Half: Divorce and Alimony

Off Topic
41

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I think that kind of alimony should also only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that. [/quote]

So a man or woman is faithful for 15 years, and has a slip up. And he or she forfeits all rights to alimony as a result? It doesn’t work that way in business, and it doesn’t work that way in marriage. Alimony should have limited term, and it should take into account the level of skill the party receiving alimony possesses.

Besides, if you think about it, it isn’t equitable to completely eliminate alimony for someone who cheated. Example: A woman cheats on her husband, who earns a paycheck. She gets no alimony. A man cheats on his wife, and he earns the paycheck. He has to pay alimony. Does he get an additional penalty for having cheated? Does he have to turn over all of his money? Do you see what I’m talking about?

42

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.

But the Courts aren’t determining what constitutes cheating, as I think you know??? Some folks have an open marriage but what if one wants a change? Is flirting cheating? Are you going to legislate whether is intercourse or are you going to include oral or what about aural sex?

And, heaven forbid, what if someone lies and says their spouse cheated? Folks lie about conduct during a disso.

I dunno… this is what makes marriage so unique.

Courts do take cases as a case by case basis.

It’s cheating if it violated the understanding the couple had. At least if it violates the understanding going into the marriage. That’s an issue of proof and fact-intensive inquiry. But that’s what courts do.

That would be true if it weren’t marriage which the Courts assume will evolve and change according to the lives and directions of the partners. This again… makes marriage unique. How do you quantify love. What if I say, my spouse doesn’t love me enough. I am going to sue. Is the Court going to decide, “yes he does” or is the Court going to say, “he has failed in his obligation” you win.

How do you prove love? Maybe you can prove infidelity but again that is subject to the understandings of the parties which during the course of the marriage will change as a marriage is a living contract, constantly evolving.

See… this is why I got out of family law. There is no bad guy usually. Just folks in a bad situation.

[/quote]

Oh, really? You practiced family law? Well, then you are obviously more versed on the issue than me. I just think there’s got to be some understanding between a couple. Maybe it will change throughout the marriage. But if it exists, one spouse can show that the other spouse has violated it. Engaged in a betrayal. etc…

43

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
My wife makes serious coin; otherwise, I would never gotten married.

Women want to trap men into a marriage, pop out a couple of babies, and play mom - which means hiring a nanny, shopping all day, and driving a Range Rover.

For most men, marriage is a total scam. But it’s something men fall for.

Women can be really deceitful. So it’s a slow process how you get stuck. First, the girl is like, “We’re always together. It’s silly we pay two rents.”

Being a man, you fall for the logical argument and move in together. But then it’s one “logical” move after another until you’re stuck.

The end game is them having babies and not working. If you recognize this, as a man, you’ll be ahead of the game.

I’m actually happily married; but I made sure I found one who makes as much or more than I make; and who will want to continue working, even if we do have children.

If your wife makes as much as you do, you can’t get taken to the cleaners during a divorce. If your wife doesn’t, your financial life is in ruins from a divorce.

Oh, and if you have kids that you love. LOL! They will be pawns in a divorce battle. You won’t get to see them, even if your wife is a total piece of shit. The law favors women. It’s astounding, and most men cannot even understand what is happening to them in divorce court. It’s that unfair.

And, as a criminal guy, I’ve seen more than a few cases where the mom puts their kids up to falsely accusing their dads of child abuse or sex abuse in order to extort a greater divorce settlement. Think your kid would never do that? Oh, believe me, I’ve seen a Father of the Year type accused of this. (And the kid later admitted the whole thing was a lie her mom put him up to.)

Talk to some lawyers. Most will tell you they will NEVER do family law. The women involved in family law are so disgusting. I would rather represent O.J. Simpson than the average female divorcee.

Again, if you think I’m jaded or whatever, ask around. No need to take my word for it, lol.[/quote]

I feel the love.

I don’t know how you men put up with us.

Thank you for allowing me to be a part of your world, being the miserable excuse for a being that I am.

All men are noble and good, thank God for their existence and I live to walk in the shadow of their greatness.

44

[quote]nephorm wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I think that kind of alimony should also only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.

So a man or woman is faithful for 15 years, and has a slip up. And he or she forfeits all rights to alimony as a result? It doesn’t work that way in business, and it doesn’t work that way in marriage. Alimony should have limited term, and it should take into account the level of skill the party receiving alimony possesses.

Besides, if you think about it, it isn’t equitable to completely eliminate alimony for someone who cheated. Example: A woman cheats on her husband, who earns a paycheck. She gets no alimony. A man cheats on his wife, and he earns the paycheck. He has to pay alimony. Does he get an additional penalty for having cheated? Does he have to turn over all of his money? Do you see what I’m talking about?[/quote]

I didn’t say they should completely eliminate alimony for someone that cheated. Not at all. But the cheater shouldn’t get half. Infidelity is a huge betrayal, even after 15 years of faithful and supposedly happy marriage. Maybe especially so.

45

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
That’s why it should be a case-by-case determination. A woman who is raising the children, especially if she had a career the couple decided she should give up to do so, is making much more of a contribution to the marriage [and the family] than a woman in a childless marriage who doesn’t worked, never worked, never wanted to work, and does little else besides.[/quote]

If both parties entered into the marriage expecting her to live a care-free existence…

46

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.

But the Courts aren’t determining what constitutes cheating, as I think you know??? Some folks have an open marriage but what if one wants a change? Is flirting cheating? Are you going to legislate whether is intercourse or are you going to include oral or what about aural sex?

And, heaven forbid, what if someone lies and says their spouse cheated? Folks lie about conduct during a disso.

I dunno… this is what makes marriage so unique.

Courts do take cases as a case by case basis.

It’s cheating if it violated the understanding the couple had. At least if it violates the understanding going into the marriage. That’s an issue of proof and fact-intensive inquiry. But that’s what courts do.

That would be true if it weren’t marriage which the Courts assume will evolve and change according to the lives and directions of the partners. This again… makes marriage unique. How do you quantify love. What if I say, my spouse doesn’t love me enough. I am going to sue. Is the Court going to decide, “yes he does” or is the Court going to say, “he has failed in his obligation” you win.

How do you prove love? Maybe you can prove infidelity but again that is subject to the understandings of the parties which during the course of the marriage will change as a marriage is a living contract, constantly evolving.

See… this is why I got out of family law. There is no bad guy usually. Just folks in a bad situation.

Oh, really? You practiced family law? Well, then you are obviously more versed on the issue than me. I just think there’s got to be some understanding between a couple. Maybe it will change throughout the marriage. But if it exists, one spouse can show that the other spouse has violated it. Engaged in a betrayal. etc…[/quote]

No, I am sorry, I should not have implied that I was an attorney. I was only a paralegal.

But do you see even with our discussion of what marriage should be there are just way too many shades, so much to interpret, not like a business contract.

47

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Now today, I still would not go with a prenup. To me that shows you are not in it for the long haul.[/quote]

That’s silly and unsophisticated. Only poor people think like that.

It’s like saying, “I’m a good driver. I don’t need car insurance.”

Or, “Hey, I’m 35 and in good health. I don’t plan on dying, so I’ll hold off on the life insurance.”

Or, “I’ve got a few years left. No need for a will.”

Or, “My family will do the right thing if I’m in a vegetative state. No need for a living will.”

I’m not going to candy-coat how silly your position is.

Life is full of risk. Part of being successful is managing risk.

Contracts - that’s all a pre-nup is - are simply about having your affairs in order in the event things don’t work out. It’s no different than any other form of insurance or risk management.

I’m a young man in good health. I plan on living a lot longer. I don’t anticipate any car crashes or that my place will be set on fire or robbed.

But I still have life insurance. I have car insurance. I have renter’s insurance.

48

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
No, I am sorry, I should not have implied that I was an attorney. I was only a paralegal.[/quote]

In family law lawyers don’t have any special knowledge paralegals don’t have. So your opinion is just as valid as a lawyer’s on family law, that’s for sure.

49

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Besides, if you think about it, it isn’t equitable to completely eliminate alimony for someone who cheated. Example: A woman cheats on her husband, who earns a paycheck. She gets no alimony. A man cheats on his wife, and he earns the paycheck. He has to pay alimony. Does he get an additional penalty for having cheated? Does he have to turn over all of his money? Do you see what I’m talking about?[/quote]

This is a bad analogy.

If the woman DOES NOT WORK, then her job is taking care of her husband. Period. When she cheats on her husband, she in essence quits her job.

If the woman doesn’t like that, great, get a job. I’m sure more husbands wished their wives would work. But if you accept a job as a house wife, well, do your job - which means don’t “moonlight” on your husband.

If the man in your hypothetical quit his job, he’d also lose his paycheck.

So it’s about parity. Quit your job, lose your paycheck.

50

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
No, I am sorry, I should not have implied that I was an attorney. I was only a paralegal.

In family law lawyers don’t have any special knowledge paralegals don’t have. So your opinion is just as valid as a lawyer’s on family law, that’s for sure.[/quote]

I worked for Certified Family Law Specialist (ACFLS) so that was all they did.

but thank you, I just apologize if I had implied I was an attorney.

51

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote: I feel the love.

I don’t know how you men put up with us.

Thank you for allowing me to be a part of your world, being the miserable excuse for a being that I am.

All men are noble and good, thank God for their existence and I live to walk in the shadow of their greatness.[/quote]

You can’t refute what I’ve said, so you play these games.

Silliness.

Fact is (and you can’t deny this) that the cards are stacked against men in family court, that women do all sorts of things to trick men into marriage (there are articles about this in Cosmo and other women’s interest magazines, so don’t play ignorant), and that women do all sorts of shady things in divorce court.

52

Oh, and men are pretty disgusting, too. I’d never argue otherwise.

I’m a misanthrope rather than a misogynist.

But when it comes to family law, most of the “mis-” definitely gets pointed in the direction of women.

53

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Frank Burns said it best, “I’ll kill her before I divorce her.”

Wood chipper![/quote]

Harhar, that’s funny. No, it’s not.

I’d much rather go to prison for life than lose half of my money. Yep, that makes sense.

There needs to be some element of truth in order for a joke to be funny. Nonsense is all I saw.

54

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Besides, if you think about it, it isn’t equitable to completely eliminate alimony for someone who cheated. Example: A woman cheats on her husband, who earns a paycheck. She gets no alimony. A man cheats on his wife, and he earns the paycheck. He has to pay alimony. Does he get an additional penalty for having cheated? Does he have to turn over all of his money? Do you see what I’m talking about?

This is a bad analogy.

If the woman DOES NOT WORK, then her job is taking care of her husband. Period. When she cheats on her husband, she in essence quits her job.

If the woman doesn’t like that, great, get a job. I’m sure more husbands wished their wives would work. But if you accept a job as a house wife, well, do your job - which means don’t “moonlight” on your husband.

If the man in your hypothetical quit his job, he’d also lose his paycheck.

So it’s about parity. Quit your job, lose your paycheck.[/quote]

So the man is her employer, in that case?
I was raised to see marriage as a partnership.
By saying that the cheating party gets no alimony, this exempts the person earning the paycheck from the financial liability of cheating. If someone wants to put this in a pre-nuptial agreement, and both parties enter into it knowingly, that is obviously fine. Although I would think that the party who does not earn income would want some sort of additional penalty if the income earner cheated.

But I do not think it is a good idea as a matter of law.

55

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

I do love it when you guys start these “why women are evil” threads.

[/quote]

I do love it when you women comeback with “a woman’s work is never done” shit.

Yeah washing clothes was hard as fuck back in the day when you had to go down to the fuckin river and hand scrub, but washing clothes nowdays takes 2 fucking seconds. Dishes go in the dishwasher, food prep hardly happens as most rely more and more on takeout or microwave/oven food.

A man may work from sunrise to sunset, but a woman sits on her ass and then bitches about it.

(BTW I love you OG, and wasn’t talking to you specifically, now go wash my clothes.)

56

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote: I feel the love.

I don’t know how you men put up with us.

Thank you for allowing me to be a part of your world, being the miserable excuse for a being that I am.

All men are noble and good, thank God for their existence and I live to walk in the shadow of their greatness.

You can’t refute what I’ve said, so you play these games.

Silliness.

Fact is (and you can’t deny this) that the cards are stacked against men in family court, that women do all sorts of things to trick men into marriage (there are articles about this in Cosmo and other women’s interest magazines, so don’t play ignorant), and that women do all sorts of shady things in divorce court.[/quote]

yes, what I typed was silly hyperbole

I will concede that to some extent things are more in favor of woman in family court.

I will also assert that to some extent, things are more in favor of men in the workforce environment.

57

[quote]dk44 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

I do love it when you guys start these “why women are evil” threads.

I do love it when you women comeback with “a woman’s work is never done” shit.

Yeah washing clothes was hard as fuck back in the day when you had to go down to the fuckin river and hand scrub, but washing clothes nowdays takes 2 fucking seconds. Dishes go in the dishwasher, food prep hardly happens as most rely more and more on takeout or microwave/oven food.

A man may work from sunrise to sunset, but a woman sits on her ass and then bitches about it.

(BTW I love you OG, and wasn’t talking to you specifically, now go wash my clothes.)[/quote]

Good point about the laundry but I do think that in the majority of the cases women do a higher percentage of housework including laundry, cleaning and child rearing.

I don’t have a dishwasher, I am bent over my sink, hands plunged in boiling water, toiling away after slaving over a furnace of an oven or stove to provide sustenance!

58

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Good point about the laundry but I do think that in the majority of the cases women do a higher percentage of housework including laundry, cleaning and child rearing.
[/quote]

I don’t know how true this is. For the first five years of a child’s life, yes. After that, the school system becomes the child’s babysitter. More and more women expect that men help around the house and split the chores… which only makes sense if both or neither work.

59

[quote]nephorm wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Good point about the laundry but I do think that in the majority of the cases women do a higher percentage of housework including laundry, cleaning and child rearing.

I don’t know how true this is. For the first five years of a child’s life, yes. After that, the school system becomes the child’s babysitter. More and more women expect that men help around the house and split the chores… which only makes sense if both or neither work.[/quote]

I hate to quote statistics, because I do believe the saying, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” but the statistics evidence women putting in more work time at home as well as working.

I agree with you that things have changed quite a bit from even 10 years ago, but even just viewing friends who are married it is to a couple, the woman cooking and doing the laundry and taking care of the kids. That is from my personal experience. Also, although I haven’t been married I did live with someone for 7-years and during that time I was the one who came home and cooked and did the majority of the cleaning although he liked to do laundry…

Things are changing, but I do not see it as 50/50 in most cases.

60

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I do love it when you guys start these “why women are evil” threads.[/quote]

Lol. Women aren’t all evil. And men aren’t all victims.

I don’t understand the concept of prolonged alimony payments then.

I can understand helping the (ex)wife while she gets back into the workforce. After that, she’s on her own. After all, she already has half the assets accumulated from the beginning of the marriage.

Yep. Very true. But unfortunately, marriage will always (for the most part) be something that will be emotionally charged.

I wish it weren’t so, and so do (most) guys. Keeping in mind though, that most women complaining about equal pay work the standard 40 hours a week. Most guys will be working 60+. A good employer, regardless of gender will always take notice of that.

Now if it’s a situation where the woman has worked an equal amount, but get less out of it… well that’s unfair.

Until the woman gets back into work, yes. But like I said before, after that, she can take care of herself.

No.

I know average joes who have been through this. I wouldn’t say the marriage concerned was based on money, but the divorce certainly was.

Your system, maybe. Not ours. Our country is run by that ugly guy… umm… what’s his name… Helen Clark. If men were to protest about anything, they’re automatically labeled misogynistic.

What’s that? We want more funding for prostate cancer? We must be sexist! It’s sad, but true.