It kind of boggles the mind that Camille Grammer, the soon to be ex-wife of Kelsey Grammer--the prolific and talented actor in such hits as Cheers and Frasier--can wave her manicured hand dismissively at a reported $40 million payout and say she wants more for the 14 years she was married to him.
How many other divorcing women wish they could be in that position?
For many women who sacrificed careers to take care of the children, or as I call it, be the President of Domestic Affairs, alimony--a.k.a. spousal support (the terms are used interchangeably)--is rarely allotted in such abundance. In fact, unlike in other eras where laws were established to keep marriages together by penalizing spouses for leaving with a lifetime maintenance obligation, alimony has been trending as a temporary payment to help the non-working spouse create or rebuild a career.
"In general, now spouses are getting approximately one year of maintenance for every two years of marriage," says Marguerite Royer, a noted divorce lawyer at Moses & Singer in New York City.
The maintenance is determined by the lifestyle the couple led prior to the divorce.This is why we hear of padded monthly costs that include thousands for pet grooming, gifts and bikini waxes as the lower-earning spouse tries to justify why he or she should be given financial support. For women like Camille Grammer, that can be a large payment and since Kelsey wants to remarry, she may get as much as $50 million.
I joked to a girlfriend that while I feel bad for Camille that Kelsey left her for another woman and how painful it must be to see him and his younger, newer girlfriend coo about their pending marriage, $50 million certainly can cushion the blow. It is enough to rebuild careers, start a business and if necessary go back to school for a professional degree.
Yet several famous ex-wives lately have gone through fortunes that few ever receive.
Nicole Murphy, ex-wife of Eddie Murphy, spent her $15 million alimony package in just four years, and also landed herself in debt with five tax liens totaling $846,630.
Patricia Kluge--a former belly dancer who married billionaire John Kluge, a guy 35 years older than she--is now belly-up in debt despite a reported billion dollar settlement.
And then there's Diandra Douglas, who received a whopping $45 million after her divorce in 2000 from Michael Douglas, and then went after the cancer-stricken actor for profits from Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps, claiming it was a spin-off vs. a sequel, and she is therefore entitled to profits. As New York divorce attorney Raoul Felder said, she's an "example of greed gone wild and irrational."
What happened? How can you squander that much money? What were they thinking? Many divorce attorneys I spoke to say that many ex-spouses fall into the trap of thinking that their lifestyle will not permanently change--should not change--after a divorce.
The problem, says Royer, is that many of these spouses--especially women--fail to handle finances well: "They are so used to having others pay their bills and take care of their lives that they think some new person will swoop in and resume where the ex-husband left off," she says. "They never paid attention to what everything costs."
"It really comes down to entitlement," adds Royer. "They don't plan for the future and realize that this sum must last forever. They have to live on a percentage of what used to be an annual salary."
Entitlement is really a word worth contemplating.
I can't tell you how many women I counsel in my capacity as a divorce coach use alimony as a paycheck instead of an investment into their future. They often act like gamblers at a casino wheel collecting winnings while the roulette wheel is still spinning for another twenty years. Instead of rolling the dice on meeting someone else, which is what many are betting on, better to take a course on managing finances and learn about interest rates, bank loans and jobs that potentially pay well.
Other times, some divorcing spouses insist on keeping the house along with the housekeepers and gardeners, even though the upkeep of these grand homes sucks finances like a giant vacuum cleaner. Better to sell the houses and downsize to another town so you can build a nest egg and develop your own job skills for the future.
I'm not sure if I feel sympathy or revulsion that these naive women went through these vast sums of money when so many ex-wives-are struggling with meager amounts to live on following a divorce and have to choose to eat rice instead of roast beef while they are raising children without the help of a parade of nannies.
Of course, men now get alimony too, though I have yet to hear of Jennifer Lopez' ex Chris Judd running through his millions or Tom Arnold squandering the $50 million he got from Roseanne Barr. Even Britney Spears' ex, K-Fed isn't crying poverty. Maybe they know how lucky they are to have been given such a windfall to rebuild their lives.
There is no doubt that there have been abuses with alimony. Why should someone pay alimony if his or her ex is living for years with someone else? Or if both divorcing spouses are making around the same money, because the woman has residential custody, should she get more?
As the Wall Street Journal reported, lawmakers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma are pushing to correct abuses by putting time limits on alimony payments. The Wall Street Journal's Jennifer Levitz also reported that lobbyists and activists are pressing for similar rules in Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.
Alimony, I believe, is still an important part of the law since many parents make sacrifices in the marriage for the greater good of their families and should be rewarded, and more importantly, protected. But as educators on divorce, those in my profession need to remind divorcing couples that alimony should be used as an investment. No matter what your standard of living once was, it will change unless you are the financial rainmaker.
So what do you think? Will Camille Grammer save her fortune and use it well or will we be shaking our heads a few years from now wondering how she could have lost all that money when so few ever get those opportunities?
Follow Jill Brooke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/divorcemama
There are those that take advantage and other that really need that little extra support. The child support barely covers anything and the support just adds a little bit more to the household income.
I know...you DID state that MOST women are not getting huge settlements...but perception is everything, and the perception of most ex husbands is that they have been financially raped by alimony. I can't offer any brilliant insight...I just think its sad that we are reduced to pit bulls by a situation where no one wins...
Besides, a layabout parent is harmful to the children, as is a parent working full time on controlling every aspect of their lives and homes. If you strike the balance, you should have time for a career (or laying about), and if you've married someone who wants to share burdens and privileges, you should have even more time for it.
then she never told the court and took my child to upper Michigan then to north Dakota so i never seen him i did however get to pay child support she remarried then got a divorce again when they were playing partner swap he was in the air force i seen him last year now that he is 19
turns out he was doing summers at the grand parents all these years nice huh yeah he was 3 last i seen then 19 when we got to see one another again
yup she is a c#&*
I have no qualms about revulsion. Women (and I imagine the occasional non-famous man) who get these INSANE amounts of money (and wait, I'm not saying if ex-hubby is a billionnaire these sums are not faire); but to do NOTHING with that money but shop just shows they learned nothing. There is probably a hole in their hearts, but Prada can't fill it. My gosh woman, do something for those other women mentioned who get dumped with the kids and receive $ZERO. I wish they'd channel this narcissitic (sp?) behavior into a giving instead of taking mode. My gut tells me, most of them would be happier.
I was not aware of the high percentage of divorces that are filed by the lower income spouse.
Do you know the reason? I'm curious. In my case, since money represents power and status and taking care of kids and house was not worth anything, I was treated as if I was worthless. So yes, I did file for divorce and am the lower earning spouse......but I was the hardest working. No 9-5 job.....I was 24/7.
Women should realize that they need to be able to support themselves. I can see staying at home with the kids until they start school, but after that, get out there and make your own career.
I really don't think in this day and age, that anyone should get ongoing alimony payments. Child support, yes, but I have a problem with women (and some men) who marry and then think they should be automatically entitled to half of the assets especially if they didn't contribute to building them.
I know a guy who hitched a ride on a lady who was working her way up the career ladder, then cheated on her and then took her to the cleaners when they divorced. Totally not right. Cheaters should get NOTHING!
It's good that you maintained and protected your ability to be independent. I'm greatly in favor of child support, though, and believe both should shoulder the burden and privilege of raising the children, both practically and financially. Fortunately, strong single parents do an amazing job, even when they must carry all the responsibility themselves. You've picked up the slack left by others, and made a difference for the better. Good for you, and good for the world.