"The New Art of Alimony"

[SarahW]

I find this almost unbelievable...and total B.S. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html

The Cliffs notes version :
-Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years.
-They divorced in 1982, amicable split. Both agreed to "waive any right to past, present, or future alimony."
-Paul Taylor remarried.
-27 YEARS LATER, in 2009, Theresa Taylor (now 64) told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings, or health insurance.
-Judge ordered Paul Taylor (now 68) to pay $400 a week for five years based on "dire immediate need" and "ability to pay" to support his ex-wife.
-After 5 years, payment will drop to $250 a week for the rest of ex-wife's life.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Just don't get married. Unless the tax break is worth it.

 

[crazy connie]

Gosh, guess I am lucky that my husband died!

A few months back they ordered a child to provide parental support. I think that was in PA.

 

[youbet]

Gosh, that article read like the headlines in those gossip papers you see in the magazine racks at the grocery store checkout....... But, wsj and apparently all true stories.

My takeaway - if you were divorced many years ago and thought legally you were clear from financial responsibility for your ex, think again. He/she may show up with a lawyer looking for alimony because you have "the ability to pay." Sheeesh....... The fact that part of this "ability to pay" is a home that the new wife inherited from her parents is especially scary.

 

[SarahW]

I think the judge's ruling is totally absurd and if I were that guy I'd pack it in and GTFO of Massachusetts.

 

[Cruisinthru]

Gosh, I am glad I live in Texas. No Alimony.

My husband divorced his ex almost twenty five years ago. The main problem in their marriage was her spending habits. Although he made a very good salary it was never enough. In her mind she deserved the best of everything and it was his duty as the husband to provide it for her. They were badly in debt at the time of the split and he spent years paying everything off.

Now twenty five years later she is still working and spending. I don't think anything has changed much, except she never found another man to provide for her.

My husband and I lived below our means for twenty years of married life and retire early. We both worked and contributed to saving. We retired at age 55 and 62.

We hear from the kids that she can't understand how we were able to quite working at such a young age. She is now 66 and can't see when she will be able to retire. She hasn't save much from what we hear.

Thank goodness we don't live in one of the states mentioned in that article.

 

[SarahW]

Cruisinthru--I could have written your post, except my hubby's ex could NEVER hold a job and is now living with her 82 year-old mother. Sheesh.

I'm also glad to live in Texas. I think the concept of alimony is ridiculous.

 

[Cruisinthru]

I think alimony is a necessary evil for some. Examples- The wife who didn't finish her education and put the husband thru school only to be dumped for a better model! The wife with health issues who is left with little means of support by a husband who is just movin' on up in life. The wife who has small children at home and limited earning power. Temporary alimony to help with the transition period would be appropriate, but not for life. Alimony would maybe allow one to complete their education or receive training that would make it easier to support themselves. Also when the alimony laws came into existance it was much harder for women to support themselves than it is in today's job market.

To come back years after the divorce and ask for help is outragious. I can't believe any judge would go for that.

I also was divorced in the eighties and a single mother for eight years. Times were tough during that period, but I made it thru those years with just a small amount of child support. Those lean years made me want to advance in my job, do as much as I could to insure my financial security for life, and most of all they taught me to not depend on anyone else to take care of me! I really honed my LBYM's in those years.

 

[Walt34]

Cool! Does this mean that I can go after my ex-wife 26 years after the divorce?

Dang! I have a job, a pension, and savings. Guess that leaves me out.

Serves me right for taking responsibility for myself....

 

[ziggy29]

Serves me right for taking responsibility for myself....

That seems to be the recurring theme in recent times...

 

[SarahW]

I believe "the wife who didn't finish her education" is responsible for her own situation. IMO, alimony is archaic and has outlived it's usefulness. Child support is quite another situation, however. Children should always be supported...by BOTH parents.

 

[ziggy29]

I believe "the wife who didn't finish her education" is responsible for her own situation. IMO, alimony is archaic and has outlived it's usefulness.

In some cases, I agree. If an educated, professional woman (or man for that matter) voluntarily hurts their career in order to stay home with the kids for a few years, they have lost years of experience, they have lost "currency" on their skills set and any number of other things. Or maybe someone stayed home with the kids instead of going to college while the other spouse gained work experience, salary history and stayed current in their field.

In that case, I think it could be appropriate to provide a limited amount of spousal support for a period of time. I can't imagine it ever being more than about 5 years, as that should be enough time to gain experience in the workplace and brush up on the education and job training. That is, of course, above and beyond child support which is a separate issue.

But the example in this particular thread is beyond a travesty.

 

[Kronk]

Jim Nantz Forced To Pay Wife $916,000 Per Year In Alimony

 

[SarahW]

Hmmm, I guess I'm the minority who believes that each of us is responsible for our own self. I was a young divorcee with two small children, but I never considered asking anyone for assistance...public or otherwise. I could see what had to be done--and I did it. My ex-husband is an excellent father, however, so our children never wanted for anything...which IMO is all he "owed."

 

[Walt34]

I believe "the wife who didn't finish her education" is responsible for her own situation.

I have a niece in that situation. The sad part is she could have had the education for almost nothing because for about 10-12 years she worked as a secretary at a state university. One of the bennies for employees was that they could take two courses per semester for free. The only expense would have been the textbooks.

Now divorced out of a 20-year marriage she has virtually no marketable skills and no college degree.

 

[freebird5825]

I didn't see NY listed in the article. Whew!

in dh2b's case, his attorney demanded, as a condition of his client signing the divorce settlement at all, that the ex sign a witnessed, notarized affadavit in front of the female judge to the effect that the ex accepted the terms of the divorce and waived any right to re-open the case, forevermore and regardless of future circumstances.
The judge ordered the affadavit be signed in her presence upon hearing evidence that the ex had purposefully dragged out the court proceedings for 3.5 years at great expense to dh2b, and had willfully violated previous written agreements about tangible property division, plus was playing all sorts of ridiculous tricks in both the county Supreme and Family Courts at the expense of the taxpayer.
Oh what I would have given to hear that gavel bang that day.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Not sure why the gender of the judge would matter.

 

[Cruisinthru]

Divorce brings out the ugliest behavior in some people. I agree that the gender of the judge shouldn't matter in the least. Once the divorce is signed by the judge it should be final. That is the way it is done in TX. Once it is signed by all parties and the judge has signed it it's a done deal and can not be reopened for anything. My ex attempted to reopen ours about thirty days after the judge signed it, the "male" judge agreed to reopen, my "male" attorney said he couldn't do that and he would love to argue it in front of the state supreme court. The high court ruled in my favor and it all went down in the legal books in TX. My attorney was young and wanted to take the case to the high court so he did it for free. The whole mess came about because my ex had given me the amount that he wanted out of the sale of our home and I paid him that amount. Thirty days later he decided he wanted more money!

 

[samclem]

Cool! Does this mean that I can go after my ex-wife 26 years after the divorce?

Dang! I have a job, a pension, and savings. Guess that leaves me out.

It might not "leave you out" as far as SHE is concerned. If there's a knock on the door and somebody is serving papers, I recommend that you tell them you've never heard of Walt34.

 

[unclemick]

'till death do us part' --- er ah and or I need the money and can find you.

Hmmmm - chalk another one up for being single.

heh heh heh - I hope a 29 year one night stand doesn't count!

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Ah wow didn't know Texas had a no alimony law. That explains a few things to me.

 

[Walt34]

It might not "leave you out" as far as SHE is concerned. If there's a knock on the door and somebody is serving papers, I recommend that you tell them you've never heard of Walt34.

That thought crossed my mind but she'd have a hard time making a case. I'm fairly certain she has a much better income than I do since in 1983 she was a GS 11 nautical cartographer. By now she's almost surely at least a GS 13 or 14 and earning well over six figures. She wasn't intellectually stupid, but was impulsive and just couldn't see why financing every "I wanna..." was not sustainable. And she had "champagne taste on a beer budget".

If her current hubby can afford her, he's welcome to her!