Reforming the alimony system has been an issue in states across the nation. The rest of the country has been less reluctant to reform than my home state of Massachusetts, limiting duration and amount of alimony as the workplace and the rate of divorce changed. In Rhode Island, regardless of how long the marriage, alimony is to last for a "reasonable period of time" to allow the recipient to become self-supporting; this usually translates in practice to five years. States like Texas and Mississippi award alimony only to marriages of 10 years or more. Utah will not grant alimony past a time period equal to the duration of the marriage, and Kansas curbs its durations at 121 months.
In Massachusetts, however, the guidelines are nonexistent and the possibilities almost limitless. People can get stuck sending money to their former spouse well into retirement, even if the recipient has his or her own career and is living with a new partner. In Massachusetts judges have lacked the authority to terminate alimony, which has resulted in instances of clear injustice.
After much contention, Massachusetts is getting closer to alimony reform. On July 20th, 2011 a reform bill passed the House unanimously. There is no reason to think it will not likewise pass the Senate this week.
When the law becomes effective, it will drastically alter the lives of many folks. Some of these alterations will be good and are, arguably, necessary, but more will be unanticipated changes in the personal and economic landscape of divorced families.
The act makes a lengthy and complex change in the law. It changes duration in most circumstances favorably to the payor. There has been a lot of pre-passage discussion selling the bill on the argument that this bill will result in less litigation. That seems unlikely. The term and termination provisions alone will trigger such an overwhelming number of modification cases that the bill has built in timeframes for when modifications can be filed. It also has a provision to suspend alimony when the recipient is living with someone. That will also cause a lot of unexpected litigation, as payors attempt to prove their exes are cohabiting. You might consider that part of the legislation as a make work bill for private investigators.
In addition to the provision which allows alimony to end on retirement, two of the better provisions, in my opinion, are these:
· Allow for spouses to be supported while they become self supporting.
· Provide recompense to the spouse who put her or her spouse through school and who should be rewarded for that effort.
An unanticipated side effect will be a surge in divorce filings, as the bill contains drop dead times, meaning that filing for divorce later rather than sooner will result in paying alimony longer. That says to me that in many marriages where the payor spouse may be on the fence as to whether to file for divorce or attempt marriage counseling, filing for divorce will happen sooner and marriage counseling will not occur as there will be real economic consequences to waiting.
There is also a law of unintended consequences. Any time the legislature or the courts change the way families are dissolved there are abiding socioeconomic consequences that have usually not been considered. There will immediately be a number of older alimony recipients who have made certain plans for retirement and whose lives will be undoubtedly disrupted. The alimony reform law will improve life for many alimony payors, particularly some who have been paying alimony for 30 years on a marriage of 10 but there will be a whole new class of older women who are surviving on their alimony and will now drop below the poverty line. It is one of those hard circumstances and major changes where there will always be someone who gets hurt. I am old enough to have seen the drastic, unintended results of the passage of the no fault divorce laws. Women's post-divorce economic standing dropped considerably, the numbers of divorces increased, and as a result, the status of children was affected.
I have no doubt that many situations for both genders will be improved by passage of this bill. Women are second wives as well as first wives; women as well as men pay alimony. Divorce lawyers, me included, are already using the proposed law to try to settle cases. The real effects will not be visible for years to come.
Alimony could be considered a "1950s law," but many folk had/have contracted for a 1950s, Leave it to Beaver-style marriage.
Best,
Nancy
To answer your question, gay divorces look just like heterosexual divorces, albeit with more complicated tax and parenting issues due to the federal defense of marriage act (DOMA). Alimony paid is not deductible federally for gays or lesbians, so they can end up paying more just due to the tax code in the same circumstances. Often, higher earning folks characterize support as alimony to make the tax burden on the family less. Alimony is deductible from the payor's income and includable in the recipient's. Gay/lesbian couples do pay more. Also, the reason that time together as a couple can count towards the length of marriage for payment of alimony, was designed in part to protect gay couples who would have married sooner if they could have.
Best,
Nancy
if you have never worked, you are entitled to 1/2 of your ex-spouse's social security, which would be about $21K annually, assuming you have been married at least 10 years and the breadwinner has earned over $107K annually and you are 62 years old or older.
Is this a fact (as its written) or the authors opinion.
As Texas has very limited Alimony, does the author have data on Texas which validates her opinion.
Doesn't sound like a worry to me. It's so much more important to change the public policy so that the financial benefits of being married end with the marriage. To continue them afterwards is un-American.
"Modifications" represented ONE THIRD of the caseload in Massachusetts courts. Of course, the authors knows this.
In my opinion, the real answer is that the lesser-earning ex-spouse is offered a once-in-a-lifetime, too-good-to turn-down opportunity to benefit financially from divorce and acquire 2 to 3 times the actual marital assets -( with these prolonged alimony awards and double dipping for the "value" of the family business, and the higher earning spouse's retirement savings - the actual total of money sent to the lesser earning spouse would approach this amount.) Divorce financial planners make this potential bonanza readily understandable.
Then the breadwinner, blindsided and served unexpectedly with divorce papers, thinks dividing everything in half and moving on makes sense in a divorce that was neither sought nor asked for. The breadwinner may not feel optimistic enough about his/her future earning capacity to promise to earn 3 times the marital assets for the spouse dumping him/her. Why should the breadwinner have to work that hard only to be thrown out of the house and deprived of your children.
The $500+/ hr lawyers fight it out for any and all saved money not tied up in a house or retirement account) for some settlement number in between 1/2 the marital assets and 3 times the marital assets.
The stage is set for nasty and bitter divorce and outrageous legal fees. The money that would be better spent on the children's education, and additional education/training for the lesser-earning spouse.
Clearly the attorneys benefit from conflict, and are the best at creating it. They do this not only in specific cases, but also in supporting legislation which would do likewise. Lets not forget that the chair of the Judiciary committee is also a practicing divorce attorney. This is a group that is not interested or motivated by protecting the public, but in protecting their revenue stream. If it hurts your kids in the interim... hey, it bought them a new mercedes.
Its also interesting to note that 96% of alimony payers are of the same gender. Clearly, the Womens Bar Association has no interest in taking the lead on changing such. Perhaps Ms. Van Tine can point us to the contact information for the Mens Bar Association.
I've been looking for their address, but can't seem to find such.
A few questions.
Given the power the various BAR Associations have in Massachusetts in passing legislation, they should have to explain thier role.
In MA, Alimony reform has been something that's been pursued for decades and has always been rebuffed, by the BAR Associations. Lets go through a few specifics.
In MA, when a alimony payor got remarried, the income of thier new spouse can be used in determining the alimony to pay to an old spouse. Why did the BAR Associations feel this was OK, until articles started making the Boston Globe and Boston Herald through stories put forth by Mass Alimony Reform.
As Alimony in MA is for life, why did the BAR Associations feel that even in short term marriages, such was appropriate until it started getting on local TV News in stories put forth by Mass Alimony Reform.
The Commonwealth has caselaw which makes it impossible for judges to lower alimony "awards" if the payor get sick, experiences job loss, has a business in decline or during difficult economic cycles. Why did the BAR Associations feel such appropriate before the Mass Alimony Reform website started spreading the news.
In MA, its OK for a alimony recipient to go live with someone, as long as they don't get legally married, continuing to collect from their ex for decades. Why did the BAR Associations feel such was appropriate, before the public told them, it wasnt.
In this year of 2011, it's ridiculous that a person has to support another person that they cannot live with.. No one is forced to support siblings or parents so WHY isn't divorce final? No fault divorce should be just that. Women file for most divoces becasue they know that they can get alimony and in NJ it is permanent in many cases. It's time to end this nonsense!
Alimony is child support for adults, with jail as the penalty for falling behind. Even minor children are expected to step up and support themselves once they reach adulthood. How is it that an adult alimony recipient can be given alimony for TWICE as long as a child can have child support? On what planet does this make any sense?
Remember, a marriage that produced an "executive" also likely produced assets, which are split.
In Texas, the maximum support is $2500 a month for three years, regardless of the length of marriage or income of the higher earner. However, it is also an "equitable division" state, which means the judge can (and they often do) weight the assets toward the lower earner.
Where are the horror stories about poor men (or women) in Texas being dumped into homelessness after long-term divorce? There are none.
In states with lifetime alimony, however, there are legions of cases of people being forced into homelessness and jail by punitive alimony that was ordered decades earlier. There are stories of exes dragging former spouses into court year after year after year for modifications. There are cases of second families being told they must send alimony to ex-spouses rather than send their own children to the doctor or to college. There are cases of critically ill second spouses and even children being abandoned because their parent/spouse is sent to jail for not paying alimony, BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKING CARE OF THE CRITICALLY ILL SPOUSE AND COULDN'T WORK.
The idea that being married to someone automatically entitles you to a chunk of their sweat forever is just ridiculous in this day and age.