"So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war?" Abraham Lincoln is said to have asked Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1849, was an instant bestseller and dramatized the horrors of slavery for all to see, years before the fighting began.
Fast-forward to suburban Boston, 2006. A working man with a printing and copy store, Steve Hitner, is reeling after a bruising saga in the Cambridge family court. Ordered to pay $865 a week in permanent lifetime alimony in 1999, when his business crashed after 9/11, he returned to court to ask for a reduction, as the law allowed.
Because he was self-employed, his documented financial ruin was suspect -- and ultimately rejected, even though he came to court with an auditor and his tax returns -- and he'd already gone bankrupt. The judge disallowed a reduction and ordered his new wife to work a second job to help him pay his alimony. After Hitner pleaded that he had massive credit card debt, the judge said, "When you run out of credit, I'll put you in jail."
Was this Steve Hitner's America? In his despair, he created an organization, Mass Alimony Reform (MAR) and put up a website. "The most surprising thing," he says, "is that women contacted me. They were paying alimony to their husbands' ex-wives." Out of that was born an offshoot to MAR: The 2nd Wives Club. It's been common in Massachusetts that when alimony payers remarry, their new spouses' income is included in the pot from which alimony can be taken in a modification -- often forcing working women to help support women who either work themselves or who are under no obligation to work, ever.
All of that and more changed on March 1, when the state's new alimony laws, last revised in 1975, went into effect. It's widely understood among lawmakers and lawyers that without Steve Hitner's tenacity and the political clout of Mass Alimony Reform, reform would not have happened.
Hitner's life has changed too: Because of his understanding of the new law -- he was on the Judiciary Committee Task Force that rewrote it -- he's consulting with people getting divorced, before they enter a lawyer's lair. He wants to help folks avoid ending up where he did.
His success in the political arena has spawned grassroots organizations across the country, in states where alimony laws, in whole or in part, resemble Massachusetts' -- Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Oregon, to name a few.
The new Massachusetts law -- and those proposed in other states -- does not do away with alimony. To the contrary, it's awarded more like child support, with guidelines based on the length of the marriage and the income of the parties. And there is room for exceptions and judicial discretion. But the basic idea is that people need to know what they'll be getting or what they'll have to pay; they need predictability and the ability to settle out of court. Payers need a real right to retire and end payments, and those who cohabitate need to move on with their lives, minus lifetime alimony.
Alimony originated when women had no economic power, divorce was uncommon, and cohabiting was scandalous -- and those days are long gone. But laws in many states have not changed with the times, in part because lawyers have a stranglehold on the system -- and they profit from open-ended laws and the ability to generate conflict, and hence litigation.
Other attorneys take a broader view. When I asked his opinion on the reformed law, New York's "Dean of Divorce" Raoul Felder told me, "On the whole, the overhaul of the law is a good thing, and all divorce laws should be overhauled periodically to see if they keep pace with society's progress."
Florida's laws are steeped in the past -- but perhaps not for long. The House just passed a new law by 83 to 30, and the Senate is likely to vote on it soon. Florida Alimony Reform (FAR), the public, the media, and many lawyers and even judges understand the kinds of abuses that take place when there are no limits in the amount or duration of alimony. One Tampa man, who is 51 and suffers from throat cancer, was ordered to pay 85 percent of his income to his ex-wife -- and has been in court for years trying to undo the damage.
Says FAR's co-director, Alan Frisher, a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst, "Legislators are listening to our horror stories. For the most part, they understand that permanent alimony as a default needs to end."
But the Florida Bar Association's Family Law Section, which has had a heavy hand in rewriting the bills being considered, doesn't agree. The Bar recently posted a petition on their website, opposing every aspect of reform. Tales of foreclosure, bankruptcy, alimony payers with Alzheimer's paying until they die -- these are often met with skepticism, dismissal, or some version of: "This isn't the whole story. Maybe they went to court without a lawyer." Often payers do go to court without lawyers, because they can't afford them, but the laws are so skewed toward permanent alimony that even top lawyers can't get relief for their clients.
Many family lawyers in New Jersey read from the same script. In a state notorious for its out-of-date alimony laws and for judges who refuse to lower payments even when people have lost their jobs, legislators are considering a bill that would permit modifications in changed circumstances, and one that would establish a commission to update the law. "We must be doing something right," says Rutgers professor Tom Leustek, who runs New Jersey Alimony Reform, "because legislators are listening to our stories, and lawyers are trying to deny them."
Connecticut's alimony laws are under scrutiny, too. While judges there can order short-term or limited term alimony, they are free to order support for any amount or any length of time. Stamford Attorney Victor Cavallo, whose website openly declares that he fights for the rights of fathers and husbands "which are often disregarded in the midst of family law controversies," told me in an email that some features of the new Massachusetts law would be useful in Connecticut, including, at a minimum, guidelines for duration and termination of alimony, and recognizing "that alimony can be awarded as financial rehabilitation rather than gifted as a windfall at the payer's expense."
At the other end of the spectrum, noted Greenwich lawyer Wayne Effron, whose clients include many wives of wealthy Wall Street brokers, had a different take on the Massachusetts bill. "This law is a response to a public that is increasingly rejecting the use of lawyers in divorce cases. It lends some predictability to the outcome and helps those who represent themselves better understand the parameters for settling their divorce. The problem is that the financially disadvantaged spouse, often the wife, is the one who gets hurt by this legislation. There is now a ceiling on what she can hope to achieve from the divorce. Moreover, since most divorce cases are settled, she has lost bargaining power in the negotiations. A husband in a fifteen-year marriage knows he can't be made to pay lifetime alimony if the case goes to court. Therefore why should he 'give' his wife the house? ... Like most divorce 'reforms' these days, this one favors the spouse with the money and the earning power," he wrote in an e-mail to me.
Mr. Effron makes a strong point: In states where permanent alimony is common, the recipient has the upper hand. S/he is entitled to be supported in the "lifestyle of the marriage," though it all too often means that the payer's lifestyle is that of a struggling graduate student.
In Massachusetts, lawmakers and lawyers have just embarked on a plan that will tip the scales in the other direction -- many believe, in the direction of fairness for both parties, in the direction of how we might best live, love and divorce in the 21st century.
Elizabeth Benedict is a novelist and journalist who wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe in 2008 that ignited the alimony reform movement in Massachusetts.
Most married mothers cut back on their careers. A very common pattern is to take off a few years when your children are young, then go back to work part-time. Often they go back to work at a job that earns much less. Meanwhile, the husband goes on working full-time and building up his career. Sometimes couples do this with the husband staying home and he's the one whose career falls behind. Some couples try to keep it equal, but this is hard to do and may mean the couple has less money.
If the couple stays together 15 years, the wage-earning parent is way ahead of the child-care parent in terms of what they can earn.
Rehabilitative alimony isn't going to be enough to get the child-care parent back to the earning level of the wage earning parent. The child-care parent has contributed to the family all along and helped the wage earning parent to build up their career. Why should the wage-earning parent be richer and the child-care parent's contributions be worth nothing?
For older women, the situation is even more serious. They may just not have time to get back into the labor force and build up retirement money.
So some people, often women, are going to need permanent alimony.
My ex had the freedom to go wherever they wanted, worked PT if it suited her, then doubled her imputed income in less than one year post divorce. Got more than half the assets, retirement annuity, plus all she stole. Can go collect on my social security which no one tells you about. Does this person deserve permanent alimony? It's double dipping and abusive and takes nothing into account toward the payor.
So, to make them “whole,” one would reasonably argue that the plaintiff would be awarded one-half of all marital possessions earned during the marriage. This would include one-half of the value of the home, savings, 401Ks, retirement funds and pensions earned cars…anything the couple shared and/or earned during their marriage. Recognizing his/her needs to possibly further their education and re-enter/enter the workforce, educational expenses would be considered and reasonable transitional alimony would be provided.
Punitive damages, on the otherhand, are over and above any actual losses and are designed to ‘punish’ the breaching party. Although, critics (matrimonial lawyers, judges, and others) would argue that alimony is not designed to punish, I would disagree. In fact, the mere definition of punitive damages “over and above any actual losses,” is, in fact, how permanent alimony is designed.
The courts – with their continuing practice to Order permanent alimony, rewarding the ‘lower wage earner,’ with a guaranteed lifetime annuity – can take credit in causing marriage to be viewed as a failing institution…UNLESS…our legislators modify our current alimony statute and provide mandatory guidelines to be followed by our courts.
Anyhow, why punish the lower wage earner with a lifetime of having less money than their partner just because they were willing to care for their children?
Alimony for someone who earns less is about actual losses - they have lost future income earning ability.
The most popular remedy to breach of contract is Compensatory damages. A less used remedy is called Punitive damages. Under Compensatory damages, only payment directly related to losses suffered under the breach would be sought. If we applied this to a marital contract that was broken, we would look at the role the plaintiff played during the marriage. If she/he were a stay-at-home mom/dad, we would consider not only the potential losses (time away from career, limiting education) but also consider the gains (bonding time with the children, free from balancing outside work along with taking care of the home and children, paid expenses for food, shelter and clothing, pursuit of hobbies and outside interests, etc.)
To be continued below...
You are a symptom of the entitlement problem that is destroying this country.
The most popular remedy to breach of contract is Compensatory damages. A less used remedy is called Punitive damages. Under Compensatory damages, only payment directly related to losses suffered under the breach would be sought. If we applied this to a marital contract that was broken, we would look at the role the plaintiff played during the marriage. If she/he were a stay-at-home mom/dad, we would consider not only the potential losses (time away from career, limiting education) but also consider the gains (bonding time with the children, free from balancing outside work along with taking care of the home and children, paid expenses for food, shelter and clothing, pursuit of hobbies and outside interests, etc.)
To be continued below...
What is the point of retirement when you always have support the Ex who is collecting alimony, a pension, social security, medical benifits, sold the marital home, then another home and at 70 years old I have a 30 year mortgage and recovering from cancer.
When does it end. My Ex destroyed a marriage for a younger person with more hair and destroyed a family.
Lets take a hard close look at the NJ Laws, not thur the eyes of an attorney who does not want change which will hurt their wallet.
Of course the recipient wants to feel victorious again, they haven’t felt accomplishment or that (false) sense of victory since the initial divorce (they are given no incentive to rebuild and become emotionally and financially independent) and peruse with a vengeance. The recipient also fails to realize the devastating effects this has on their own child/children….they can’t see their own destruction let alone their children’s. The entire situation is very sad. These laws must change. Alimony should be a transitional platform for the recipient to regain their life back emotionally, spiritually, mentally and financially. Not an “Award” and certainly not a lifetime entitlement - for one spouse never to have to work again. While the payer has the burden to pay until his/her death! Everyone hurts and it time for a change!
For more information go to http://www.njalimonyreform.org/index.php
Become a member and reform alimony~
Post con't..see next comment~
Being married for 30 years is not the extreme case. If you married at 30 what did you do for 20 years prior. If you did stay home with your children, in today’s society, which is becoming a rare entity, hopefully the recipient considers it a blessing. I would expect the female would be grateful while her husband worked his butt off and sacrificed his time away from his own children. If the roles were reversed, women would be crying the blues that they don’t see their kids enough. Sounds like a lose lose situation for a good hard working man.
Recipients on the other hand have very grandiose ideas that they should live a life of entitlement that they so desperately desire years after children are grown. I know many many men that are happy with the basics of life. Personally, I still would have done something to help and contribute to the family finances. To ask a man for personal items is a little ridiculous. I needed to be much more independent.
Please read the next post, this is 1 of 2 :)
If a woman had kids young, I still don’t find that extreme. After grade/high-school did they still want to be barefoot in the kitchen. What did they do all those years? I have been in school since my son was one. Not once did I receive child or alimony support. At almost 40 now and I recently enrolled in a master’s program and still work full time, raise my teenager and without a single sent from his father! I bought my own home and lived each moment for what it is worth and you know something….I really feel sorry for my ex. Today I am happy! I continued to move forward and he still remains stuck, that’s sad. What does that teach our son? By no means has this been a walk in the park, but in my heart, I know that I did everything in my power to go forward in my live and I am very am very proud of myself. Never once playing the victim role. I made it because I was determined and if I can do it than so can many other women. And that wasn't even 1/2 of the insanity I endured from this man. In reform we only seek fairness for both parties after divorce and not one person paying the burden for the rest of their lives after they retire....no matter what it takes two to tango!
Thank you for highlighting the injustice, Ms. Benedict.
As for children....if a guy wants children, he's better off going to a sperm and embryo bank and buying a donor's egg, then having it fertilized through IVF, and find a surrogate mother to bear the child.
The cost for IVF and surrogate mothers is relatively inexpensive overseas.
To guard against unwanted pregnancies...a man should archive his sperm in a sperm bank then get a Vasectomy.