Lifetime Alimony?

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon May 16, 2011 3:54 pm

It was mentioned in the news today, that Massachusetts is considering a proposal to end an antiquated law that provides "life-time" alimony for divorced wives.

A case in point, a man got married three decades ago when he was a kid, but got divorced less than five years later. He's been paying alimony ever since -- and there's no end in sight.

After his youngest child graduated from college a few years ago, his child support ended and his remaining alimony payment was $65 a week. But his wife took him to court for a modification, and a judge agreed to increase the alimony to $700 a week! That's absurd!!!.

So, should the leech get off her arse and fend for herself?Yes or No?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon May 16, 2011 4:15 pm

Not necessarily absurd---------What if there were mitigating circumstances-----wife disabled at time of divorce, mentally retarded (challenged), had they stayed married it's presumed he would be supporting her anyway----divorce does not end responsibility, as for the increase in amount to $700-----------Why not, if he now is making much more money.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue May 17, 2011 7:23 am

What if it were a man receiving the alimony, how much outrage would there be then?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 17, 2011 11:34 am

Lon;1359679 wrote: Not necessarily absurd---------What if there were mitigating circumstances-----wife disabled at time of divorce, mentally retarded (challenged), had they stayed married it's presumed he would be supporting her anyway----divorce does not end responsibility, as for the increase in amount to $700-----------Why not, if he now is making much more money.

If we're playing "what if" rather than looking at the specifics of a given case then what if the marriage broke down within a month because of the wife unreasonable behaviour and allimony was only granted because a child was on the way?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue May 17, 2011 12:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1359714 wrote: If we're playing "what if" rather than looking at the specifics of a given case then what if the marriage broke down within a month because of the wife unreasonable behaviour and allimony was only granted because a child was on the way?

This is why I have a problem with certain news items that do not give accurate details, and trying to get accurate details is a chore if not impossible. You could have a headline like "Mother Kills Infant"----that gets your attention, but then trying to get accurate and full details is not always possible.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:11 pm

Lon;1359719 wrote: This is why I have a problem with certain news items that do not give accurate details, and trying to get accurate details is a chore if not impossible. You could have a headline like "Mother Kills Infant"----that gets your attention, but then trying to get accurate and full details is not always possible.

If I read the OP correctly the law specifies alimony will be for life. I really do believe that, although it should be an option it is wrong for it to be the norm and each case should be taken on its merits.

If I have read it incorrectly then fair enough - the judge probably took the specifics into account in continuing it but for a state to specify that a man should support his ex indefinitely in all cases is absurd.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:20 pm

Bryn Mawr;1359721 wrote: If I read the OP correctly the law specifies alimony will be for life. I really do believe that, although it should be an option it is wrong for it to be the norm and each case should be taken on its merits.

If I have read it incorrectly then fair enough - the judge probably took the specifics into account in continuing it but for a state to specify that a man should support his ex indefinitely in all cases is absurd.

I agree

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:51 pm

In BC they grant alimony if the wife gave up a career to be home with the kids. The alimony is set for the amount of time considered reasonable for the wife to re-enter the work force when the kids are old enough to be left on their own.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue May 17, 2011 2:48 pm

This is reasonable lifetime Alimony isn't

In BC they grant alimony if the wife gave up a career to be home with the kids. The alimony is set for the amount of time considered reasonable for the wife to re-enter the work force when the kids are old enough to be left on their own

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:25 pm

Isn't alimony provided for the ex-wife only if she never remarries?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:30 pm

along-for-the-ride;1359739 wrote: Isn't alimony provided for the ex-wife only if she never remarries?

Here maintenance tends to be until the children leave secondary education - you maintain the results of the marriage, not the person you married unless there is a reason why they cannot maintain themselves.

cars · Post by **cars** » Tue May 17, 2011 3:59 pm

Lon;1359719 wrote: This is why I have a problem with certain news items that do not give accurate details, and trying to get accurate details is a chore if not impossible. You could have a headline like "Mother Kills Infant"----that gets your attention, but then trying to get accurate and full details is not always possible.

I usually don't do links, but . . . . .

Mass. May End Lifetime Alimony - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 17, 2011 4:13 pm

cars;1359744 wrote: I usually don't do links, but . . . . .

Mass. May End Lifetime Alimony - Boston News Story - WCVB Boston

now this :-

For example, for marriages of 5 years or less, the maximum alimony term would be half of the number of months of marriage, or 2 1/2 years.

I do disagree with. Where a marriage has resulted in child(ren) then the father should have part of the responsibility for the upkeep however short the marriage was. (or is upkeep separate from maintenance in the US?).

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:17 am

What if, during their five years together, they started a business and rather than sell it ,split any money and have to start all over , they decide she'll just recieve support from it and turn it over to him.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:50 am

flopstock;1359761 wrote: What if, during their five years together, they started a business and rather than sell it ,split any money and have to start all over , they decide she'll just recieve support from it and turn it over to him.

Then she receives support from it for the lifetime of the company - that is a private legal agreement outside of any divorce settlement.

cars · Post by **cars** » Wed May 18, 2011 10:58 am

Bryn Mawr;1359745 wrote: now this :-

I do disagree with. Where a marriage has resulted in child(ren) then the father should have part of the responsibility for the upkeep however short the marriage was. (or is upkeep separate from maintenance in the US?).

Alimony is seperate entity from "child support", for which the father is responsible for child support until the child(ren) reach 18, or several years older if/when they go to college.