# Alimony in 2006? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148 "2006-05-17T19:03:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/41 "2006-05-18T14:29:10Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > She had enough time to build a career in the 17 years they were married. Now she should get more time because she refused to do so then? Why does he owe her for supporting her well for all those years? It is like a punishment for doing the right thing and not throwing her out for making them struggle to make ends meet at times because she didn’t like working. The time for that was years ago. Many, many, many years ago. My dad refused to work, would not better himself, and prefered to live the easy life on mom’s dime. My mom threw him out. Our lifestyle improved dramatically. Quick and simple. He was out by the time I was three years old. What my mom didn’t do was make a family for him, support him, and live together as one with him for seventeen years. Words to keep in mind are “choice” and “responsibility”. For something that on this long it can’t possibly be as simple and straightforward as you say it is. He was a part of this, too. No matter how much he tells you it was all a seventeen year long accident. Hell, I’ve dated people who have expressed little desire to work or improve themselves. I told them I would not support someone who did not work out of choice. It’s an easy and obvious ultimatame. It doesn’t take long to figure out. I know it’s hard for you to look at this objectively, but keep in mind you are only getting one side of the story with a very clear and obvious agenda. To say “she must have been in it for the money” is as meaningless as saying “he was obviously in it for the sex”. Both parties did this for a long time. Both parties were clearly getting something out of it that they wanted. There were various time throughout the process when he could have changed this agreement. But he didn’t. It doesn’t take seventeen years to say “enough is enough”. Now all of a sudden, he would like to start over, and you expect him to be able to go to the social structures he has built around him, the people who have through the decades come to rely on him, and say “Oh well, you can just start over, too.” It’s just not so easy. The past doesn’t go away when it become inconvienent. Frankly **Foxy** , I’m kind of shocked by your decision. At 40 years old, any man you meet will have a past. He will have people he still kind of loves. He will have people he still has connections with. He will probably have other people who have at times been his family. All of those wrinkles on his face will have come from somewhere. But thats also something kind of beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/42 "2006-05-18T14:34:00Z")
I have a friend that wanted to play Macho Source of All Money and Control with his wife early on in their relationship. Wanted her to stay home with the kid, wanted her to be available to him in the evening, etc. And she was a slacker by nature. Now that the kid is grown, all we hear is how he has to do everything financially and her crappy part-time job is a mere pittance of what he makes, blah, blah, blah. Well, you can’t have it both ways. And if something should happen to him, she won’t have a chance. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/43 "2006-05-18T14:36:25Z")
Well, I guess you can add me to your shock, **even sven** , because I would have dumped him on his ass, too. Even loving him. Sometimes you have to do the painful thing even though you love someone…and if I \*know \* I will come back and resent the situation and him in only a few years, then it’s not healthy to get into the relationship ahead of time. \*\*Foxy \*\* is doing exactly what the wife did not do - planning ahead. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/44 "2006-05-18T14:56:01Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > I am in love with a man who is currently going through a divorce. We had planned to start a life together when he was informed by his attorney that there is an almost certain chance that he will need to pay her alimony. > I have two children who I have supported by myself their entire lives. I have worked hard to build a nest egg and a good career. Upon the news of alimony, I immediately broke off the relationship. If we are to be together, I can not tolerate for one second money to be paid to another woman as a reward for her laziness. Yes, it would be “his” money but this isn’t what I signed up for, having money taken out of a home we will build together to pay her. Let me see- you’re “in love” with this man-whom you _knew_ was going through a divorce- but when you hear a \*possible maybe \* that he _might_ have to pay out an \*unspecified sum \* for an \*unspecified period, \* you dropped him like a hot potato? :dubious: This word “_love_”- “I do not think it means what you think it does.” :rolleyes: Here is my suggestion. If you really love him, you apologize and take him back, and then find out what the fuck is really going on before you jump to another conclusion. Maybe he has to pay out a small amount for a couple of years, just long enough for her to get back on her feet and get some job skills- and then a job. That seems to be normal, now. And, indeed, that is fair. Or, maybe nothing- who knows? You’re getting all excited about soemthing that may not even happen, or if it does happen may be not signficiant money wise. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/45 "2006-05-18T15:04:14Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Well, I guess you can add me to your shock, **even sven** , because I would have dumped him on his ass, too. Even loving him. > > Sometimes you have to do the painful thing even though you love someone…and if I \*know \* I will come back and resent the situation and him in only a few years, then it’s not healthy to get into the relationship ahead of time. \*\*Foxy \*\* is doing exactly what the wife did not do - planning ahead. Yeah, I guess it is better to do something rather than letting it build up and simmer for a long time. I just can’t picture getting worked up about the specifics of someone elses finances when the actual amount of money isn’t an issue and the problems arn’t a sign of fiscal irresonsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/46 "2006-05-18T15:16:33Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > Now, back to the alimony and the debate. Why should someone be entitled to the lifestyle they got use to on someone else’s dime when the relationship ends? If the relationship is over, doesn’t it make sense that the free ride is over? Well, just to play devil’s advocate, I think the objection is to a sort of unilateral abrogation of an implied contract. If your ex-SO objected to the deal where he works and she does whatever she did, wouldn’t the best time to object to it be sometime in the last 17 years? Now he wants out of the deal. She doesn’t. She is fulfilling her “half” of the “contract” - she is willing to continue the marriage. He isn’t - he wants out to marry you. Doesn’t it therefore make sense on some level that he has to pay out to make up for his desire to violate the contract? Suppose I agree to sell you my house, for a hundred thousand bucks. We shake on it, and sign all the papers. Then you show up and want the house, and I tell you I found someone else to buy it for a hundred-fifty. So I no longer want to live up to the deal. How would you react if I told you to get over it, the deal is off? I don’t mean any of this to be personal, so excuse me if it comes across that way. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/47 "2006-05-18T15:32:42Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > Wait, so he had an affair with you and that’s why the marriage is ending? And she wants to continue the marriage and work it out, while he wants out? Is that what you are saying here? That’s what I thought she’s saying. Perhaps she’ll clarify. No offense **Foxy40** , but I’m gonna have to take what this guys tells you about his wife and their history together with a grain of salt; I’m not trying to be high-handed and all, but people who cheat on their spouses, rarely IMO tell the truth about their homelife…especially to the people they’re having the affair with. ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/48 "2006-05-18T16:08:01Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > That’s what I thought she’s saying. Perhaps she’ll clarify. > > No offense **Foxy40** , but I’m gonna have to take what this guys tells you about his wife and their history together with a grain of salt; I’m not trying to be high-handed and all, but people who cheat on their spouses, rarely IMO tell the truth about their homelife…especially to the people they’re having the affair with. Yes, he was and is still married. Hence the settlement issues. He and I were both separated dealing with ending our marriages when we met which was our common ground to start with. I had a prenup before I married so settlements and alimony are not an issue with my divorce. That is the scoop for those curious about the details. He hasn’t said anything nasty about his wife. Only that she went through many low paying jobs because she did not like to work. Therefore he provided for both of them as she was often between low paying jobs. I don’t really agree with the contract on the house analogy above. The contract should expire when the marriage ends. He fulfilled his side by supporting her well for 17 years. That was the contract. If someone offers 150K on the house after the contract expired then the seller would be entitled to that additional money. Alimony is nothing but legal extortion in my opinion. On another personal note, his attorney said alimony is a foregone conclusion. The time will depend but most likely for life unless she remarries. When people are together, they take on each other’s financial burdens. I am unwilling to take on this one. There are no children so the break should be a clean one. I would have never become involved if I hadn’t been naive and assumed that alimony didn’t happen anymore in this day and age. Stupid me. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/49 "2006-05-18T16:22:21Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > He made a contract with her that she would have access to his income and retirement fund, for example. She trusted that contract. Now that he’s changed his mind about his contract, where does her retirement stand? > > He made a legal contract. He assumed responsibilites both to her and to others in her name. So now he wants out, ok. He can get out. But one side can’t just walk away from responsibilites no matter how big a slacker the other side has (and we are only getting one side here after all.) > > When a party withdraws from a contract, that party often has penalties and obligations it has to fulfill. That’s what’s happening here. It’s no different than disolving a business contract. One party can’t just say “I changed my mind” and skip off merrily into the sunset. Seconded. I’m honestly surprised that so many people have come down on the husband’s side rather than the wife’s. Not having a career doesn’t make her a “slacker.” The husband is the one who is trying to pull out of his contractual obligation and leave her to clean up the mess. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/50 "2006-05-18T16:24:41Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > The contract should expire when the marriage ends. He fulfilled his side by supporting her well for 17 years. That was the contract. Wrong. The contract was to support her for the length of their natural lives. He’s not dead. He just wants a free “out.” ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/51 "2006-05-18T16:38:59Z")
> [@wm--](#): > > Wrong. The contract was to support her for the length of their natural lives. He’s not dead. He just wants a free “out.” Now there’s a concept. Finite marriage contracts. Renewable every five years. Boy, that sure would make it easier to bail from a mistake marriage. (I think I’m on to something!) ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/52 "2006-05-18T17:14:07Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Now there’s a concept. Finite marriage contracts. Renewable every five years. Boy, that sure would make it easier to bail from a mistake marriage. (I think I’m on to something!) Reminds me of the episode of _Sex and the City_ where Charlotte negotiated her prenup with Trey. The potential settlement was tiered based on length of the marriage, number and sex of children, and who knows what else. I don’t know how much that reflects real life though. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/53 "2006-05-18T17:27:19Z")
> [@wm--](#): > > Wrong. The contract was to support her for the length of their natural lives. He’s not dead. He just wants a free “out.” My vows had nothing in it about him “supporting me.” Being married to me, yes. Love, honor and obey, yes. But as far as the agreement when we married, monetary support wasn’t in there. Seems like alimony is a little punative here. He is suppose to be buying himself out of love, honor and obey. And while I sympathize with him, the idea that he was willing to support her for 17 years and now the grass is greener and he is jumping ship does seem to imply that as long as it wasn’t “inconvienent” to him to support her, he was willing to, and I think she does deserve some compensation for having her world turned upside down. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/54 "2006-05-18T17:43:15Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > My vows had nothing in it about him “supporting me.” Being married to me, yes. Love, honor and obey, yes. But as far as the agreement when we married, monetary support wasn’t in there. Your vows didn’t, but the marriage license you signed did. ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/55 "2006-05-18T19:18:59Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > Your vows didn’t, but the marriage license you signed did. Seems to be everyone is implying the man is obligated to provide the support. Why wasn’t she obligated to support him throughout the marriage if their agreement was that they would both work and she did not. By the same token, if I, as a woman, did not get a prenup, do you think I would be obligated to support my husband in the matter to which he has become accustomed due to my sweat and ambition because he couldn’t manage to keep a job? This thread was created not to complain about what I am personally going through but to get opinions on the fairness of alimony in a world of equal rights for women. I think I stumbled upon some sexism here. Men are lazy if they refuse to work but women are entitled to stay home if they choose regardless of having children to care for or her willingness to take care of all her husband’s physical and emotional needs? A woman should be compensated if the man backs out of the agreement regardless of cause? If she was leaving him, she would be entitled to the same compensation. Is that right also? I don’t recall my marriage license saying anything about one person supporting the other financially. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/56 "2006-05-18T19:37:01Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > Seems to be everyone is implying the man is obligated to provide the support. If that’s what they both agreed to, then yes, that’s correct. If the wife was the breadwinner in the marriage, then she would obligated to support the husband. The point is that they agreed to share their money with each other; no matter which person actually earned it, they both have equal claim. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/57 "2006-05-18T19:37:12Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > Seems to be everyone is implying the man is obligated to provide the support. Why wasn’t she obligated to support him throughout the marriage if their agreement was that they would both work and she did not. . Although Alimony from Wife to Husband is rare, it does occur. But traditionally, we have a working husband and a housewife. “Househusbands” are rare, but they could be entitled to alimony, too.IANAL ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/58 "2006-05-18T19:45:35Z")
No, a woman that supports a non-working husband has the same obligations as a man supporting a non-working wife. Both have the option to cut things off before it reaches an alimony-warranting situation. Both have the option of signing an agreement that spells out their obligations to each other. Personally I don’t care who works and who doesn’t- what goes on in people’s private lives are not my business. but once you’ve made an agreement to co-mingle finances and lives, I don’t think you should be able to back out of that when it stops being fun- man or woman. Your marriage license enters you in to the legal contract of marriage. The legal obligations of marriage are public record, and most of these obligations can be altered with a pre-nuptual agreement. There is no excuse for getting in to something that you don’t understand and then complaining about it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/59 "2006-05-18T19:48:38Z")
Alimony (or spousal support) goes both ways. Women can be order to pay it to men. It just doesn’t happen as often that way because fewer men give up their careers when they enter into a marriage. You are dealing with a long history where women traditionally took themselves out of the job market and didn’t pursue marketable skills because they were doing something for the marriage: raising the kids, keeping the home, etc. They gave up a lot to make something of value to the marriage. The men got to keep their careers, have a nicely kept house, and get the kids raised. After a divorce, women would have been dumped on the job market with nothing, the men wouldn’t skip a beat. That is why alimony exists. It works the same if the man gives up his job to create/maintain the household as well, or should if the laws are written in a gender neutral manner. Can people work the system? Sure, but the basic need still exists. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/60 "2006-05-18T20:17:18Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > Seems to be everyone is implying the man is obligated to provide the support. Why wasn’t she obligated to support him throughout the marriage if their agreement was that they would both work and she did not. By the same token, if I, as a woman, did not get a prenup, do you think I would be obligated to support my husband in the matter to which he has become accustomed due to my sweat and ambition because he couldn’t manage to keep a job? This thread was created not to complain about what I am personally going through but to get opinions on the fairness of alimony in a world of equal rights for women. I think I stumbled upon some sexism here. Men are lazy if they refuse to work but women are entitled to stay home if they choose regardless of having children to care for or her willingness to take care of all her husband’s physical and emotional needs? > A woman should be compensated if the man backs out of the agreement regardless of cause? If she was leaving him, she would be entitled to the same compensation. Is that right also? I don’t recall my marriage license saying anything about one person supporting the other financially. Okay…I found some info on Illinois alimony laws (my state). It sounds like your ex won’t be saddled with her forever, but it could be a few years. > [@](#): > > Maintenance may be paid from the income or property of the other spouse after the Court considers the following relevant factors: > > The income and property of each party, including the marital property apportioned and non-marital property assigned to the party seeking maintenance; > > The needs of each party; > > The present and future earning capacity of each party; > > Any impairment of the present and future earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance due to that party devoting time to domestic duties or having foregone or delayed education, training, employment, or career opportunities due to the marriage; > > The time necessary to enable the party seeking maintenance to acquire appropriate education, training, and employment, and whether that party is able to support himself or herself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child making it appropriate that the custodian not seek employment; > > The standard of living established during the marriage; > > The duration of the marriage; > > The age and the physical and emotional condition of both parties; > > The tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties; > > Contributions and services by the party seeking maintenance to the education, training, career or career potential, or license of the other spouse; > > Any valid agreement of the parties; and > > Any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and equitable. > Terminating, Reviewing or Modfiying Maintenance Awards > Illinois’ Maintenance statute was amended (effective January 1, 2004). It now gives the court 8 factors to use as criteria in deciding petitions that seek modification, termination or a review of maintenance. Until January 1, 2004, the courts were limited to the use of the 12 initial critera of the initial maintenance award. > > The eight new statutory factors included in Sec. 510 (a-5) are as follows: > > Any change in the employment status of either party and whether the change has been made in good faith > > The efforts, if any, made by the party receiving maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reasonableness of the efforts where they are appropriate > > Any impairment of the present and future earning capacity of either party > > The tax consequences of the maintenance payments upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties > > The duration of the maintenance payments previously paid (and remaining to be paid) relative to the length of the marriage > > The property, including retirement benefits, awarded to each party under the judgment of dissolution of marriage, judgment of legal separation, or judgment of declaration of invalidity of marriage From this site: [http://www.illinoisdivorceinfo.com/candidinfo\_howlonghowmuch.php](http://www.illinoisdivorceinfo.com/candidinfo_howlonghowmuch.php) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148.md?page=4)