If he were an ordinary employee who was fired from a job I am still not sure that I would agree with you, but that would definitely be a different scenario from what the OP is dealing with.
For an asset that will be 100% hers by the end of things, morally she should give back at least all the money invested to really cut out my family completely and it be completely hers. Of the invested amount, we're already expecting to lose at least half of it in an endless argument over gift vs. loan. She is now trying to weasel out on the other half as well thereby stealing 100% of the large grand sum my family had put into getting our mom and pop shop up and still end up keeping the business all to herself at the end. So in the grand scheme of things, I am not profiting from the asset but instead mitigating loss so I don't imagine a judge would hold this "smooth transition" thing against me, especially since if she really digs back in her emails and texts, she already has everything she's asking me for but is too lazy to look and would rather bully me, scapegoat me, and intimidate me into remaining a subservient abuse victim to her. There's certainly no smooth transition for me suddenly being unemployed, financially insecure, and job hunting and e-learning young kids through a quarantine!
But again, since she is attempting to claim this as unrelated and independent to Marital Status Quo, her strategy, not mine, then we are approaching this issue divorce-free making me an ordinary employee. In that scenario, why couldn't I just block communications from the employer who just unilaterally ended their relationship with me?
Y'know, I would really love to hear her side of the story.
OP, it appears that what you REALLY want is for someone to agree with you, regardless of how wrong you are.
So here goes: You're right, she's wrong, and the judge is going to sentence her to a lifetime of listening to nothing but yodeling podcasts.
Here's the answers I got so far to my current inquiry:
1. Divorce court will not look favorably upon my actions. I don't disagree but there are mitigating circumstances which will be addressed in actual divorce court. I have to ask this just in terms of labor law first. Cross that other bridge when I get to it.
2. You were fired and have no obligations anymore strictly speaking from a business sense. That's what I thought but...
3. I don't agree with the last person. Okay, so why not? I need to know the legal fine print in this kind of case that I might not be aware of.
4. Passwords belong to a company. This also means the company has full control over administering, altering, and resetting passwords, right? I hear that more in terms of once I leave the company, I'm locked out of the all the systems which is perfectly reasonable because they own the systems and in that case, also own control over the passwords like you said, but it's still unclear why that has anything to do with me anymore after I've been ejected from the company.
5. You're both wrong. That's probably true in any disagreement that gets personal, but please elaborate why you think so in this case so that I can reflect on my own wavering stance on the matter.
6. Her side of the story. Yeah that's fair. Re-reading some explanations, I may have interpreted some of the reasons behind her actions for her, but the actions themselves and the timeline are still objective facts. Most if not all are documented in some form or another. Whether or not the consequences of such actions were intentional is up to interpretation. I feel I have enough presentable evidence to show a pattern of behavior that would make these consequences appear intended, but now we're re-entering subjective territory and falls back into the divorce court realm so to avoid any further dismissal of my inquiries as simply seeking affirmation, I'll curtail the dramatic language stick to the plain facts as much as possible.
The best advice I heard offline so far is to aggressively move ahead with the divorce. This labor law matter is only coming up now because we're both waiting for the lawyers to work on something and she's probably bored. Once we accelerate the divorce, this labor matter will probably drop off or get resolved as part of the settlement and become moot.
2A:34-23.1 Equitable distribution criteria.
4.In making an equitable distribution of property, the court shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors:
a.The duration of the marriage or civil union;
b.The age and physical and emotional health of the parties;
c.The income or property brought to the marriage or civil union by each party;
d.The standard of living established during the marriage or civil union;
e.Any written agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage or civil union concerning an arrangement of property distribution;
f.The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property becomes effective;
g.The income and earning capacity of each party, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children, and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage or civil union;
h.The contribution by each party to the education, training or earning power of the other;
i.The contribution of each party to the acquisition, dissipation, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, or the property acquired during the civil union as well as the contribution of a party as a homemaker;
j.The tax consequences of the proposed distribution to each party;
k.The present value of the property;
l.The need of a parent who has physical custody of a child to own or occupy the marital residence or residence shared by the partners in a civil union couple and to use or own the household effects;
m.The debts and liabilities of the parties;
n.The need for creation, now or in the future, of a trust fund to secure reasonably foreseeable medical or educational costs for a spouse, partner in a civil union couple or children;
o.The extent to which a party deferred achieving their career goals; and
p.Any other factors which the court may deem relevant.
In every case, except cases where the court does not make an award concerning the equitable distribution of property pursuant to subsection h. of N.J.S.2A:34-23, the court shall make specific findings of fact on the evidence relevant to all issues pertaining to asset eligibility or ineligibility, asset valuation, and equitable distribution, including specifically, but not limited to, the factors set forth in this section.
It shall be a rebuttable presumption that each party made a substantial financial or nonfinancial contribution to the acquisition of income and property while the party was married.
L.1988, c.153, s.4; amended 1997, c.407; 2006, c.103, s.80; 2009, c.43, s.2.
I suggest that you read the statutes that I linked to in this post and don't put the cart before the horse.