Let me toss out another example and see what you say then. My husband’s uncle left his wife after almost 50 years of marriage. He was required to give her the house and pay her 1/2 of his pension. He got another property they owned. They had no other worthwhile assets. Do you think that was fair?
We have another Doper around here that is required to give his kids unlimited cost college education. If they make it to an ivy league school (which is entirely possible) he has to pay the whole thing…a state school college education would not be enough. That’s not fair either.
To those who are tending to fault the ex-wife/wives in these situations: After 17 or more, let alone 50 years of marriage, how old is the wife. Hmmm. Assuming marriage at about 20, you’ve got a 37 or 70-year old with little or no means of support.
It’s really easy to sit out there and say the lazy b!tch should get a job. But you have no idea how difficult it is for someone nearly 40, let alone 70, to get educated and learn to support herself. There is real, genuine age discrimination out there, folks. Should the wife have from her earliest years developed a means of supporting herself should hubby bail out? Yes. If she didn’t should she starve or be supported at public expense? No. The guy who married her and supported her is, unfortunately for him, going to have to make some contribution to her for the foreseeable future.
If the prospective wife #2 is unhappy about that, perhaps she would be advised to look elsewhere for a partner without such encumbrances. He is what he is, plusses, minuses and outstanding obligations. Take it or leave it.
If the prospective wife #2 is unhappy about that, perhaps she would be advised to look elsewhere for a partner without such encumbrances. He is what he is, plusses, minuses and outstanding obligations. Take it or leave it.
[/QUOTE]
Of course I don’t want her put out on the street. I think she is entitled to half the home which will be sold, his retirement, THEIR savings. I still can’t behind her getting money for the future because she didn’t want to work in the past. If she is now on her own, she can choose to support herself by working hard or not, just like most of us do. There should be no free rides but unfortunately, I guess there are. Now, throw children in the mix that she stayed home and raised, a disability or assisting him in his job, I am all for alimony. This isn’t the case here. Again, it is HIS fault for agreeing to her lack of desire for a career or personal means of support. (which he says he didn’t but his actions indicated he did agree)
Hence, I chose to leave it much to his dismay which I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I didn’t sign up for a financial attachment to another woman even for a limited amount of time.
I think that is perfectly fair. I assume he has a greater income, they are his kids and the cost of educating them should fall on the parent financially able to do so. My son graduates high school this year (actually Saturday) and I feel obligated to pay for his undergrad degree no matter where he decides to go. (Fortunately, a state school,whew). It may be a hardship but I do think it is the price of making sure your children grow up with the best possible foundation to make them responsible adults.
How bizarre. I don’t get it. If you don’t care about the money, how exactly does his “financial attachment” to another woman effect you in any way? Are you just that insanely jealous about her? If you wouldn’t mind him paying for children, and you wouldn’t mind if he had medical expenses that he paid for, why would you mind him paying for the ex? I don’t think you were ever actually in love with this person and are just looking for an excuse to get out now.
Honestly, there is some jealousy here. Not about her being his wife but for her having the life that I didn’t have the option of living. I struggled and am proud of my accomplishments but will not continue to work hard while wifey one doesn’t work and takes money that can be spent on our future. It is the principal that eats me up. I work, she stays home, I wash his socks, she gets a pay check, I carry his children, she goes shopping.
How bitter I will be when we can’t go on the vacation I want because he can’t afford his share after handing over the $900.00 per month to his ex wife.
Again, why is she entitled to his money when they are no longer married? :smack:
She is entitled to some of his money because those are the rules of the game. When they married, he took on a responsibility. He presumably wishes to end the marriage. He still has to contribute to her support because he was the primary breadwinner during the marriage.
Sure… she got half the assets from the marriage. That’s a different kettle of fish from paying her going forward. Plus, the time element matters a great deal here. The society of 50 years ago had very different expectations, and a very different climate, regarding women working than did the society of 17 years ago.
MLS’s point about age discrimination only underlines the fact that for 17 years, the ex-wife has, through her own choice, done nothing worthwhile, careerwise. If she had 17 years of solid experience in any field, she’d be paying no age penalty at all. That she now wants to reap where she hasn’t sown is her fault, not his, and to say that “He still has to contribute to her support because he was the primary breadwinner during the marriage” is to me a non sequitur.
Wow. I am glad my now wife did not feel that way just because the courts ordered me to pay alimony to my ex-wife after 17 years of marriage. There again, I would not have wanted to marry her if she were to dump me for such a reason.
I read the threads on this topic, and, actually, at least according to the poster, the greater income is on his wife’s side, or at least on his wife’s parents side, I can’t remember exactly. Maybe I missed something, but last time I read about it, the issue hasn’t been settled in court, but his lawyer thought he probably would end up having to pay.
Anyway, I’m not sure how someone could state to be in love, and break up the relationship over a money issue. I can’t buy that’s “love”. But maybe that’s just me. I hope this guy will someday meet a woman who’s less interested in his income and what it is used for, what it has been used for and what it will be used for than the two previous ones.
Now, I don’t know him, so maybe he deserves what he gets.
How’s this one:
Married couple, 15 years, living mainly on husband’s considerable income. Woman adds considerable but extremely sporadic income that requires capital to realize. Man leaves, spends entire savings, content of checking accounts on another woman. Only marriage asset is heavily mortgaged house.
Is alimony fair?
You know, this is what dating is about. I’ve been in love many times. Married a guy I loved and divorcing them. But loving someone, and living day to day with the shit in their life is a different thing. That doesn’t mean I’d leave my current husband if shit happened, but it does mean I may not waltz merrily into a marriage where the shit already exists. You can love someone, and decide to forgo a lifelong committment to them. Backing out over something like this is way more ethical than marrying anyway and then divorcing when you really can’t stand the reality.
And the reality for most couples is that the money gets co-mingled. She said he already makes significant less than she does. So when they get a mortgage, go on vacation, buy cars, whatever, its already going to be a greater share on her part. That certainly isn’t a problem, but when she lives every day with not only paying some of his share because she loves him, but paying more of his share because some of his money is going to his ex…yeah, that would bug me. “Honey, lets go to Paris, I’ll pay $6,000, you pay $4,000” becomes “I’ll pay $8000, you pay $2000, and we’ll send $2000 to your ex wife.”
On the Great Debate, I’ll say the time for alimony has pretty much passed if there are no children involved. Half the assets (including his retirement benefits accured to the time of the seperation), I can see a case for. And something in extenuating circumstances (my ex and I had just bought a new car that I couldn’t afford solo - and depreciation would have put us upside down. He paid me for the term of the loan - even though I made more than he did). And I can see some sort of short term “severance” package. But in an era where your company can lay you off tomorrow and no one has job security, I don’t really see why a housespouse should be entitled to any more than anyone else.
Pretend like those first few sentences were written in English.
The other thing that would worry me about marrying a man with a spousal maintenance requirement. Let’s say he loses his job. And we decide that (since Foxy seems fairly well paid), he is going to become a housespouse - maybe write the Great American Novel - maybe start up a small business. Whatever - just that he doesn’t bring in income. I’d want to make darn sure that there is no way she’d touch my income or my assets.
Lets say the housespousness goes on for a while and then we get divorced. And I end up paying HIM alimony. Does he then write a check transferring my (former) money to her?
I mean, this all seems a little ridiculous, but I wouldn’t want to assume. Nor would I really be eager to get in the middle.
A person I know just found out her dad has a family in another country. She has a whole set of sisters, brothers, etc. that have been supported by her dad for years. He visits them on his many business trips and indeed has a whole other life at that location. He now wants a divorce so that he can legally marry his other wife. His current wife does not want a divorce and offered to accept his mistress and other family. But he won’t go for it.
The wife’s job is with the husband’s company. She’s not particularly young. Yeah, I do think the guy owes her something.
Just because you have an education, job skills, etc. doesn’t mean that everyone does. There are many women in this country (especially from more traditional cultures) who are raised with very traditional values and have been denied, often from these same husbands husbands, the ability to develop skills to support their family. While it may seem like no big deal to start your life over at thirty-five (or whatever), these laws also protect old ladies relying on their husband’s pensions, kids who’s parents made them drop out of school at 16 to marry, and abandon trophy wives (and yeah, some men now and then, too).
In short, this is exactly what pre-nups are for. Marriage means something. You have an obligation to figure out what it means before it happens and know what you are signing when you sign that marriage license. It’s not like it’s a big secret. His time to object was seventeen years ago. There arn’t many things we agree to for life, but once you do one of those thing’s it’s your duty to do it with dignity.
Well, I think to a point it is ok. However, this particular doper is living on the cusp of poverty to fulfill this court order, and one of the children has basically disowned him. My feeling is that he should not have to put himself in the poor house so they can have their choice of schools when they can get a solid education at a state school. In another scenario, what if the children were young and the wife wanted to put them in private school rather than public school? Should he have to foot the bill on that?
I agree that the fairness in divorce situations is sporadic, at best. Your ex’s wife took advantage of a situation and he agreed to let it happen. He is being penalized for that decision. Another option would be for him to give her a lump sum that she will have to budget and use at her discretion to get herself into the workforce. She could use it for school, job training, investment…whatever. But his obligation could end with that one payment.
Women who haven’t planned for the worst-case scenario need to take stock of their situation and adjust accordingly. I believe that the inequity of these situations is going to be straightened out sometime soon and they’ll all be fucked. And it will be of their own doing.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…love ain’t the only reason (or even the primary reason) people get married. I’d say that based on the information we have: A seventeen-year relationship that produced no children and where the wife didn’t work or educate herself, this woman was probably into it for the money; not the love. Either that, or our OP’s ex isn’t giving her the whole picture.
I don’t think she was in it for the money but I do think she found out she liked the ride and didn’t want to get off. For the record, although she knows he wants out, she is willing to forgive his “indiscretions” in order to continue to live off of him.
As far as my loving him enough to deal with this. You are right. At 40 love isn’t enough to secure a happy future. Something between the couple as big as this can and will cause bitterness which ultimately may destroy the relationship. Yes, I do think I am doing him a huge favor letting him go now rather than torturing him in the future with anger and resentment.
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? 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.
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?
Well, I don’t think he did the right thing by letting her squander her life. Hopefully we exercise “tough love” on wayward teenagers; not on full-grown women! But if it’s necessary to save your sanity, a person needs to draw the line in the sand and give the partner a realistic ultimatum. It doesn’t sound like she was doing anything worthwhile (volunteering, taking classes, pursuing a dream…what have you (and I wasn’t aware until now that they ever struggled…I thought they were living comfortably).
But to me, this opens up another set of questions. What was it that made him stick around for so long in such an unpleasant situation? Guilt? Indecision? Just Too Passive? Good sex? The situation reveals as much about him as it does about her. It reminds me of a guy I used to date. He complained that his daughter (about 3 years old) didn’t want to be around him. But when I saw them interact together, he left everything up to his mother (picking the kid up, scheduling play dates, food, etc.). He didn’t act like a father…just a guy taking orders from his mother. I decided then that he was a weak momma’s boy and ended the relationship. All the while he was making his ex look like the bad guy, and I’m thinking to myself, he couldn’t order a meal in a restaurant without mommy’s OK.