Alimony Still Required After Ex-wife Enters Domestic (Lesbian) Partnership

SignOnSanDiego.com ^ | July 24, 2007 | ASSOCIATED PRESS

[DogByte6RER]

Alimony still required after ex-wife enters domestic partnership

ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 24, 2007

LOS ANGELES – A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife – even though she is in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws state alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal.

An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.

Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same-sex couples should have access to marriage, and domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.

The alimony ruling shows “the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme” for same-sex partners, Stewart said.

Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.

“This is not about gay or lesbian,” Garber said. “This is about the law being fair.”

Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married.

He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and that Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.

Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.

“If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void,” Hulsy said.

[DogByte6RER]

This poor ex-husband is getting shafted.

But if the judge ruled in favor of the ex-husband, then homosexual "marriage" could be legalized de-facto.

The judge should have just declared that the marriage was null and void due to the ex-wife's moral terpitude and that she was entitled to no alimony whatsoever.

Maybe this is how King Solomon would have "split this baby."

[edcoil]

“whether same-sex marriage is legal.”

Nope, Prop 22

[padre35]

Ehh, live in Ca, what do you expect?

[Badeye]

I’d go to jail first.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>The judge ruled that ... Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife...

If the judge was an ethical individual, he'd have lowered the alimony payment to $1.00 per month.

[neodad]

My decree included “co-habitation or remarriage”. Blame your lawyer.

[Paleo Conservative]

I thought California was a community property state. Why is he obligated to pay alimony at all.

[neodad]

I didn’t mean it was your lawyer.

[Beagle8U]

Poor guy, he is forced to pay his X to clean the carpet.

[Spirochete]

Maybe this is how King Solomon would have "split this baby."

King Solomon would've had the woman burned.

[KarlInOhio]

I hate to say this, but the judge made the right decision. The law says that alimony ends when she remarries and she hasn't remarried. It's not up to the judge to say, "Well, it's close enough to a marriage."

I don't know how California law treats shacking-up with someone of the opposite sex. Would that end the alimony, or doesn't it count either?

[jack_napier]

Things that are funny:
"In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same-sex couples should have access to marriage, and domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage."

But if it DID provide the same reverence and respect, then why did so many people vote to outlaw it? The government is a neutral entity. It doesn't dole out respect. Respect comes from your fellow citizens. And if your fellow citizens disdain your choice, then just because the government says it's ok doesn't mean they respect you now!

[Ben Mugged]

I can just see the personal ads now....

"Divorced female looking for divorced female"

[joebuck]

Eliminating alimony altogether is the solution.

[Vaquero]

Dykes Delight.....

this country needs an enema!!!

[DogByte6RER]

Yes...I think you have a good point.

[Beagle8U]

“I can just see the personal ads now....”

Work Wanted..Female : carpet cleaner...includes $1200 month expense allotment.

[Old_Mil]

This poor ex-husband is getting shafted. But if the judge ruled in favor of the ex-husband, then homosexual "marriage" could be legalized de-facto.

In other words, domestic partnership gives you all the rights of marriage *except* the responsibility of having your new partner take care of your financial needs, thereby screwing over your ex-husband.

[Brilliant]

It’s only marriage for certain purposes, I guess.

[omega4412]

I wonder to what extent the lesbian economy in the US is fueled by alimony.

[NathanR]

If the judge was an ethical individual, he'd have lowered the alimony payment to $1.00 per month.

Then he would be out of a job.

California gives judges no latitude for spousal support. The judge plugs in numbers, such as his salary, her salary, time together, yada yada yada into a program (called Dissomaster, for any techs out there) and comes up with the spousal support numbers. That is pretty much it.

[subterfuge]

“This is not about gay or lesbian,” Garber said. “This is about the law being fair.”

Don't you understand Mr. Garber that things MUST be MORE fair for fags?

[Yo-Yo]

People can’t have it both ways. If you want a domestic partnership to nullify alimony, then you also must recognize a domestic partnership as conferring all rights and privileges that a heterosexual marriage bestows, including child custody.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>California gives judges no latitude for spousal support.

Really. That's too bad.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Well, the lesson is: form caring, committed, long-term relationships if you want - just don’t sign any government papers attesting to the fact. ;)

[Paleo Conservative]

People can’t have it both ways. If you want a domestic partnership to nullify alimony, then you also must recognize a domestic partnership as conferring all rights and privileges that a heterosexual marriage bestows, including child custody.

Why should an ex-spouse deserve alimony? Why shouldn't she support herself? This is 2007 not 1925. Anyway, isn't California a community property state? If so, why is the ex-wife entitled to anything more than a 50-50 split of assets accumultated during the marriage?

[NathanR]

Really. That's too bad.

I suspect, there were some bad cases of influence peddling in the past, or something. I didn't ask; I just supported the program. (Dissomaster)

[Dead Dog]

Exactly. No differnt then paying alimony to the ex-wife’s cabana boy.

[NathanR]

Better be thankful, the state doesn’t pool their salaries and split them down the middle.

[LWalk18]

The husband apparently agreed to the alimony, perhaps in lieu of a property settlement.

[longtermmemmory]

“...both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and that Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood’s relationship. “

The fact is we need standardized marital settlement agreement language which precluded such cohabition, or cohabitation without marriage, in order to keep the alimony flowing.

[Vaquero]

one pays alimony until the spouse on the receiving end gets married.....

....this Lez got ‘married’ in the lez’s own mind and should no longer receive alimony.

[Paleo Conservative]

The fact is we need standardized marital settlement agreement language which precluded such cohabition, or cohabitation without marriage, in order to keep the alimony flowing.

What's needed is a prenuptial agreement.

[Diplomat]

You are confusing child support with alimony. Child support is not negotiable, alimony is.

[Wolfie]

The women aren’t married. Next.

[Clintons Are White Trash]

Bingo! My soon to be ex and I did the same thing. I was complete owner of our business and when we split, we agreed he would pay me X amount monthly for X amount of time in alimony in exchange for 100% ownership of the business.

I didn’t want it written up as a sale of the business or tied to the business in any way in case it should close or he should sell.

[Paleo Conservative]

Better be thankful, the state doesn’t pool their salaries and split them down the middle.

That's how it's done in Texas. Each spouse is entitled to 50% of to total of all income during the marriage. There's no alimony except in some instances during the divorce procedings. Once a divorce is final, there is no alimony.

[Wolfie]

There is no “married” in one’s “own mind”. Marriage is a legal status defined by the State. The women aren’t married. Case closed.

[YourAdHere]

The domestic partnership allows the ex-wife to use her partner’s health coverage, and she can collect on her partner’s life insurance. Why should she get all the perks of a relationship, but not have to endure any burdens (i.e. give up the alimony).

[Wolfie]

Domestic partnerships aren’t marriage. You want equal treatment, let them get married.

[LWalk18]

Legitimizing this arrangement as “marriage” is far worse than this one guy having to pay alimony that he agreed to in spite of knowing that she was in a relationship with another woman. He could and should have, put a provision in the settlement agreement ending alimony in case of cohabitation, marriage, or domestic partnership.

[Gorzaloon]

I wonder to what extent the lesbian economy in the US is fueled by alimony.

But consider what a beautiful way to hate men it is! Imagine having a check from some (spit) MAN come in every month, when you neither need nor want one!

[Vaquero]

...registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

then the a-hole liberals who created this sodomite law either forgot, or on purpose left out the important clause, that would prevent this further travesty....

[Vaquero]

the straight guy takes ‘it in the shorts’ so to speak.....dont call it marriage but correct the law to prevent alimony in such cases....

[NorthFlaRebel]

This sounds like the guy messed up and agreed to alimony in lieu of a property split. I don’t think he could get out of alimony even if she married another man.

[NathanR]

You may be right. I am not a lawyer, and have never divorced. However, the same program supported both “Dissolutions with Children” and “Dissolutions without Children.”

[Red in Blue PA]

I think that about sums it up!

[misterrob]

Then you could participate in the same style relationship as your ex.

Not of your choosing of course....

[TheBattman]

This is just a simple case of wanting to have her cake pie and eat it too...

[Badeye]

Then you could participate in the same style relationship as your ex.

Not of your choosing of course....

She’d never get a dime from me, regardless.