Comments on: The New Art of Alimony (Or, You Still Have To Support Your Former Spouse 25 Years After the Divorce)

By: Nona

Nona — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:17:19 +0000

At 18 children are considered adults and expected to be self supporting.

Yet the courts think it's acceptable for an adult to support another adult untill……..

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:34:55 +0000

Chiming in with the other lawyers, alimony or spousal support waivers are frequently assessed for enforceability on an “unconscionability” basis, i.e. would the waiver be unconscionable at the time it is being enforced? Also, here in California, if the parties in a long-term marriage agree to no alimony (we call it spousal support), the Court frequently will accept that BUT will not terminate jurisdiction over the issue. Terminate jurisdiction is the key phrase here – if the jurisdiction has been terminated, it means no matter what you can’t come back. In a long term marriage, courts prefer not to terminate jursidiction because things can and do change. Does that mean this outcome was right? I don’t know. But that’s probably part of the reason for the ruling is the waiver was a present waiver but not a permanent waiver because the court retained the ability to resolve disputes about it.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:20:10 +0000

Wow, I live in MA and had no idea that alimony laws here were so crazy. Reading about stuff like this makes me not want to get married ever, or to get an iron-clad prenup. Poor Mr. Taylor; his having to pay alimony after 25 years and after his ex-wife previously waived her rights to future alimony is so wrong.

By: Puma

Puma — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:50:55 +0000

@ SeeJaneGetRich

The marriage rate above should read “new marriage rate”. While you are right about the ability to divorce affecting the total # of marriages, the “new” marriage rate is independent of divorce. I.e. that is the weddings per capita. People it seems are not only divorcing more, but also getting wed less in the first place.

But I agree with you on crashing marriage rates being a good thing for human indpendence and human dignity. It’s not the middle ages anymore and people should get with the program.

By: SeeJaneGetRich.com

SeeJaneGetRich.com — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:15:43 +0000

@Puma

Crashing marriage rate isn’t such a bad thing. Women in the past didn’t have the economic power to leave a bad marriage and now they do, so inevitably it will go up as marriages becomes redefined.

By: Why the hell do guys have to pay for everything? « Fabulously Broke in the City

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:01:15 +0000

[...] Leave me a comment This article from Well-Heeled about a couple that divorced 25 years ago, really annoyed [...]

By: Puma

Puma — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:04:12 +0000

Hence our crashing marriage rates. As per the Rutgers University Marriage Project, the weddings per capita have fallen by half since 1970:

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm#Marriage

We can’t really blame the guys now can we?

By: FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com

FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:49:42 +0000

That is INSANITY!
@Bonnie — It’s not that I don’t think a woman who was a housewife doesn’t deserve alimony. It’s just that the rest of the case makes the request and the grant from the judge, TOTALLY crap:

A) They signed an agreement WAIVING all future rights to any alimony

B) She had all this time while divorced (25 years?) to get her act together and she didn’t, so now she’s milking the only cow she can see

C) They have been divorced longer than they were married

D) She’s a cow for even having the idea of taking him back to court to squeeze money out of him.

UGH! So frustrating!

By: thisisbeth

thisisbeth — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:04:26 +0000

This is the insane party to me: “In June 2008, a probate judge ordered Mr. Taylor to pay temporary alimony based on Ms. Taylor’s “dire immediate need” and his “ability to pay.” ”

Wait. So if I hate my job and quit, can I force my neighbors to pay my bills? After all, it would be a dire need to be paid, and they have the ability (collectively, at least) to pay? (And it would be in their best interest, since they have no idea what might happen to my house if foreclosed upon.)

This is stupid. They have been divorced longer than they were married. That should be considered sufficient time for her to be able to handle things by herself. There should be no legal obligation for him to support someone he has not supported for the last 25 years, and has had no relationship with in the meantime. (He may choose to be generous and help her if they are still on friendly terms, but at this point, he should have no more legal obligation than any of Ms. Taylor’s girl friends.)

By: Cassie

Cassie — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:08:50 +0000

As unfortaunate as it is for Ms. Taylor, she is in no way entitled to ANY of Mr. Taylor’s money. She agreed not to go after alimony 25 YEARS AGO. And now because she is not doing well, she does? That’s just not right. I can’t believe that any judge would order Mr. Taylor to pay her anything. Total BS!

By: Red Lipstick Style

Red Lipstick Style — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:57:58 +0000

Sound’s like something that would happen to my fiance. If you saw his court documents, you would never marry, EVER!!! Even though his X has “old Italian money”, which is all the children ever speak about. Very disturbing. Make a mistake and pay the price for the rest of your life.

By: Zofie

Zofie — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:35:09 +0000

I agree that this is unfair, given the couple divorced 25 years ago and Mrs. Taylor had been employed during the marriage as well as after. Additionally, the couple signed an agreement not to seek alimony. Given that we do not know all of the details of the relationship and finances, I suppose I cannot truly judge the situation. In my little world though, that’s a really unfair judgment.

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:55:14 +0000

My dad had to pay my mom alimony for 10 years and I think she totally deserved it. (They were married for 25 years as well.) She was a stay-at-home mom and housewife that whole time and totally out of the workforce. She needed that money.

By: Jenn @ Paying Myself

Jenn @ Paying Myself — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:45:09 +0000

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll say again that I’m a lawyer in Canada and I practice family law.

Without saying here nor there about Mr. Taylor’s situation, I am wondering if you (or anyone else who chooses to comment) would feel differently if it involved child support? For example, what if a couple had one child who was aged 2 years when they separated, and the couple agreed to no child support, and 10 years later the parent who has custody loses their job and goes after the parent without custody for child support? Or further on, 16 years later the child goes to university and needs financial assistance, and goes after the non-custodial parent for child support at that time?

WellHeeled: I think the difference is alimony vs. child support – which I see as two very different concepts. Child support is for a child that two adults created together (and thus should take responsibility for, together). Also, in your example, the custodial parent loses his/her job when the child is 12 (still legally a child), so of course the other parent SHOULD pay for child support if he/she is able.

But alimony means supporting an adult – whom in the Taylors’ case (based on what I read), had an fairly equitable marriage and divorce (he got the vacation home, she got the primary home, they both worked). There should be no reason why 25 years later he suddenly becomes financially responsible for another adult. Even if that was his child who got sick and broke – there’s no reason that 25 years later his 30-something kid can go after him because the child thought the child support agreement was unjust.

Thank you for that very thought-provoking question.

By: Puma

Puma — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:54:38 +0000

If you are confused by such a ruling, then look no further than the actions of a pre civil rights southern sheriff breaking the tail-lights of an african-american citizen’s car, only to arrest him for a broken tail-light.

If this family court judge had to go to the lenghts to make up the story of an imminent flying saucer space invasion just to give the little lady (Ms. Taylor) her alimony, by jove he would.

What we are dealing with here is Institutionalized Misandry.

By: LA Daze

LA Daze — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:03:24 +0000

This is really frustrating and I can’t believe things like that are happening in this country. Bah. Makes me mad. I know we don’t have all the details, but I think i’ve read enough to assess the situation as unfair for Mr. Taylor and his 2nd wife. I agree with Kati – what made the ex-wife think she could go after her ex husband of 25 years? It’s rather sad to think that all those years, she was alone.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:55:47 +0000

So, in a simplified nutshell, the reason behind this is that its generally against public policy for couples to waive alimony. When couples decide to waive alimony, the judge can decide to accept or deny that waiver. When the judge accepts the waiver, its essentially like he’s ordered alimony of 0 dollars. In family court proceedings (including child support, child custody and alimony), orders can be modified based on changed circumstances of any party (the paying party lost their job and can’t pay as much, the paid party remarried and doesn’t need support anymore, etc). So when the judge accepted their waiver, he wasn’t necessarily accepting it permanently, if that makes any sense. I agree that it is completely stupid, and definitely lacks a sense of finality- can you really just be hauled into court for the rest of your life by your ex?? But I just wanted to give perhaps a little insight into the legal/procedural aspect of it.

By: kati

kati — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:32:50 +0000

What made the ex-wife even think of taking her ex husband of 25 years back to court? Most people certainly wouldn’t think of that as a solution.