Because alimony laws vary from state to state, the national media have usually steered clear of the issue. But that is changing fast, with "Fox and Friends" recent broadcast on the subject and USA Today's sweeping article on the reform movement, "Should Alimony Laws Be Changed?," on January 19.
The article leads with the story of a 72-year-old Florida man, bedridden with advanced Alzheimer's, who has been paying $2100 a month in permanent alimony in a marriage that ended 20 years ago, despite five trips to court to attempt to end or lower payments.
After Massachusetts overhauled its antiquated laws in late 2011, advocates in Florida and New Jersey are hoping to follow suit, since their laws are every bit as out-of-date as Massachusetts' were -- left over from when divorce was rare and married women had no choice but to stay home.
Florida is further along than NJ; In November, identical bills, HB 549 and SB 748, were introduced in the Florida House and Senate to update and streamline current law by limiting the amount and duration of alimony. The New Jersey legislature is establishing a commission to study the issue -- a big step in the right direction -- though those who pay lifetime alimony (and sometimes end up in jail when money runs out because of job loss or illness) are not sure a study is necessary.
USA Today's focus on Florida's Linda Morgan, who cares for her bedridden husband 24/7, points out the injustices of permanent lifetime alimony. Ms. Morgan made a You Tube video of how she takes care of her husband daily, in hopes of convincing Florida legislators to reform the law.
In both Florida and New Jersey -- and formerly Massachusetts -- the default position is lifetime permanent alimony, which means the higher earner pays the lower earner even if both are working full-time and making good money, until death. If a payer retires, or is forced to, he (usually "he" but sometimes "she") has the burden of filing a new lawsuit and pleading for mercy -- which is in short supply, since the "needs" of the alimony recipient are paramount, even when "needs" appear to be taken care of with the recipient's full-time employment.
"We receive emails every day from people suffering under these outdated laws," explains Alan Frisher, co-director and spokesman for Florida Alimony Reform (FAR). "Men whose wives suddenly declare they are lesbians leave the marriage and receive lifetime alimony. Healthy women in their early 30s are awarded lifetime alimony. Women cohabiting with boyfriends for 20 years still receive lifetime alimony. Men raising their children because the mothers don't want to are nonetheless forced to pay alimony they simply do not have. People who once made a good living are declaring bankruptcy and going to jail because of these laws."
Because of the vagueness of current law, and the out-of-date attitudes of many judges, setting limits on the amount and length of alimony are critical issues in rewriting the laws. Yet it's precisely those provisions that have already been deleted from the Florida House bill, HB 549, as it moves through the legislative process. This has many alimony payers -- and their strapped families -- alarmed.
Frisher points to the recent case of a Tampa man stricken with cancer forced to pay more than 70 percent of his income in alimony. He won a reduction on appeal, but when the case was returned to the lower court, his payments were increased instead. He has another hearing on Valentine's Day and hopes for the relief he should have been granted long ago.
While divorce lawyers often favor the judge having "discretion" in making alimony awards, thus complicating every case, many lawyers admit there is a need for reform and some have positive things to say about Florida's proposed legislation. "There are good things in the bill," Orlando attorney Amy Goodblatt told me in a recent interview. "It gets rid of permanent alimony. That's the best thing since sliced bread. And I like the bill because it's generated conversation."
She is also in favor of guidelines for the amount and duration of alimony. "Most practitioners would be grateful for guidelines," she said, "because it's difficult to tell people what to expect. Decisions are judge-specific. The same judge on a different day makes a different decision. This makes it difficult to settle cases. People would settle more if they had quantifications."
Attorney Goodblatt also noted, "The court system may be cost prohibitive to a lot of people." Because of that, she said, "Fifty percent of cases are pro se," meaning that people represent themselves, "and judges hate pro se cases."
FAR's Alan Frisher contends that the limitations in the original HR 549, for alimony amounts and duration, are an effort to bring justice to all payers, including those who cannot afford legal counsel, almost always because their legal fees and alimony payments have decimated their resources.
Also in support of guidelines is Central Florida attorney Richard West, a past chairman of the Florida Family Bar Law Section, whose practice includes collaborative law. "One of the problems," he said in a recent interview, "is that there is no predictability in awards in amount or duration. I recognize the need for judicial discretion, but cases need to be settled, not litigated. If there were guidelines, it would enhance the ability to settle." West believes that "Alimony is somewhat archaic. It will become outmoded. Our statutes are rooted in the past."
According to Tom Leustek, a professor who helped found NJ Alimony Reform after being ordered to pay lifetime alimony to his psychologist ex-wife, who has a PhD. and a private practice, New Jersey's lifetime alimony payers include an 83-year-old man with dementia, living in a nursing home, whose wife divorced him once he was hospitalized, after they split their marital assets 50/50. The incapacitated man's legal bills were $40,000, and his family claims the alimony payments are needed to take care of him. Another recent case is that of a stockbroker whose income has decreased by two-thirds since 2008. He cannot get a reduction in payments despite many attempts. His wages were garnished. He has been imprisoned once, placed into work release twice, and was under house arrest with a GPS ankle bracelet. Failure to get permission to visit a friend on Christmas Day resulted in a court order to pay $2,000 towards arrears by Feb 1 or return to jail.
Elizabeth Benedict, a novelist and journalist, wrote the Boston Globe op-ed piece in 2008 that ignited the alimony reform movement in Massachusetts.
When a child ask for imansipation they get nothing. They are even told that if thier parent wins the lottery then they have not rights to it. As I age I loose earning capability in my profession. That is why she wanted out. Too much working and not enough money. It cost too much money to prove she is making plenty of money. She is in NC doing better than I am. Florida was just a tool for her to get PERMANENT ALIMONY!
Asked who? You?
Typically a family-centric decision like this would discussed by the couple, as equals, prior to conception to determine what will work best for the couple and the children based on financial, lifestyle and parenting-style goals. At the same time they would discuss whether it would be just until all of the children were in school full days or if the Mom would stay home permanently to manage the household.
Bottom line - a decision would be agreed upon by adult, equal partners in a marriage.
Sounds like a classic textbook case of the 7 P's:
P ss Poor Planning Produces P ss Poor Performance…
You were not involved with my marriage so who the hell are you to lecture me or anyone about 7 P's.
Wow, you didn't have a good marriage or get a clean break with a divorce! You must have angina from all that bitterness you're hanging onto.
To clear up some wrong-headed assumptions on your end, I've worked from the time I was 13 years old and still work full-time. I raised kids alone, paid for their braces and sent them to college by working a full-time job, a part-time job and selling Avon and Tupperware — all at the same time. I never got any alimony after what is defined as a long-term marriage.
My former husband — an intelligent, college-degreed, physically-fit guy with a strong resume and job history — "just happened" to end up unemployed every time we had to go to court. He was ordered to pay far less child support than what tax returns showed he was capable of. In the final decree, on the advice of his lawyer, it was ordered that any future negotiations had to be conducted in arbitration not in court. My attorney agreed and I, at the time, didn't understand what the ramifications of that.
His employment situation fixed itself to pre-divorce standards as soon as the divorce was final. He didn't bother to pay the pittance of child support until the probation department garnished his salary.
Steve - you should have had a friend like my ex. You could have beaten the system.
Try not to dislike women.
Con't on the next post!
We both worked full-time the entire marriage (both as IT professionals). If I manage to get my income back to pre-recession levels, I am required to hand over a percentage to my ex-spouse. If my ex manages to revive their income, there is no reduction in my payment, it can only go in one direction (up). The 'system' has made it convenient for the 'system' to act this way, and until there are stricter guidelines, no one has any incentive to modify their behavior. I didn't leave this person without skills, there's a career with better benefits and retirement resources than I have, and we split all of our assets 50/50. Yet, permanent alimony was awarded. Fair?
If there was a simple and fair system in place, Then the Lawyer would have less work, less work equals less money, less money equals less campaign contributions, less campaign contributions equal politician not getting elected, politician not getting elected equals his friend the lawyer does not get appointed to being a judge, not being appointed to being a judge equals not having a cushy government pension and benefit package......... I can keep going... but I think you get the point.
And if you think I am way off track or ridiculous in what I am saying.... I have seen first hand how our system works... I have been there... I got out because I couldn't stand the way things are done.
20 years ago I was sentenced to Lifetime alimony for a spouse who had multiple extra-martial affairs
and a lawyer who did everything in his power to destroy my family by teaching my Ex to goat me into DV, which did not work. When I went to court none of my paperwork for cause was looked at, and everything was decided by the good old boys club. of judges and lawyers.
Even when it was time to retire I was told by several lawyers do not even try to get the alimony reduced or terminated, it just will not work in your county family court. The only one who will win is your EX and the lawyers." They might even increase the alimony payments"
New Jersey has to revise the Alimony Laws and make it possible for those who have been paying for years to have a chance at a life. A criminal has more rights than a Alimony payer.
Early on in the divorce process, I learned that I am looking at permanent lifetime alimony. Lifetime? That was the first time I ever heard of such a thing. Lifetime?! Seriously?
So, I tried everything I could to negotiate out of it: I offered to waive my half of the equity in our home (just give her the house outright), to give her my ENTIRE 401k (not just the half she’s “entitled” to), and even offered alimony terms of 10 or 15 years. Nope. She turned it down. I then offered the above terms again but with a 20 year alimony term… hoping to simply save the cost of having to return to court at retirement (was 45 at the time of divorce). Nope. She turned that down too.
Well, she was “awarded” permanent lifetime alimony. $300 a week for life.
I recently saw a sweepstakes where the prize was “A $1000 a week for life.” It would appear my ex has won her own private lottery.
So, there you have it: a healthy, college educated woman with no disabilities, who chose not to work, is rewarded for her laziness.
I will eventually reach a point where I am paying alimony longer than the marriage itself. Please tell me how this is fair?
Alimony laws MUST be reformed!
New Jersey alimony lifetime sentence is killing me!
I urge every NJ alimony payer to join New Jersey Alimony Reform . Org
Were you so 'blinded by love' that you and your girlfriend/fiancée didn't discuss your expectations for your marriage?
Did you discuss finanaces, debts or school loans that you had to pay back, whether or not to have children, parenting styles if you did decide yes on kids, the in-laws, religion, career goals or goals for your family's future?
Were you on the same page?
Did you think you could change your partner?
From your comments, I would surmise the answer to all of the above questions is no — except for the thinking you could change her question.
But, yes, in the very beginning we talked about everything, and although I was not crazy about her choice to be a "stay at home wife/mom", I supported it. However, as the years went on, it became obvious that the "stay at home" thing was merely an excuse for laziness. I urged her to get a job, and every time that conversation would lead to yet another fight.
I could write much about that life, its trials and tribulations, but all that verbiage would simply be a waste of time, for it is irrelevant to the primary point...... Permanent lifetime alimony. What my ex and I did, or did not do, before or during the marriage has absolutely nothing to do with me now being forced to pay her every week FOR LIFE!
There are only a few crimes that warrant a lifetime sentence. I had no idea that in NJ, divorce is one of them. Had I known that, I would have done much different, like staying single.
Returning to the workforce is difficult after remaining home and unemployed for any number of years. I was there myself. It is equally difficult to find a job when your payer is suddenly unemployed. It is not fair to remain indebted to pay an ex partner when they earn sufficiently to be independent, or their income exceeds that of the payer.
Out here are concerned dependent spouses who are afraid their only source of income will be yanked out from beneath them. Consider this. For each dependent ex spouse, there is an alimony payer, who has lost their job and their own source of income yanked out from under them and by the laws of the state of NJ still liable to support someone with the threat and reality of incarceration if they fail to do so. Just think of what they have to look forward to upon release. Arrears and still no job.
Unfortunately, I don't think reform will allow 'fault' in the dissolve of a marriage to be a factor. Cheating spouses, overspending, fraudulent practices..complaints ignored by the courts when alimony is awarded, will still have a sting. If reform has it's way, it will be modifiable and not for life.