting him.

Given that she chose to marry someone with PTSD, and apparently she was banking on his payments that for disability based on that, she may want to adjust her thinking rather than building up resentment over what she knew was a possibility. Yes, many people function with PTSD. And some fall apart.

If we go by her statements she has also said she got upset at his reaction to whatever this secret was, left him, started an emotional affair, and still doesn't feel love for him anymore. etc. Ongoing social support is one of the things that helps cope with PTSD. She indicates he took a turn for the worse following this. It is not out of the realm of possibility. I think if she is going to start dealing with her resentment it might start with her realizing she put herself into a situation that she now regrets.

You suggested a second job. She was doing that. She just quit it because it was too much for her. So that is not happening. And if you are in agreement on the in it together part, why are you so worried about this 401k pre-dating the marriage? And your talk about the state of the marriage makes it sound like she should get out while she still has her retirement--that is not in it together.

As to the laws, yes, I mentioned she may be better off financially if she shields it. But that doesn't address the moral duty to repay a debt that she took on. Especially as she acknowledges that they were living beyond their means, in addition to the other problems that came up.

 

[tall73]

I feel this is irrelevant to the marriage unless SHE embraces a truth that his PTSD is in "sickness" and he truly can't provide.

Just because Dr. Harley doesn't address it doesn't make it irrelevant. It is his entire rationale for everything he is doing. So getting to the bottom of it is pivotal whether it is legitimate or he is using it as an excuse.

 

[Endeavourer]

Given that she chose to marry someone with PTSD, and apparently she was banking on his payments that for disability based on that, she may want to adjust her thinking rather than building up resentment over what she knew was a possibility. Yes, many people function with PTSD. And some fall apart.

She is here because she doesn't believe he has run out his options on what he can provide. They need to come to a conclusion that they both enthusiastically support on what options he can provide. Until she is in agreement and not feeling coerced, her problem with the marriage is not going to change.

If we go by her statements she has also said she got upset at his reaction to whatever this secret was, left him, started an emotional affair, and still doesn't feel love for him anymore. etc. I think if she is going to start dealing with her resentment it might start with her realizing she put herself into a situation that she now regrets.

I would disagree with your conclusion. A happy present is the best way to forget an unhappy past.

They need to sit down and respectfully brainstorm their situation until they can both come to enthusiastic agreement. If necessary, due to the emotional volatility of this topic, have a third party help them brainstorm. Once they are in enthusiastic agreement on how to move forward into their future, they need to keep applying the skill of respectfully brainstorming together (i.e. without anger outbursts, disrespectful judgements or selfish demands) until they are both enthusiastic about the conclusion.

You suggested a second job. She was doing that. She just quit it because it was too much for her. So that is not happening. And if you are in agreement on the in it together part, why are you so worried about this 401k pre-dating the marriage? And your talk about the state of the marriage makes it sound like she should get out while she still has her retirement--that is not in it together.

I suggested that she engage in temporary activities for now until her problem is solved because if she initiates a permanent change that she will resent, she will permanently resent it and it cannot be undone. Such as, a temporary second job can be dropped when a solution is mutually agreed upon and then the damage is only temporary. If it were me, I would likely not do the second job but rather find a way to encourage my husband to care as much about the finances as I do (this is assuming that I believe he has the capacity to contribute, which, per her posts, she does). Perhaps even separating the finances until he figures out how to meet his half. I don't know if that will work for her.... only she can know what would work for her.

In no way have I suggested she get out while she still has her retirement. All of my suggestions have been for the building up of a foundation for a permanent relationship. Piling a new resentment into the relationship right now would be very detrimental. I don't believe she should do that.

As to the laws, yes, I mentioned she may be better off financially if she shields it. But that doesn't address the moral duty to repay a debt that she took on. Especially as she acknowledges that they were living beyond their means, in addition to the other problems that came up.

I agree. They were very foolish; the money was spend on frivolities instead of essentials. If I walked away from vacation and entertainment debts I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. In her case, walking away from them might be better than the alternative - a struggling marriage which will suffer severe damage from an enormous, new resentment.

Just because Dr. Harley doesn't address it doesn't make it irrelevant. It is his entire rationale for everything he is doing.

I don't understand what the "it" is in your statement.

If the "it" is the husband's PTSD, Dr. Harley's experience is that the spouse with the issue needs to fix it on his own without relying on the other spouse to be the caretaker or being coerced into enabling it. Being coerced to enable a quasi-sickness causes massive love bank withdrawals, as we can see with the OP.

If the issue is something that is **truly** out of the spouse's ability to help themselves, such as a stroke, then of course the situation cannot be helped. The OP is not convinced that her husband's PTSD is a matter of completely disabling sickness, which is the crux of their disagreement.

If it were my husband, I'd consider what he is able to do all day while he is not working --> work out and play video games? Or, does he stay curled up in fetal position in a corner all day? In other words, what capabilities does he show to entertain himself all day and could those capabilities be applied to a way he can financially contribute?

So getting to the bottom of it is pivotal whether it is legitimate or he is using it as an excuse.

Yes. Agreed. And also, her believing that he is incompetent to provide any support if that is the case.

 

[Endeavourer]

oops, meant to post this here:

My husband, on the other hand, has dropped out and accepts only his basic VA check. He won’t get a job. He won’t go back to school. He talks about starting a business himself but his ideas are too poorly organized right now..

@tall73,
It seems that her husband himself does not believe his is incapable of working. This is likely a good part of why the OP is so resentful of having to support him.

 

[Endeavourer]

@bluegreysky
Are you following this thread, and if so, what are your thoughts on the advice we have provided?

 

[tall73]

She is here because she doesn't believe he has run out his options on what he can provide. They need to come to a conclusion that they both enthusiastically support on what options he can provide. Until she is in agreement and not feeling coerced, her problem with the marriage is not going to change.

I would disagree with your conclusion. A happy present is the best way to forget an unhappy past.

Taking personal responsibility for your past choices seems important. Or else the happy present won't stay happy for long because you repeat the things that got you there.

She stated she "inadvertently" wound up in an emotional affair. She built up this resentment of him, even though he is actually bringing in money through his disability, even when she knew he was on disability. These are actual decisions on her part that she needs to address in any "happy present".

They need to sit down and respectfully brainstorm their situation until they can both come to enthusiastic agreement.

There is only so much enthusiasm to go around about bankruptcy, dealing with debilitating stress, etc. How about they skip the enthusiasm and just decide to get each other through it since they decided to commit to each other. Agreeing on a course of action is necessary. But helping a sick spouse through difficulty is not always about enthusiasm. And sometimes it means you have to change your thinking about what you are entitled to.

If necessary, due to the emotional volatility of this topic, have a third party help them brainstorm. Once they are in enthusiastic agreement on how to move forward into their future, they need to keep applying the skill of respectfully brainstorming together (i.e. without anger outbursts, disrespectful judgements or selfish demands) until they are both enthusiastic about the conclusion.

I would start with a third party counselor for a second opinion to see if they can resolve the medical issue, if there is one.

I suggested that she engage in temporary activities for now until her problem is solved because if she initiates a permanent change that she will resent, she will permanently resent it and it cannot be undone.

Kind of like Bankruptcy? It is going to leave a lasting impression either way. One pays their debts, the other doesn't. One takes responsibility, the other doesn't. If you want a good present, take responsibility for the past.

Such as, a temporary second job can be dropped when a solution is mutually agreed upon and then the damage is only temporary. If it were me, I would likely not do the second job but rather find a way to encourage my husband to care as much about the finances as I do (this is assuming that I believe he has the capacity to contribute, which, per her posts, she does).

Well he did anyway. He was going to school. That was until she said she didn't love him, left him and got the hots for someone else. I can't imagine most folks would deal with that very well, but especially when social support is a key element to dealing with his trauma.

And he still has income. The disability that he gets for not being able to work. That he was awarded for service rendered in the military. She was treating education expenses that were paid for as additional income. That was not the intent.

Perhaps even separating the finances until he figures out how to meet his half. I don't know if that will work for her.... only she can know what would work for her.

So this ENTHUSIASTIC mutual agreement is to start with her making unilateral decisions about what works for her? Maybe her getting over her emotional affair and indecisiveness about whether to even continue the marriage might help to. That might work for him. He even said it would.

In no way have I suggested she get out while she still has her retirement. All of my suggestions have been for the building up of a foundation for a permanent relationship. Piling a new resentment into the relationship right now would be very detrimental. I don't believe she should do that.

So he can get over his trauma, but she can't get over the resentment of the financial mess she helped create, or contribute her past earnings to deal with it? But she can short creditors and borrow from her mom?

I agree. They were very foolish; the money was spend on frivolities instead of essentials. If I walked away from vacation and entertainment debts I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. In her case, walking away from them might be better than the alternative - a struggling marriage which will suffer severe damage from an enormous, new resentment.

Sorry, but the way to build a great marriage is not to add additional guilt of failing to pay debts incurred by past decisions. Mutual accountability is what they need. It should start in all areas, including applying money they have to debts they have.

I don't understand what the "it" is in your statement.

If the "it" is the husband's PTSD, Dr. Harley's experience is that the spouse with the issue needs to fix it on his own without relying on the other spouse to be the caretaker or being coerced into enabling it. Being coerced to enable a quasi-sickness causes massive love bank withdrawals, as we can see with the OP.

Are you Dr. Harley? Because that would explain a few things. Otherwise, I am not sure how it is relevant. She chose to marry someone with a known disability and figure his disability checks into their income plans. She wasn't coerced into that. She signed on the dotted line. Just like with the debt. And he is getting income for his "quasi-sickness" because they believe he is disabled.

If the issue is something that is **truly** out of the spouse's ability to help themselves, such as a stroke, then of course the situation cannot be helped. The OP is not convinced that her husband's PTSD is a matter of completely disabling sickness, which is the crux of their disagreement.

If it were my husband, I'd consider what he is able to do all day while he is not working --> work out and play video games? Or, does he stay curled up in fetal position in a corner all day? In other words, what capabilities does he show to entertain himself all day and could those capabilities be applied to a way he can financially contribute?

Unless he goes professional video gamer that may not relate. The working out would seem a positive as he is trying to restore some order into his life, and the physical and mental are not unrelated. If he were playing video games it probably shows he doesn't want to deal with reality.

If he can work he should. But then before she was upset that he was studying all the time and neglecting her. So he didn't lack drive until she said she didn't love him, left him, developed an emotional affair for someone else, and can't decide whether to stay in the marriage or not.

She wasn't "enthusiastically" happy either way.

 

[tall73]

oops, meant to post this here:



@tall73,
It seems that her husband himself does not believe his is incapable of working. This is likely a good part of why the OP is so resentful of having to support him.

Except even here she said his thoughts are not organized..ie he is not getting it done. And that is understandable. Starting a business is a daunting task even in the best of times. And work from home opportunities are often tied to working from the office initially and then migrating home, or to schemes where you have to buy into training or equipment, or a program, and of course they don't have the money for that.

If you know of great work from home opportunities, post them, perhaps that might help. But you might also want to acknowledge that he is bringing in income based on his past service. He has no issue with that going to support the family. But you are ruling out her earlier work supporting them.

 

[Endeavourer]

@tall73
I am not Dr. Harley, and would never represent myself to be. My reference to him was in response to your question about him.

His research has been of immeasurable value to me. I have applied it to my marriage diligently and as a result have a marriage not just with sparks but with shooting stars, that is full of romantic love and is the penultimate fairy tale marriage.

We too, have difficult conflicts to resolve, but we resolve them in the way Dr. Harley found they are resolved in good marriages --> and it works. We are always, without exception, more in love with each other during and after we work out a conflict than we were before. We are just two ordinary sinners, saved by grace, and in the type of marriage that has built in conflicts such that statistically speaking it should have failed already. We have other, additional incompatibilities that have caused marriages to fail also (such as significant, if not vast, doctrinal differences) but we **ALWAYS** refuse to coerce the other person's giver when we problem solve so we keep brainstorming until we have an enthusiastic agreement. When the agreement is mutually enthusiastic, no one's giver is being coerced and both parties can be freely and joyfully happy.

I am so grateful for his research and my marriage that I am "paying it forward" when possible. There is a community of us that are in the same situation and volunteer quite a bit of our time for our fellow brothers and sisters just out of sheer gratitude for what we have. That is why I'm on this forum, posting to people in marital distress. His very simple, algorithmic method works unfailingly even in very complex situations. Our marriages are all proof of that.

With respect to her problems:

The opinions and solutions on her indebtedness that you have described are what would work for you.

It is my opinion that her marriage is a bigger problem than her debt is, and also her marriage should be resolved first, before her debt is resolved. It is my opinion that if she resolves her debt first it could kill off what's left of her marriage.

So we diverge on what patient we are "treating". I'm looking at the marriage as the sole "client" and you are looking more at the life challenges they are facing and offering your values on how they should resolve them. (To be clear, per the rules of the forum, I am a lay volunteer and am not a professional.)

From her various posts, I feel her resentment towards her husband not working is the top problem for their marriage right now. Once they are enthusiastically agreed upon their course forward with respect to this issue, the rest can be resolved. Otherwise a foundation hasn't been built to provide a lasting resolution but is kicking the problem down the road - potentially into a bigger problem with MORE resentments.

My advice is solely focused on marital restoration first, without adding more resentments and without any moral or value judgements on the rest.

If the OP divorces, their creditors will be even worse off than they are now.

With respect to the past situation while they were separated, her husband took her back. Once the issue has been dealt with and necessary precautions taken to avoid a recurrence, it is best that a happy present be built and that it never be mentioned again. I have tried to engage @bluegreysky with regard to building a happy present (which would have led to a more detailed discussion about how that was buttoned up) in a previous post, but she does generally does not engage back when specific advice is provided.

Unless she replies to my query above, I will stop spending time in her posts.

 

[tall73]

@tall73
I am not Dr. Harley, and would never represent myself to be. My reference to him was in response to your question about him.

Fair enough, but you rarely say anything without noting Dr. Harley.

The opinions and solutions on her indebtedness that you have described are what would work for you.

It is my opinion that her marriage is a bigger problem than her debt is, and also her marriage should be resolved first, before her debt is resolved. It is my opinion that if she resolves her debt first it could kill off what's left of her marriage.

Why would it kill off her marriage to resolve her debts? Nothing about resolving debts kills a marriage. She is quite some time from retirement. Many people have had to recover from a retirement setback due to market forces, etc. and manage to deal with the loss and with the resentment. And the debt is tied to her marriage issues as it speaks to their lack of coordination in the first place. They need to look at all the issues of the marriage.

So we diverge on what patient we are "treating". I'm looking at the marriage as the sole "client" and you are looking more at the life challenges they are facing and offering your values on how they should resolve them. (To be clear, per the rules of the forum, I am a lay volunteer and am not a professional.)

You don't get to separate life into "clients". The Scriptures say not to leave debts unpaid. That is not something you can dismiss just to work on the marriage. Especially since paying the debt would not kill the marriage. Resentment would kill the marriage. And since she committed to marriage with someone who has a known condition, she should seek to resolve her resentment over using her funds to help make ends meet even if he is more limited due to his condition. You don't have to harbor resentment.

From her various posts, I feel her resentment towards her husband not working is the top problem for their marriage right now.

They didn't enthusiastically agree on that. He seemed to think her falling out of love and emotionally attaching to another guy was the top problem. She was posting a short time ago wondering whether even to stay in the marriage. You don't think that is the top issue?

Why don't you want them to both enthusiastically identify the top problem? Why do you get to pick? Or more to the point, he already said his top problem--he feels she doesn't care and isn't committed--well at least to him, more to the memory of some guy who never returned her feelings. She seems to admit that. What about that would motivate him? How do you account for his motivation before all this happened? Then he was TOO motivated and she didn't see him enough.

Once they are enthusiastically agreed upon their course forward with respect to this issue, the rest can be resolved. Otherwise a foundation hasn't been built to provide a lasting resolution but is kicking the problem down the road - potentially into a bigger problem with MORE resentments.

Sorry, I don't buy that his commitment to financially support someone who isn't committed to love him and doesn't care for him and wants someone else is the top priority.

I don't get why you think that he can brush off trauma but she can't brush off resentment. I don't get why you think he should be fine with her not loving him, leaving him, wanting another guy, etc. and then expecting his support.

My advice is solely focused on marital restoration first, without adding more resentments and without any moral or value judgements on the rest.

Marriage restoration when she doens't know if she wants to stay and would rather be with a guy who didn't want a relationship? And that will start with him working? No. She is upset about her situation--working a lot. That is understandable. But every part of this situation she was a factor in. It all needs to be addressed. The debt and their spending habits, their fighting early on, her decision to marry someone with a disability and then not treat it as a disability and resent it, etc.

If the OP divorces, their creditors will be even worse off than they are now.

With respect to the past situation while they were separated, her husband took her back. Once the issue has been dealt with and necessary precautions taken to avoid a recurrence, it is best that a happy present be built and that it never be mentioned again. I have tried to engage @bluegreysky with regard to building a happy present (which would have led to a more detailed discussion about how that was buttoned up) in a previous post, but she does generally does not engage back when specific advice is provided.

She was still talking about inadvertently starting an emotional affair. You really think it was dealt with? Would you take that response in the other threads where you are talking about the spouse turning over ever stone to find out what was going on, etc. She is still actively thinking about it and posting about it here. It is not done. She doesn't care for him, that is not done. And he is telling her that it is impacting his PTSD, which is possible due to social support being a part of recovery.

Unless she replies to my query above, I will stop spending time in her posts.

Unless she confronts her role in all of this, and he his, they don't have much of a marriage to fight for. She wasn't sure last I checked anyway that she wanted to continue. Why would that motivate him?

 

[Endeavourer]

If you know of great work from home opportunities, post them, perhaps that might help.

Many large employers post jobs that are able to be done at home. I've worked from home for multinational companies for the last 23 years. Not knowing his education or military specialization, I'd be unable to offer anything more specific than just there are many legitimate jobs out there that allow (or even require) working from home.

But you might also want to acknowledge that he is bringing in income based on his past service.

What I would acknowledge will not help @bluegreysky. From the way she describes her situation, it sounds like what he is bringing in is substantially less than her minimum wage job brings in.

She is the one that needs to be happy in a marriage to her husband. She has identified an emotional need for financial support, and it would be easier for us to help her and her husband come up with a solution she is enthusiastic about than to try to convince her that her emotional need is not important.

He has no issue with that going to support the family. But you are ruling out her earlier work supporting them.

Not really clear about what you are saying here. I'm not ruling out her work contributing to their support.

 

[tall73]

What I would acknowledge will not help @bluegreysky. From the way she describes her situation, it sounds like what he is bringing in is substantially less than her minimum wage job brings in.

What you fail to acknowledge when giving advice that downplays what he is doing will make a difference to how she takes your advice. The amount is what it has always been. The other amount was for the education.

She is the one that needs to be happy in a marriage to her husband. She has identified an emotional need for financial support, and it would be easier for us to help her and her husband come up with a solution she is enthusiastic about than to try to convince her that her emotional need is not important.

He has identified a need for her to give a hoot about him and you have said that was manipulative and coercive. He is bringing in some income and has been ruled disabled. You doubt that completely. Yet we have ample evidence she is still fixated on some guy she met, and does not care for her husband any longer. Yet you have no problem with that.

I have stated the need for a counselor to get to the bottom of his PTSD. If it is legitimate, then there is only so much he can do. If not, then he should get busy. But to take her perception at face value of a medical issue, and give no care for his stated issue is not consistent at all.

Not really clear about what you are saying here. I'm not ruling out her work contributing to their support.

Her past work in the form of her 401k. Why is that off limits? Is it not essentially a specialized savings from past earnings? Yet his money in recognition of his past service goes right into the budget. Why are you saying she should feel resentment, but he should not?

 

[tall73]

Many large employers post jobs that are able to be done at home. I've worked from home for multinational companies for the last 23 years. Not knowing his education or military specialization, I'd be unable to offer anything more specific than just there are many legitimate jobs out there that allow (or even require) working from home.

And if he has no specific skills?

 

[tall73]

If the "it" is the husband's PTSD, Dr. Harley's experience is that the spouse with the issue needs to fix it on his own without relying on the other spouse to be the caretaker or being coerced into enabling it. Being coerced to enable a quasi-sickness causes massive love bank withdrawals, as we can see with the OP.

It sounds like Dr. Harley doesn't like anything happening in life that messes with his system if that is the case. Love bank withdrawals? How many withdrawals are caused by this conversation?

"Yeah I knew you had PTSD, but now I can't take it. And you really reacted poorly to that secret I never told you before. Oh and that time I left when I said I don't love you, well I started loving someone else. Oh,and I still don't love you. And I am moving back to commit to staying IF it works out, and all my needs are met. And I have an emotional need for you to pay up, so get on that. And don't think I am going to let you manipulate me into caring for you."

Yea, I can only imagine the "love bank" and "sanity" withdrawals that would cause.

 

[tall73]

Based on the OP there is a plan for her husband to go back to school again as well. So if the use of the 401k would eliminate the current financial crisis there is already a plan in place for his income to return to what it was (though of course it is primarily for education). If he does go back to school there is still the hope of long term success.

From the OP

This summer, if all goes as planned, my husband should be back in school.. and back to being paid better by the VA. At that point, instead of saying "oh boy fun money!" I would be stuffing it back in the IRA.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I was going to jump in on this, but then I saw PTSD called a “quasi-sickness” and it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

So instead, I will say that the back-and-forth speculation on what’s best for her can be easily nuked by saying she is to make no choices on finances until she secures a lawyer and a financial advisor. They will be able to tell her if pulling from her 401k is wise or not. If what she owes is less than what her IRA holds and she can avoid bankruptcy they will likely advise her to draw it down as the loss of retirement savings in somebody under the age of 40 is a less risky and harmful move than filing for bankruptcy, the effects of which will follow her forever. If what she owes is more than her IRA and/or what she owes may be mitigated by extenuating circumstances (her husband’s disability, creditors who are unscrupulous, fraudulent lender terms, debt negotiation, etc) they may advise leaving it be and filing bankruptcy as the debt against her could be lowered to change on the dollar. They may even try a combination of both, telling her to not touch her IRA until they settle her resolution amount and then when it’s determined, advising to draw from the 401k to fix it.

A lawyer, a financial forensics specialist, a financial planner, and even the state will tell her how to best proceed better than any of us can. From the info she shared (live-out separation and that financial burden for several months, financial mismanagement being the cause of her situation, a disabled spouse, and voluntarily self-terminating a job and working less than full time), she reads on paper as being incredibly high risk. It’s crucial she does nothing from this point out without consulting a lawyer or, at the least, a financial planner who specializes in restructuring after bankruptcy.

 

[mkgal1]

I was going to jump in on this, but then I saw PTSD called a “quasi-sickness” and it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Me too. I couldn't form my words in response to that