That’s correct, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about who broke the contract without a prenup…the state’s standard contract.
Couple #1: Husband and wife have an average marriage. Husband falls out of love and asks for a divorce. Wife never worked. Husband pays.
Couple #2: Husband and wife have tumultuous marriage. Wife whores around and never works. Wife asks for divorce. Husband pays.
Maintenance isn’t doled out according to who broke the contract. Despite Couple #2’s husband’s best efforts to honor the contract, if she wants out, he pays.
You’re right, this thread has hit home for me, though hardly for the reasons you suspect. I simply feel very strongly about the seriousness of the marriage agreement, and it galls me to see (what I perceive as) this “get out of marriage free” attitude. I guess we just have completely different ideas about what it means to fulfill a marriage agreement.
It has been a long time since I’ve had anything to do with family law, but from what I recall in VA, one of the items that can change the property distribution is adultery. There are many factors that the Judge will take into account when deciding the property distribution and the spousal support to be granted. Also, spousal support generally terminates when the party receiving it remarries.
I’m going by the Illinois guidelines I posted above. It doesn’t appear to be an issue here. I believe remarrying does, but for our purposes, let’s say the wife runs away with the pool boy and doesn’t marry him.
Out of curiosity, I did a little googling. I didn’t realize this, but states are not either no-fault or fault when it comes to divorce. According to this site, all states allow for no-fault divorces. Some states allow for fault divorces. I got bored and stopped my google-search when I came to that site, so I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy or it being up-to-date. And of course it doesn’t mention specifically any states so it’s not that useful, but I just thought I’d share because it was news to me. Hope I’m not just stating what everyone already knows.
I think the reference to ‘contract’ is valid only so far as to what was agreed upon by the couple. Presumably they married for life. If they agreed that it would be better if she stayed home taking care of the house while he worked, allowing them to better enjoy their time together when he came home, then yes, there should be a ‘penalty’ for bailing out. If it just happened to turn out this way (due to laziness or whatever) then they should split their assets and walk in separate directions.
I’m not talking about the law here, obviously, I don’t know anything about that.
As for the OP, I have no sympathy. You seem to be okay with a man who makes $40.000 (example), but you’re not okay with a man making $50.000 who has to pay $10.000 to his former wife. You claim you don’t care about the money, so basically you’re just being jealous because a state law is prohibiting him from severing his ties to the ex.
You’re also saying that you’re doing him a favor breaking off the relationship now, giving off the impression that you’re thinking about him. But the way I read it your’re not doing it for him, you’re doing it for yourself because you have issues.
You’re also painting a picture of his former wife living almost in rose garden getting money for free while you’ll be sweating to support the family, which is untrue. Whatever money coming her way will not be enough for her to maintain her lifestyle. Anyone who has gone through a divorce can tell you that (mirror mirror). In any event it’s still 20% more expensive to live by yourself than to live together with someone. She will either be struggling, have to get a job of her own, or live off her part of their savings.
And what’s this about washing a man’s socks? Hell, it’s 2006. No woman has ever been allowed to wash my socks since I left home, and never will.
Still, an interesting thread and a pause for thought.
Do you have a copy of that marriage license? Mine doesn’t have anything on it about financial support. But by all means provide us links to marriage licenses that do.
even sven was correct. By getting married, you are subject to the provisions of the Divorce Act. (Think of it this way: there is nothing on your driver’s license saying that you are subject to the Highway Traffic Act, but in fact you are subject to it whenever you drive. Same goes with your marriage license and being married.) The Divorce Act sets out criteria for support for people who are married. For folks who shack up, whether married or not, the Family Law Act sets out the criteria for support. Essentially, marriage is a contract between two people that establishes rights and obligations between them as set out in the Divorce Act (along with placing them in a category that occasionally differentiates them from non-married people with respect to some social and tax legislation).
The problem is that sometimes it can take a long time to get on one’s feet, and sometimes it is not possible to get on one’s feet, so although spousal support in Canada is geared to get a person on his or her feet, the longer the couple has been together, the greater the likelihood that support will continue for a long time.
The following will explain how spousal support is handled in Canada, but you will probably have to dig into the documents to clarify some of the terms.
Check out of the draft Spousal Support Guidelines at s.5 (without child support) and s.6 (with child support), which are gaining popularity in assisting the court on deciding quantum and duration: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/spousal/project/index.html
Add in any number of extenuating circumstances on either party’s side, and then tangle it up with fluctuaring incomes and unemployment, division of net family property, business valuations, pension division restrictions, and bankruptcy issues, and determining what is reasonable for spousal support can be a bit of a muddle.
As for the OP, I have no sympathy. You seem to be okay with a man who makes $40.000 (example), but you’re not okay with a man making $50.000 who has to pay $10.000 to his former wife. You claim you don’t care about the money, so basically you’re just being jealous because a state law is prohibiting him from severing his ties to the ex.
You’re also saying that you’re doing him a favor breaking off the relationship now, giving off the impression that you’re thinking about him. But the way I read it your’re not doing it for him, you’re doing it for yourself because you have issues.
You’re also painting a picture of his former wife living almost in rose garden getting money for free while you’ll be sweating to support the family, which is untrue. Whatever money coming her way will not be enough for her to maintain her lifestyle. Anyone who has gone through a divorce can tell you that (mirror mirror). In any event it’s still 20% more expensive to live by yourself than to live together with someone. She will either be struggling, have to get a job of her own, or live off her part of their savings.
QUOTE]
I pictured the formal wife having already LIVED in a rose garden, should appreciate the free ride and get the hell off. As far as her future, she can make of it what she wants and worked for. That’s her deal. She has no kids and leaves with half of equity in a home, retirement he has worked for and whatever savings and stuff HIS hard earned money purschased while SHE watched oprah and surfed the net. Of course the money is the issue but it doesn’t matter if it is a dollar for a day or a thousand for a lifetime. I worked for mine and she should work for hers and I won’t tolerate being a party to her continuing to get money she did not earn. No, she did not earn it. She did not raise his children, she did not set up a beautiful home or entertain his co workers and clients. She did nothing but feel entitled to half of what he worked towards for seventeen years because she said I do and promptly sat on her ass while he did. Of course I have no way of knowing if this is the real story but for the purposes of this debate, I am presenting it as if it is.
Well, I won’t take quite as hard a stand as Foxy40 does, in that I do believe that in a civilized society we need to take care of each other when we’re in need. I mean, there are millions of people on welfare who didn’t pay into the system, and we care for them every day. Sometimes because they’re lazy, sometimes because they simply don’t have the ability to support themselves. Ditto on social security.
However, this doesn’t mean I feel this particular woman deserves to be cared for forever. I think that under the current laws, someone needs to give her the leg up and since her husband agreed to let her squandor her youth on Oprah and the internet, he should pick up the slack before the rest of us have to. But she also has a responsibility to use that help to create a support system for herself. If she continues to blow off her responsibility, he should be let off the hook (and unfortunately, the rest of us will end up suporting her).
There are no laws forcing anyone to work in this country. But he was an accomplice to her slackerosity and for that, he needs to pay something. I don’t know what the financial situation was with them, but if she gets half of a $200K house, she won’t be able to find another one and still have money to pay utilities and feed and clothe herself.
I understand your position and where you’re coming from, but the fact remains you only think you know, you don’t actually know anything (or you’re not telling). I any case, if you don’t care about the money it’s none of your business, you wouldn’t be marrying her, but maybe that’s how you feel.
Something strikes me as odd though. According to you the woman didn’t deserve this presumably good life she’s been living all these years. But once upon a time the two of them were probably deeply in love, sharing the same hugs and kisses as you two shared. Don’t you think that he once thought she deserved anything he could possibly give her? Is the way they chose to live their lives really of any concern to you?
I do believe that when a wife (or husband) sacrifices opportunities by staying home to take care of the house - kids or no kids - then that person should not be left out in the cold when the person with the career walks away (generally speaking). I would prefer if it was a one time settlement though. I’m no fan of alimony when no kids are involved, for the same reasons you’ve stated.
Well, it says you are getting married, the details of which are spelled out in the law. They don’t list every traffic law on your driver’s license, but you can bet by signing your license you are agreeing to follow them.
It seems everytime someone disagrees with my contention about no alimony under the particular circumstance I described, they try to throw something else in the mix. No, there were NO SACRIFICES of opportunity. The debate is over a woman while encouraged and often begged to work to help earn a better life, choose not to. She wasn’t asked to stay home, she refused to work and when she did work, made sure she didn’t work for long either by quitting or getting fired. It is about man who handled his responsibilities to support this woman until the circumstances of their marriage became one of so much inequity that it was no longer tolerable to him. This process unfortunately took many years which instead of rewarding, the law seems to be penalizing. You sir, kept supporting her so you need to KEEP supporting her because we said so. No, you still can’t achieve a better life and keep what you work so hard for because she gets it just like she has always done. You married her so you have her around your neck for all times or until she decides to make a life for herself which she never will as long as she gets that nice tidy check in the mail each month.
Probably because all we’re going off of is your report, and all you’re going off of is his. Not a recipe for getting at the truth of things, unless you believe that people always speak objectively about their exes. A little exaggeration here, a little lying there, and a little casting things in the worst possible light way over there, and suddenly you have a space alien who eats kittens for breakfast.
This guy not only has to pay a large chunk of his paycheck to his ex-wife, but in addition, to add insult to injury, he may never re-marry because other women find him in a “difficult” situation precisely because he has to pay a large chunk of paycheck to his ex-wife. Great laws we have :rolleyes:
If I were in a similar situation, I would simply get a sabbatical from work, or just outright quit my job. With no income, I would not be forced to give any money to her, I assume.
(Question for lawyers: If, after the divorce, we both got 50% of our pre-divorce assets, and neither of us worked, could either party be forced to pay the other alimony?)
At some point, with no money coming in, she would be forced to get some kind of job to be able to eat.
Something I find interesting about alimony and child support laws is that, while married, the judge cannot tell a husband a damn thing about how much money to spend on his wife per month, or on his kids, or on their college education (as long as they are not starving). The moment they are divorced, the law can tell a guy exactly how much he has to spend.
Maybe some guys who want to leave their wives should just stay married, move out, and give no money to their wives, who will eventually be forced to get a job. Can a judge interfere in this case? Would the fact that he moved out constitute a de facto divorce, in which case the judge could tell him to start paying?
One thing I find funny about “she has the right to continue living the lifestyle she was accustomed to before the divorce”, is that, you know, some husbands get accustomed to their wives washing their clothes once a week and cooking every night. This is the lifestyle their wives made them accustomed to.
Are the men allowed to take their clothes to the ex-wife to be washed once a week, and are they allowed to stop by every night to grab a dinner prepared by the ex-wife?
Of course not! And why? That’s right, because they got divorced! And part of getting divorced means giving up on a lot of things you got accustomed to during the marriage, including how much money you can spend on shoes every month.
Hey, Polerius, you raise some good questions. Laws differ by jurisdiction, so I’ll answer for how it goes in Ontario.
That’s not a problem with the law. That’s a problem with the new girlfriend. In any event, everyone should meet their ongoing responsibilities before considering taking on new responsibiliites.
The court would impute income – in other words, force you to pay the same amount of support despite being unemployed. The onus would be on you to prove that you were unemployed through no fault of your own. This works well most of the time when dealing with deadbeats, but can put a lot of stress on workaholics who need a break due to the stress of separation and divorce.
Support is based on the need for it by one party and the ability to pay for it by the other party. All things being equal, there would be no support.
True, but as it stands the law encourages self-sufficiency,which is why for all but long term marriages, where it is too late to become self-supporting, support usually eventually is terminated.
The simple solution for the spouse is to separate (which does not require physically moving out) and sue for support, possession of the matrimonial home, division of property, and the like. Where the law fall short is with respect to adult children going to college, where kids from broken homes fall under the shild support umbrella, whereas kids from whole homes where both the parents are hard-asses are out of luck.
Support is triggered by separation (and even then it does not have to be physical separation).
Usually both parties’ lifestyles go down, for there are now two households to run on the same income that used to run one household. Usually the support recipient’s lifestyle decreases further than the suport payor’s. Where one spouse pays support and lives in a cheap flat, while the other receives support and lives in a nice house where the couple used to live, it is usually because there are children of the parties who are being raised in the house, and it would be in the children’s best interests to provide stability in an otherwise unstable time of family breakup by keeping them in the same house and school as they were before the breakup. This sucks for the support payor, but it is one of the resonsibilities of being a parent. Kid come first. Period.
Only if he cuts the grass, takes out the trash, re-plumbs the bathroom, paints the garage, and rebuilds the car’s motor. Daily household chores go both ways, so they are not considered for support. Also bear in mind that to some degree support is compensatory, for had the recipient not spent years caring for his or her spouse, he or she would most likely have had a better career than he or she presently has.
This isn’t a he said she said debate. When the mediator talked about support, there was “no fault” support due and no particulars were considered. That is the issue I have. If the report was she left him and left with the pool boy, support would still be due since she didn’t work by her choose and he did.
Hence my problem with it. If there was a “foul” penalty, it would be different but that isn’t the case.
And, again, this is what you say is the case. You say that she didn’t work by her choice and that he did X and she did Y in a very black and white way and then you’re wondering why everyone else is seeing shades of grey.
Everyone else sees shades of grey because in life, few things are black and white. You saying that this woman is lazy doesn’t make it so. You saying you understand her marriage doesn’t make it so. I’m not saying that you’re lying, mind you. I’m saying that things are rarely so simple that we can say “Aha! Alimony sucks because this woman is a slacker!”
If you feel she is a slacker, the Pit would be a great place to vent about it. But since we’re in GD, it’s going to be a debate, and all of the grey issues are going to creep in.
I simply feel very strongly about the seriousness of the marriage agreement, and it galls me to see (what I perceive as) this “get out of marriage free” attitude. I guess we just have completely different ideas about what it means to fulfill a marriage agreement.