FOXNews.com - Man Must Pay Partnered Ex-Wife Alimony - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

A man in CA wants his alimony payments to stop b/c his ex-wife has entered into a legal domestic partnership with another woman. Well, a CA judge has ruled for the man to keep paying. I thought same sex marriage was legal in CA. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you consider same sex marriage legal, shouldn't you take the responsibility that goes along with it and be financially responsible for the relationship? So what do you think? Should he still have to pay or should this man be able to stop alimony payments?

I see it the same as if she had remarried another man. In general I disagree with open ended alimony. I feel like putting a time line on it, giving the spouse sufficient time to train into a field to support themselves, would be the proper thing to do.

In my opinion when she entered into the legal partnership she dissolved the agreement concerning her alimony.

Kat

I don't agree with alimony at all, except in very rare cases. No adult should be completely unable to support him- or herself, and it's unfair to expect an ex-spouse to pay for an able-bodied person who could be working.

That said, yes, I agree that IF a new marriage were to be considered grounds for termination of alimony (which, again, should only be very rare cases), THEN a domestic partnership should be weighted the same way. But I don't think it should.

The whole idea behind alimony that ends when a recipient gets married is completely absurd. It reeks of outdated notion that women are the property of their husbands. Alimony should only be given for a limited period, while the recipient undertakes education or job training, and then only in the instances where a spouse put his or her career aside while married for the sake of the family. Someone receiving alimony on those terms should continue to be entitled to it whether remarried (or partnered) or not. It's not the NEW spouse's responsibility to pay for financial and career decisions made in the first marriage.

I thought same sex marriage was legal in CA.

It's not, at least not yet.

Whatever the alimony law is, should apply whether the person remarries a man or a woman. There should not be any difference in treatment to any of the parties involved.

I don't know what the alimony law is, but it should be the same across the board in my opinion. Meaning if it's cut off when the woman remarries a man, it should also be cut off when she get remarried to a woman. If it's continued after remarriage, it should continue regardless of the gender she remarried.

I don't believe it should be a remarriage issue, but rather a time limit issue. I know several people who are in long-term relationships but will never get re-married because it means the alimony would stop.

I think that the alimony thing is complicated. If one partner has voluntarily disabled him or herself by staying out of the workforce for a long time in order to keep the home fires burning, too long to successfully return, then I believe that the other partner is on the hook. I also believe that some assistance or sharing out might be in order when the former couple had been accustomed to living a luxurious lifestyle and one of them now finds him or herself earning mini-money but this would also depend of course upon the division of assets at the time of the divorce.

There are two interesting examples of alimony issues in my husband's family. His sister met and fell in love with a Frenchman. She left her career as an apprentice stock trader in a discount investment house in order to live with him in France and have his children. The marriage has ended and they have been locked for some years now in an ugly court battle. At stake is a piece of property which is worth a chunk of money. The children have been born and are being raised in France and their mother does not wish to return to Canada. France has now become her home. At the same time she has been unable to secure anything but menial jobs in France and these have been through the kindness of friends. Eventually she will secure half the money from the marital property but this will only permit her to buy another, more modest home. She will need income assistance for the rest of her life.

The second example concerns my husband's brother. He has been working as an investment banker for a Canadian bank in various off-shore locations for some period of time now. His wife quit her job as a personal assistant to a senior executive in order to be with him. Not long ago they returned to Canada and he suddenly asked her for a divorce. He offered to split the money 50-50. She is still looking for a job and has hired a lawyer. She is also in bad shape about being dumped. It seems that he is pissed off that she has taken on a lawyer. It is likely that he will continue to make more money than she will and she has also lost her footing in the labour force because she chose to support the marriage and his career. My husband is kinda pleased that she has got herself a lawyer.

I think that alimony may be in order when a woman (or a man) who is in the later stages of her life finds herself single again. It is difficult to find work let alone establish a career when you are in your fifties. I certainly don't believe that alimony should be awarded as a form of punishment to the "bad" spouse and I don't think that it is warranted when the incomes of the two partners are in the same ballpark. The issue then is merely one of child support.

Good points green. In your examples, it does indeed put the wives at a distinct disadvantage. It is a difficult situation at best, whether to award alimony/maintenance, for how long and if and when it should cease.

Unfortunately my personal knowledge is involving people like gadgetlady mentioned, who are fully involved in new relationships, and refuse marriage solely on the grounds it would cost them the alimony. One couple I know, the kids are grown, and she now is living with her former attorney! The ex husband, is a foreman for an oilfield service company, he is not destitute, but neither does he roll in the dough. My guess is he makes in the 85-90K range, BUT he pays $1200.00 a month in alimony. They have literally broke him, financially, and spirit as well---they file something on him everytime he turns around...to respond costs him as well, to not respond is to agree to whatever silly thing they happen to have come up with. They even managed and succeeded in keeping him from joining a pre-paid legal service through work, amazing what you can do when you know all the tricks!

I personally never received any alimony, or maintenance following my divorce, and only received a whopping total of $150.00 in child support over a 16 1/2 year period! Occasionally I think I should have nailed his butt to the wall, but for what---at least my DD did not grow up with us battling non stop.

Thanks for the different perspective! I could see one of the women you mentioned doing just like the guy who works with my DH's former wife! Just when I feel sorry for her and think 'yeah she deserves help' she'll run off with the attorney!!!! j/k

Kat

I have a couple of opinions here. Like others, I think that there should be a reasonable time limit on alimony. I also think, though, that unless a domestic partnership has all of the legal benefits and bindings of marriage, it should not be considered a reason to discontinue alimony. Admittedly, I don't know enough about domestic partnerships in California, whether they are legally binding, or whatever. If they aren't legally binding relationships, but are still considered grounds to discontinue alimony, what keeps someone from asking that they be allowed to stop alimony payments just because their ex has a new boyfriend or girlfriend? Does that make sense or is it as clear as mud?

I find the actions of the oilfield foreman's ex-wife and her attorney lover to be ethically and morally heinous. I cannot imagine anyone being this malicious and this greedy but, alas, so many people are. I would like to see legislation in place which would allow the individual who is on the hook for paying alimony to apply for a reduction or a total stop to this obligation once the financial situation of the former partner has changed. (It would be amusing, sez Green sarcastically, to see that lawyer stand up in court and claim that he does nothing to support his current live-in lover and that the foreman must continue to pay.)

Money issues between former couples so often do become ugly. I used to work with a woman at the aircraft factory whose ex-husband was a dentist and very wealthy. They had 2 children and he was required to pay child support, only child support! She herself didn't want a dime of his money. Every month he was late and every month she had to go through the courts to get the money. These constant fights wore the woman out.

I agree that it all needs to be revamped, but I don't have any clear cut solutions either!

The biggest problem I believe facing my DH's co worker is the fact that so many lawyers and judges are part of the good ol' boys system.

My DH was divorced in Colorado, and he paid maintenance, for several years, until she was awarded SSDI. She too btw works for an attorney! He paid for the years before I entered the picture, and he/we continued to pay both until the court changed it to simply child support. We saw his DD every other Thanksgiving or Christmas, and for a month in the summer. We have every check ever wrote to her mom. We provided insurance, we bought all the school clothes and supplies when she was with us for the summer, and we always had a big birthday party--although never on her birthday, we never got her then. We celebrated Christmas when she was with us, either at Thanksgiving or Christmas. We sent packages for Valentines, Halloween, Easter, Get well, just because---you name it, we were very involved. Then his ex took us back to court wanting to reinstate the maintenance. 4 years later, and over $60K later, it was denied, after being appealed all the way through Colorado courts! A judge in Denver STILL with proof of all of this, and testimony from the daughter saying Dad was good to her---called my DH a Dead Beat Dad! His ex testified that he never sent her anything on her birthdays or Christmas. Which under oath was true----and we were never given a chance on the stand, to say why...being that we give those to her in person! She testified that the DD called and was crying and upset, on the phone, and after talking to her found out that her Dad had promised to take her to the lake to Celebrate the 4th of July, and they had not taken her. Under oath---it was all true. We had planned a trip to the lake---instead we ended up in the hospital with DH having an emergency appendectomy! And yes she was crying, she was scared for her Dad!

There are so many ways to get around the real truth, and when dealing with angry spouses, etc. NOTHING is as it appears to be all the time!

These were just our own personal experiences. And we too were paying out the nose for representation, and she was working under the table doing collections for the attorney she used to work for, and getting free counsel. She even bragged about it to us after the final settlement.

I wish I knew a way for it to be fair----but even experiencing it, leaves me lost as to how it could be done.

Kat

Bitch sounds like a good word for your husband's ex-wife. This kind of bad behaviour is always hardest on the kids.

Ya know, that is not the first time I thought that! In fact around our house, the file box we carried back and forth to court with all of our cancelled checks, mailing rec'pts. etc. in it...was referred to as the "Sink the Bitch File".......and rightly so.....and while it may not have sunk her, it kept her from getting any more $$$$.

We had no issue whatsoever with the child support---but he put her through school when they were married to become a paralegal. Getting his own degree at night, and following the divorce. So she was capable of supporting herself. After all it was her he caught in bed with another man......her own cousin! yep she was a winner! He moved up in the world if I do say so myself!!!!

Kat

Oh good grief, Kat. That's a hellacious story! That was the divorce from beyond hell.

My sister got awarded alimony when she and her husband divorced. He was cheating and was caught. He just wanted out and didn't contest the alimony (their kids were grown). After they'd been divorced for a year or so, he went to court and asked to have it reduced. The court sent them to arbitration. He got the alimony reduced because she had a good job and he had moved out of state and had a lower paying job than when they were married. My sister, actually the bitch in the story, was so spiteful that she quit her good paying job and took a lower paying job so that he would not be able to get the alimony reduced again.

She got half of his retirement and insurance and everything else. To be fair, she worked their whole married life so she actually probably deserved half of everything they had accumulated, but I'm not so sure about the alimony. They were married 34 years. He definitely done her wrong, but she was a bitchy woman so who's right?

I don't think that alimony should ever be imposed for punitive reasons alone. Your sister was capable of standing up on her own two hind feeties without any financial assistance, BJean. For sure she should have received one half of the marital assets, but alimony??? That just isn't right.

I agree! As we all know, courts awarded alimony for many years when the husband in the divorce "strayed", and it was used as punishment for him making a mockery of his wedding vows and also because he had broken one of the Ten Commandments.

When I was contemplating divorce in Arizona, I discovered that it was a no-fault divorce state which meant that we split everything 50-50 that was accumulated during the marriage. Rarely was alimony part of the deal unless as someone posted earlier, one of the spouses sacrificed her/his career for the other.

The court did not want to hear any arguments about who did this or that during the marriage. If one person in a marriage wanted a divorce, it could be obtained. If the couple could not agree on the division of property, everything had to be sold and the proceeds divided equally. Quite an incentive for couples to work things out without doing it in a court room.