The Case Against Remarriage

[obgyn65]

I agree with this.

I am very reluctant to put myself in a position to lose half (or more) of what I've built up, and as a successful saver, I'm much more likely to be contributing the majority of assets to any future division of property. I suppose, love conquers all, so if the right person and right situation presents itself, I can never say never.

 

[freebird5825]

I agree with this.

Make that two in agreement.
Most of you are familiar with my situation, so I will not repeat the details.
No signed bulletproof pre-nup, no getting hitched up to this lady.

I have a valid trust which clearly covers my separate property. I am still single and intend to stay that way. I learned my lesson the easy way.

 

[Danmar]

You guys just HAVE to be kidding. Does alimony even exist any more? Women are pretty close to half the work force, as I recall. The whole idea seem so antiquated in the 21st century.

I am paying $250k per year. Alimony certainly exists in Canada. If I die before her my estate continues to pay!

 

[Khan]

I asked for (and got) nothing. He got the house, the furniture, the boat, etc. Oh, I did get something - - a junker car on its last legs, and an 8 year old sofa, my books, and my clothes, $1000 in the checking account (and my rent was due).... and my freedom. Definitely a great deal IMO.

He was GS-12 and I was GS-7. I could not have afforded the house payments.

I forgot: I did get his mother's 10 year old car.

 

[Alan]

If we were to separate due to death or divorce, I don't think I would remarry, mostly because I can't imagine finding somebody that I connect with like I do DW. If I were to meet someone that I felt that way for, I wouldn't hesitate to marry her.

+1

We've been an "item" since we were 18 (married at 20) and can't imagine re-marrying should anything bad happen. But, one never knows, and if I should connect with someone else like I do with DW I would not rule out marriage.

 

[BigNick]

Of course, if marriage has a special meaning to you, or you belong to a religious group or social group that would frown on a man and a woman being close without the appropriate paperwork, then go for it.

My BIL is a devout Christian. He got married, three years ago, at the age of 52, to a woman aged 38. Both of them were virgins, because they live their lives the way the Bible says. Apparently, most Christians - given that 75% of Americans identify themselves as such - live according to a somewhat condensed version of the Bible, at least on that score...

 

[youbet]

My BIL is a devout Christian. He got married, three years ago, at the age of 52, to a woman aged 38. Both of them were virgins, because they live their lives the way the Bible says. Apparently, most Christians - given that 75% of Americans identify themselves as such - live according to a somewhat condensed version of the Bible, at least on that score...

I didn't have Christians in mind when I wrote that post BigNick. And discussing religious dogma, teachings, beliefs, etc., is more hazardous than discussing politics, so .......... NOT going there!

 

[Nords]

Apparently, most Christians - given that 75% of Americans identify themselves as such - live according to a somewhat condensed version of the Bible, at least on that score...

Hey, batting .300 in major league baseball is considered pretty good... I'm sure the same logic could apply to the Ten [-]Guiding Mission and Vision Principles[/-] Commandments.

 

[Sarah in SC]

I know several significant alimony payers among our male divorced friends. Life sucks for them! Even in this "modern" time, I guarantee there are women out there hustling for alimony. I've seen it!

 

[haha]

I am paying $250k per year. Alimony certainly exists in Canada. If I die before her my estate continues to pay!

Don't you know anyone named Vinnie?

 

[NW-Bound]

"Many divorce agreements provide for alimony or spouse-support payments, which is separate from child-support payments. Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, although the share of women supporting ex-husbands is on the rise."
The New Art of Alimony - WSJ.com

Wow. Men, read this and you will be cured forever of romantic love.

Ha

I just read the WSJ article posted by Tigger. Cases like the following are truly appalling.

"In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife."
​

Though I have no intention of ever ending my marriage of 30 years, I am glad I do not live in the state of Massachusetts. The article cited more cases like that. If it were not published by the WSJ, I would have said someone made up these stories.

 

[haha]

But the way I see it (through my cynical divorcee eyes), marriage is a financial arrangement that is not necessarily required for romantic love. So love all you want - - just don't pull out that diamond ring.

I think you are correct. However, as a separate issue, I think that "romantic love" is perhaps unbecoming and potentially hazardous for mature people, especially men. In my state, so few people were getting married that the spousal support thing wasn't working very well as an income stream for the ladies, so several women's organizations and the family lawyers got together and lobbied for and succeeded in getting legislation passed creating a kind of synthetic marriage, where someone can get whacked without knowing that he was vulnerable, unless he reads Washington Woman. Live with a woman in a romantic relationship (is that a misnomer or what??) for one year plus one day, and just try to lose her. Not so easy.

Ha

 

[DangerMouse]

The greed of some ex-partners never ceases to amaze me. There was a case recently in the UK where a lottery winner was sued by his ex-wife for a share of his lottery winnings. Never mind that she left him 10 years ago after committing adultery. Some people have no shame.

Lottery winner Nigel Page to pay ex-wife £2m who left him 10 years ago | Mail Online

 

[NW-Bound]

Greed, I understand. It's quite common. What is appalling are court orders upholding these outrageous claims. Do these judges have any brain?

 

[W2R]

I think you are correct. However, as a separate issue, I think that "romantic love" is perhaps unbecoming and potentially hazardous for mature people, especially men. In my state, so few people were getting married that the spousal support thing wasn't working very well as an income stream for the ladies, so several women's organizations and the family lawyers got together and lobbied for and succeeded in getting legislation passed creating a kind of synthetic marriage, where someone can get whacked without knowing that he was vulnerable, unless he reads Washington Woman. Live with a woman in a romantic relationship (is that a misnomer or what??) for one year plus one day, and just try to lose her. Not so easy.

Ha

Wow! That is shocking.

Sounds like the only safe way for a man to love a woman without getting in a situation like that, is to refrain from marrying and also to keep up separate residences. Then, you can love all you want, and enjoy your retirement alongside your sweetheart.

I may yet persuade some that there are advantages to living apart and not marrying. Not that that solution is for everyone.

 

[haha]

I may yet persuade some that there are advantages to living apart and not marrying.

You got me persuaded!

Ha

 

[want2xplore]

Sounds like the only safe way for a man to love a woman without getting in a situation like that, is to refrain from marrying and also to keep up separate residences. Then, you can love all you want, and enjoy your retirement alongside your sweetheart.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I give that one a +25

 

[vicente solano]

+1

We've been an "item" since we were 18 (married at 20) and can't imagine re-marrying should anything bad happen. But, one never knows, and if I should connect with someone else like I do with DW I would not rule out marriage.

Same thinking.

 

[chinaco]

It is a personal choice. There are some legal benefits to being married also.

Short of there being some sort of special circumstances... the determining factor is confidence in the decision/relationship and making a commitment.

IMO - In more cases than not.... the male would be fine just shacking up. The female wants [-]is going to press for [/-]a gesture of commitment and the security (or feeling of security) it signifies.

 

[chinaco]

The greed of some ex-partners never ceases to amaze me. There was a case recently in the UK where a lottery winner was sued by his ex-wife for a share of his lottery winnings. Never mind that she left him 10 years ago after committing adultery. Some people have no shame.

Lottery winner Nigel Page to pay ex-wife £2m who left him 10 years ago | Mail Online

The settlement looks like it was for the daughter... the ex-wife being the guardian was able to go after the money because of her legal role.

He could have tied it up in court for years with the goal of having the money put in a trust for his daughter... Even if the ex-wife was a trustee, the husband could probably get another trustee assigned to look out for the interest of the daughter.

The daughter has to be about 13. Not sure of the laws in Britain... but he might even be able to challenge her in court and go after custody. At a minimum, he could probably move the settlement date out to a time when the daughter was considered an adult and control her own money.

 

[keegs]

YouTube - What to Wear When Yachting: Part4

 

[growing_older]

the determining factor is confidence in the decision/relationship and making a commitment.

This, for me, is the aspect where my personal experience interferes. I was in a committed relationship that I could not have been more confident of. We both appeared as deeply committed as I can ever imagine. Until she decided that she wasn't. I suspect I will always be concerned that no matter how well I know someone and how committed we appear to be, I will remain vulnerable to such a change in the future. Makes defensive attitudes seem wise and difficult to imagine dropping that guard.

 

[Danmar]

I could write a book on the subject of divorce. I went through 15 years of bitter litigation. When I left #1 she kept all the assets except my future earning potential. Over the years she got a big piece of this too(maybe 15%). She has not worked since well before the divorce-why would she. The law and court precedent are terribly stacked against men in Canada. Still in the end I realized that however much money I gave her she would never be happy and I could not be happier. Furthermore against all odds my new wife and I have a wonderful relationship with my daughter who has turned out to be an impressive young woman. So am I anti marriage? So far batting 500. No prenup on #2. She supported me in our early days together and is a wealthy woman in her own right but still one must be very careful. There are certainly alimony/child support trolls out there.

 

[FUEGO]

That's probably why I haven't heard of any divorced women that I know, getting alimony. Most are women with advanced degrees and careers, and earning decent salaries.

I imagine the divorcing woman with advanced degrees and who is career oriented wouldn't receive much in the way of alimony or spousal support since her earnings would be in the ball park of her husband's.

However a lot of divorcing women don't fit those criteria. Taking time off from work to have children and raise children will hurt earning potential and make the husband's salary much higher in comparison (in general). For whatever reason, women also tend to earn less than men for the same work, all other things being equal (per the feminist research at least). Then there is the societal pressure for men to be the breadwinners and have the dominant income earning role in a relationship. Disparities in income make spousal support awards much more likely.

And another big factor is child support. I can't say that I have ever known of a woman having to pay her ex husband (or baby daddy as the case may be) child support. Like spousal support/alimony, child support awards and structures vary by state. In my state, however, child support awards are essentially set by statute based on earnings of each ex-spouse and can be very high for high income earners regardless of how much you previously spent on raising children. For LBYM couples, the child support payments could easily exceed what you were spending for an entire family's expenses in some situations.

The smartest move a devious woman could make would be to have a whole bunch of children with a high income man. Then leave his a$$ and collect a ton of child support (and maybe alimony). In our state, child support obligations cannot be affected by premarital agreements. The only defense to punitive child support payments is to have both ex-spouses working and earning roughly the same amount, and seek joint custody of the kids. Otherwise a non-working spouse has a financial "put" that can be exercised against the working spouse should the non-working spouse tire of the relationship (or just want to pursue other interests).

 

[travelover]

This, for me, is the aspect where my personal experience interferes. I was in a committed relationship that I could not have been more confident of. We both appeared as deeply committed as I can ever imagine. Until she decided that she wasn't. I suspect I will always be concerned that no matter how well I know someone and how committed we appear to be, I will remain vulnerable to such a change in the future. Makes defensive attitudes seem wise and difficult to imagine dropping that guard.

+1. It is difficult to read the smug posts of those that have a long term relationship and attribute it to their own skill. As they say, it takes two to make a marriage, but only one to end it.