An article published in The Wall Street Journal on October 31, 2009 garnered over 170 online emotionally charged comments over the weekend. The tenor of the article is set at the beginning: "Long viewed as payment for life, divorce settlements are facing strict new limits as some ex-spouses—primarily men—protest the endless support of a former partner. For richer, for poorer, forever?"
Bottom line: Alimony (spousal support) is not available to many women. Those who were married fewer than 7 to 10 years should expect no alimony award. Rehabilitative alimony is normally awarded to former wives who have children to raise and who have stayed out of the job market for many years. This disqualifies women in short-term marriages from an alimony award.
But what about women married for 15 to 20 years or longer?
The WSJ article gives many examples of modifications of alimony many years following a divorce and cites the hardships imposed upon the payor. In many instances, the payee looks like a scheming, undeserving individual -- often, but not always a female. Many of the comments warn about getting married and thus risking assumption of liability for the support of another.
The WSJ notes that several states have pending legislation that would drastically alter how, if, when, and for how long spousal support (alimony) might be ordered in a divorce case. See for example the following examples:
Massachusetts House Bill 1785: Alimony typically one-half the length of the marriage and no longer than 12 years, except when the supported party has minor children. Boston lawyer Steven Ballard discusses these two competing bills on his blog Massachusetts Divorce and Family Law Blog here. Another blogger has written here: Massachusetts Alimony Virus – Still No Vaccine Available - Stephen McDonough on October 3, 2009
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 953: Alimony can be terminated if the recipient cohabits with another adult in a romantic relationship.
The WSJ article "The New Art of Alimony" may be read here. A one-time registration may be required. The Comments are found here.Other posts on this Blog about Alimony may be read here.
Call me if you have a question about alimony or modification of a prior alimony provision.
I too disagree on spousal support for life. I divorced in July 2000 and have faithfully paid support for 10 years. To date, I have paid $201,514.00 in support payments. My ex-wife also got $109K from my 401K and $125K from the sale of our home as part of the settlement. I am now 66 years old (67 in November) and have been diagnosed with cancer. I peitioned the court in California to have my support payment of $1620 per month reduced. The CA DissoMaster showed that the new payment should be $259, yet the judge came back with a reduced amount of $1100. I am currently not working and receiving disability insurance payments of $6516 per month. My ex-wife has more than doubled her salary in 10 years and is currently earning $5226 per month. So now the judge has reduced my $6516 per month to $5416, and increased my ex-wife from $5225 to $6326.00. She has one mouth to feed and I have myself and my current wife. I am fighting for my life while my ex-wife is working and not fighting for life. I believe that the judge is totally without any moral compassion and biased against men for making a decision to reduce my payments to $1100, when I cannot afford that any more than I could the previous $1620.
Posted by: Allan Sillett | July 16, 2010 at 11:46 AM
As a retired military member I would have to disagree with your definition of retired/retainer pay. Military members do not make any monetary contribution to retired pay nor does the government. A military member must serve 20 years to be eligible to recieve pay, one day less 20 years, not eligible for retired/retainer pay. A military member is subject to recall, UCMJ, employment restrictions, citizenship, free from criminal convictions to remain eligible for retired /retainer pay. The former spouse is not legally or morally obligated to any of these restrictions to recieve a portion of the military members retired pay for life. A former spouse can remarry multiple military members for multiple "lifetime" retired pay awards regardless of lenghth of marriage, merit or circumstance. Former spouses can be incarcerated and still recieve payments. Military retired/retainer pay is reduced pay for continued reduced services. No Qualified Domestic Relations Order is required because it is a federal entitlement and NOT a qualified pension plan as per DFAS. Military retired pay cannot be passed on to heirs like property, disposed of, bartered, traded, sold. When a former spouse dies, payments revert back to the military member. How is that property? When the military member dies all payments cease. Morally and legally I can not understand why a military member should support a former spouse and their new spouse and family for life. It's just wrong. I invite you to visit www.ulsg.org .
Posted by: Frank | December 01, 2009 at 08:13 PM