Posted on 07/24/2007 9:42:07 AM PDT by 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.
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.
Don't you understand Mr. Garber that things MUST be MORE fair for fags?
Really. That's too bad.
Well, the lesson is: form caring, committed, long-term relationships if you want - just don’t sign any government papers attesting to the fact. ;)
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?
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)
Exactly. No differnt then paying alimony to the ex-wife’s cabana boy.
The husband apparently agreed to the alimony, perhaps in lieu of a property settlement.
“...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.
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.
What's needed is a prenuptial agreement.
You are confusing child support with alimony. Child support is not negotiable, alimony is.
The women aren’t married. Next.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Domestic partnerships aren’t marriage. You want equal treatment, let them get married.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.