Say you make 4x to 5x your WW, is it realistic to feel outraged that she wants alimony?

A few more facts.

WW has been back to work for 3 years after being a SAHM for the length of time.

WW was the one who filed for divorce.

WW has refused any attempts at reconciliation.

So, should income disparity be the sole determination of alimony?

<small>[ September 19, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: javaSansContour ]</small>

NO, the witch can work and DOES work full time! And still has time and energy to boink her OM on the side!

<small>[ September 19, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: baba2 ]</small>

It's absolutely out of the question!!!!
Lord, what nerve. What greed!

Let's just hope the law in your state supports reason.

Java,

I wish I could say my true feelings but I don't want to get kicked off the boards <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Lets just say that I don't think that wanting to be "Independent" is defined as living without me on my paycheck.

I'm pretty much in the same boat and pretty disgusted that she even has the nerve to expect it.

It used to be "Whats Mine is mine, whats yours is ours"

Now it's more like "Whats mine is mine, whats yours should be mine"

WIWH

Okay,

All those replies are what morality and common sense would dictate, but sadly that is not what the law dictates.

In real life, it sucks big time, but here is the way it goes:

Alimony is dependent upon the length of the marriage; the incomes and/or potential incomes of the parties; how much one spouse contributed to the other spouse's education or business; and a few other determining factors. So for example, if the marriage was 15 - 20 years, she put the husband through med school by working two waitress jobs, she only has an associate's degree, and the wife was a SAHM for the entire marriage--and he now has an M.D. makes or has the potential to make $100K/yr. whereas she makes or has the potential to make $25K/yr...well chances are there is going to be alimony for a determined number of years for her to get back on her feet and maybe get her own education. She contributed to his ability to make $100K/yr. even if she is now the one screwing the milkman.

OTOH!! If they have only been married six years, and she came into the marriage with a MSW and he came into the marriage with a MBA, and she chose to be a SAHM for the last three years, and he has the potential to earn $75K and meets that potential--but she has the potential to earn $60K but chooses to work part time as a florist and makes only $12K...well the likelihood for alimony is MUCH, MUCH less. For example, if the hubby could prove that before the marriage she had her master's AND had a job earning $45K with guaranteed raises to $55k within the first three years AND she gave up that job AND that job currently exists at roughly those same earnings capacities--then alimony could be enormously disputed through his attorney.

The fact that she had the affair, and filed, and refused to try to reconcile makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the legal arena. So I would suggest that you stop using those arguments as they will be irrelevant. Use facts that WILL be relevant!! Facts like: she had this degree; she had this job with this earning; she has kept her education up to date; she did not contribute to my earning capacity; my degrees did not change; I am meeting my earning capacity...thus I should not be penalized if she is not meeting HER earning capacity.

I know that in your head, the betrayal, her having the affair, her being the one to file, and her being the one refusing to reconcile should have some kind of consequence, but in the legal system it just does not. The sooner you can accept that fact, the sooner you can start mounting an effective legal strategy.


CJ

I did not answer your poll, java, because I was unclear what question you were really trying to ask.

Is it reasonable to feel outraged at the idea that a wife who deserts her husband, even when she is perfectly capable of supporting herself? I think those feelings are quite reasonable under many such circumstances. However, as CJ explained, the laws on these matters are not always consistent with common sense.

Your poll question is "Should a WW expect alimony?" Well, given a "long-term" marriage and an income disparity, the question has an unequivocal legal answer (at least in most states), and that answer is "yes."

My ex-wife and I have no children. I supported her through her post-graduate education, after which she deserted me, filed for divorce, quit her part-time job, and took a full-time job which somehow she and her lawyer forgot to mention when temporary spousal support was calculated.

Is this "fair"? Is this "just"? Well, many people have been shocked to learn that I am paying spousal support - and those people include her friends (or, perhaps more accurately, people who were her friends before she shocked us all by her desertion, when she cut off all her relationships except for her immediate family and a few non-Christian friends who barely knew me). I have yet to meet anybody who thinks this makes any sense.

CJ outlined a rationale for the laws which deal with spousal support - laws which in my state explicitly preclude taking moral factors into account - but, unfortunately, the laws are only a small part of what really happens when you are dragged through the court system. CJ implies that you may be able to reduce or eliminate alimony by documenting and presenting certain facts. That may, in some jurisdictions and circumstances, be true. But the cost may be high.

As CJ suggests, mounting an effective legal strategy requires accepting certain realities. "Effective" here means optimal under the circumstances, but the circumstances may make even that optimal outcome worthy of outrage.

I am paying far more spousal support for a much longer time than the court would have awarded if our case had gone to trial. (I say that because I am paying well beyond the time and amount which the baseline calculations used by the court would have recommended, and the adjusting factors were all in my favor, including the fact that I had helped my ex-wife get established in her career while she had contributed nothing to mine.) I also turned over the majority of our assets to my ex-wife. I "approved" this settlement because it had become apparent that as outrageous as the terms of the settlement were, the total cost to me (in legal fees) would have been even higher if I had not settled.

There's one important reality I learned to keep in mind when going to court, and that reality is this: the courts do not care about morality, or about justice, or about truth, or about how much their own incompetence is costing you in legal fees, or even about the laws they are supposed to be upholding. They care about one thing above all, and that is getting you off the docket with a minimum of their own effort and involvement.

The title is a bit off from your post.
Should a WW Expect Alimony?
Unless she's missing a few bolts (in the brain), of course she should "expect" it.

Yes, you should be outraged and no she does not deserve it.

So, should income disparity be the sole determination of alimony?
No.

I was once a WW - I was entitled to alimony (though BS didn't know I was having an A). I told my attorney I did NOT want alimony. I wanted out of the M and it wasn't my BS fault.

I don't think a WS should expect anything...unless abuse is involved..then I take a different stand

I agree with everyone. Yes, legally, she has a right to alimony, but, of course, she doesn't deserve it.

In my case, my WH abandoned both me and our business for the OW and drugs and alcohol. He left me to figure out how to run our business alone while raising his niece and nephew for whom we were legal guardians. He was extremely verbally abusive as well as physically intimidating, kicking in doors and destroying property. I've had a restraining order for over 3 years. Since the business is still 1/2 his, I send him money every two weeks and pay his rent as part of his final settlement. He also collects disability for an old ankle injury that only seems to prevent him from working when he's actively abusing his current substance of choice.

Now he wants not only alimony but attorney's fees. So, it's not just you guys who have to contend with this.

My question is Should an Abusive Alcoholic/Addict WH Expect Alimony and Attorney's Fees? In his case, the answer is a resounding, "YES!" He wants it ALL.