The New Art of Alimony

[question everything]

OCTOBER 31, 2009

The New Art of Alimony

By JENNIFER LEVITZ
WSJ

Boston

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony." But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife. "This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good—so now I want some of your money'?"

The nature of marriage has changed dramatically over the decades. Women now make up almost half of the American work force. But alimony, a concept enshrined in ancient law, has remained remarkably constant. Now, the idea that a husband should continue to support his wife forever, even after the demise of their marriage—long a bedrock of divorce law—is being called into question. Pressures are mounting to change a practice that some see as outdated and unfair. Several U.S. states are battling to place new limits on alimony and rewrite decades-old laws. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma, lawmakers are pushing for measures like putting time limits on alimony payments, barring alimony if two divorcing spouses are on equal footing professionally, and ending or reducing alimony if the recipient commits a crime or cohabits with another adult in a romantic relationship. Lobbyists and activists are pressing for similar rules in Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.

(snip)

State alimony laws, many passed in the 1960s and 1970s, were designed to help nonworking or lesser-earning spouses after divorce. Many states allow for recipients to receive payments for life. Proponents say the money compensates some spouses who have sacrificed careers for families and is particularly vital to low- and middle-income women. Detractors have long called the laws unfair in an age when many women work, with people making payments for years that their former spouses don't really need. At the core of alimony debate is whether the payments are viewed as transitional — until the dependent spouse gets back on his or her feet—or a long-term dividend for sacrifices made during a marriage.


(snip)

In April, for example, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge David French prevailed following a 16-year battle to stop or reduce his alimony payments. A state appeals court ruled that Mr. French should not be forced to pay $3,400 a month to his ex-wife, who has lived for nearly 20 years with another man. The judge ordered the ex-wife to pay Mr. French $151,000, the amount she had received from him since he filed a previous case in 2005. Ms. French's lawyer did not return a call seeking comment. Amy Shield, Mr. French's lawyer, said he was pleased with the decision... Last month, Massachusetts representatives heard testimony from Brenda Caggiano, a 70-year-old retired first-grade teacher who supports her ex-husband, Robert, a certified public accountant. When the Caggianos divorced in 2003, they split their assets. He got their home on Cape Cod. She got their home in a Boston suburb, and paid him the $57,000 difference in the value of the homes.

Ms. Caggiano earned more at the time, so the court ordered her to pay $125 in weekly alimony until her death or her former husband's remarriage. Since Massachusetts is a "no-fault" divorce state, it made no difference that it was, as both parties acknowledge, Mr. Caggiano who left home. Ms. Caggiano says she's living pension-check-to-pension-check and has had to tap a home-equity line of credit to fix her roof. "It's a disgrace that this man is taking my money when he's perfectly capable of supporting himself," she says. Mr. Caggiano, who is 68, said in an interview he has no mortgage and that his girlfriend, who works full-time, has moved in. He says the couple recently traveled to Italy, and that he spent $60,000 to install hardwood floors, granite countertops and big windows "to get a beautiful view of the water." He keeps his accounting practice to a few clients: "I'm not going out there trying to develop new business."


(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html (subscription)

[elleng]

1. I HOPE the point is that 'divorce courts'

return to their origins as Courts of Equity, in whichever direction the equities point.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I am calling my lawyer on Monday...

[Nikki Stone1]

3. As long as women make a lot less than men do, this is a risk.

Increase women's earning power, and it will cut down on this. Males, this is why you need to support sexual discrimination laws.

[proteus_lives]

12. You actually believe that this woman has a right to his money 25 years down the road?

Really?

[Nikki Stone1]

16. Did I say that? LOL!!

All I'm saying is that, as a practical matter, if women made as much as men do, they'd be less inclined to get economically desperate and come after you. That's all. Fighting issues on rights alone is a losing battle unless you do practical things. Look at the anti choice movement: they have not overturned Roe but they have made it damn near impossible to get a legal abortion in many states as a practical matter.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. It is only a risk because courts believe this is equitable.

Which brings us back to the topic which dares not speak it's name.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. This is not the way to ameliorate it

We need pay equity and a social safety net, not policies that make women dependent on the earning power of particular men. I don't like this, at all.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Once again, did I say that? Why, no! LOL!

All I said was that, as a practical matter, as long as women are paid less than men, there is a risk of them showing up and bugging ex-husbands 25 years down the line. That's all. Men should support equal pay for their own survival.

And no, I don't believe anyone should have the right to come back 25 years later with a hand out.

[question everything]

19. And, as long as women are the ones who stay home with kids

or who take a part time to job to "help with expenses" they will be dependent on men.

We have seen too many cases of women in their 40s all of a sudden have to find a job because the husbands, with "clever" lawyers left them out in the cold.

Ideally, there should be some kind of a court of arbitration that would determine what is fair and just when the marriage is dissolved. Not clever lawyers who know how to hide the assets.

[Nikki Stone1]

21. I know. I hear you.

I also think women need to start approaching matters differently and be there for each other. We are too often divided along lines drawn for us by the rulers of our society.

[Wapsie B]

4. Twenty-five years after the fact? Good god.

That is ridiculous. The marriage is long since over. That's it. You don't get another bite of the apple.

[cabluedem]

5. Besides not wanting kids, this is the main reason men should not get married. nt

[shintao]

6. I believe alimony is a fraud.

At time of divorce, all community property should be split, and that settles it. She probably came into the marriage poor, and should leave with half of whatever time developed for them, nothing more. Prior properites remain out of the equation.

[question everything]

14. Depends, as is always with laws

If a woman was a stay at home wife and mother for, say, 20 years, how easy, do you think, it would be for her to start building a career, or, simply find a decently paying job at the age of 40 or 45?

Yes, when both have had careers paying similarly, when both shared the chores at home - rarely - then there should not be alimony. But to just simply dismiss it will hurt women most, again.

[shintao]

24. That would be to bad

She would get 50% of whatever was accumulated in the marriage. So the women is not hurting. What she choses to do with her life should be no concern of the other spouse. If she came in stupid and leaves stupid how is that the other spouses problem? Maybe she came in healthy, and lost a leg in a sking accident. Should the other spouse have to pay her medical bills for life?

If your logic is used, it would also be logical to give the children to the spouse who makes the most money, in the best interests of the child to have a rich environment to live in.

[question everything]

25. What a cruel comment

Why do you start from the assumption that the woman "came stupid?" There were and are many women who went to college, started a career, and then decided to stay home to raise the kids and take care of the household chores. But a 25 year old starting out has better job chances than a 45 year old woman who has been away from the work force and from any innovations in her field.

Some day, when you reach middle age you will see doors closing for any advances; when you realize that your mind and body are not as nimble as they were when you were in your 20s you will understand.

If she lost her leg in a ski accident and has no job and no medical insurance then, yes, his support should provide for medical care.

Children should stay where it is best for them to stay with the non custodial parent providing child support.

[Blue_Tires]

7. how can you get alimony after passing on it the first time??

[Hannah Bell]

8. this is hysterical. for the wsj crowd. most women don't get alimony.

zilch.

they get child support -- if they can collect.

[BlueIris]

9. Yeah, really. nt

[JTFrog]

10. My daughter paid alimony for two years after her divorce. That was it. n/t

[proteus_lives]

11. 25 years later? That's insane!

She has no right. It's soulless legal trickery, nothing more.

[Wapsie B]

13. That's right.

I have no problem with the idea of spousal support for a period of time, especially if one spouse was not able to work during the marriage. I also know that once even a "temporary alimony" period is set one can come back later and have that period extended almost indefinitely, at least in the state of Iowa. But being able to come back after a quarter century is a total mockery of the system. This sticking it to a guy years later to somehow balance things out doesn't advance the concept of equal under the law one bit.

[varelse]

17. Alimony needs to go away

it makes sense if one of the two marriage partners works without being paid (rearing children, caring for the home, supporting the family business without recieving a paycheck, etc) but that's the only case in which it should ever be awarded.

[question everything]

20. That, and when the pay levels are not equal

There are many women who do work with pay, as food servers at restaurants, sales clerks at department stores, mostly to "help" with expenses. And, after 20 or 25 years to start getting a decent paying job - good luck with that.

I think that instead of each party hiring a lawyer to outsmart the other, there should be some kind of a court of arbitration to view all the assets, the job history and future and to determine if any of the partners should get a "spouse support" and for how long and under what conditions.

[varelse]

23. I agree with you, especially where the welfare of minor children is at issue

too often, the kids become pawns in the battle between the parents. Children have the right to healthy relationships with both parents, but court battles over child support and custody rights are often linked.

Perhaps marriage contracts should become more commonly used, too. Many of the savage battles and dirty tricks could be avoided with solid agreements up front.

[tammywammy]

26. That's f-ed up. n/t