Posted on 07/18/2010 7:42:32 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA
Steve Niro got married in 1981 at age 23 and divorced less than five years later. At the time of the divorce, he and his wife were in their late 20s, and both were working. Niro remarried nearly 15 years ago, but he’s still paying his alimony.
Two years ago, Niro’s youngest son graduated from college, ending child support payments and leaving his former wife with alimony of $65 a week. “The next thing I know, I get summonsed to court for alimony adjustment,’’ he says. A probate court judge increased the alimony to $700 a week even though the couple had divorced nearly a quarter of a century ago — five times longer than they were married.
“I paid child support. I paid college. I was never late. I fulfilled my obligations,’’ says Niro, 52, a Milford native who works for an environmental engineering firm in Portland, Maine. “I just have to hope that legislators in Massachusetts have enough sense to pass a law that puts guidelines on alimony because the courts don’t exercise any common sense or logic.’’
Niro and other men — and women — like him say the state’s alimony law is archaic, reflecting an era when women kept house and men provided. Today, with women making up nearly half the workforce, they say alimony should be a temporary boost, not a lifetime subsidy.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Totally bizarre. I met a woman who was paying alimony to her husband, who preferred not to work, even though it was just about bankrupting her (she had custody of the child, and he paid nothing). He went out and bought himself a house with the alimony payments. She was just a normal employed person; she had a decent job, but not with an extremely high salary.
One of the other examples was a former judge who divorced his wife when he was 58 years old. He had to pay $110,000/year to his wife, who was earning $95,000/year and had assets worth $1.2 million. When he retired, the judge reduced his payment to $42,000/year.
Funny how the modern feminist movement, in insisting on “everything” being “equal” are strangely silent on issues like these.
This is a crime. There should be some expectation from the Court that the ex-spouse develop a career and become self sufficient. The child is one thing, the ex-spouse is another.
Another reason to think long and hard before getting married.
Started my divorce back in the late 80’s. I got our 4 kids and all the bills. She got the house and most assets. Been paying her over $20K/yr ever since and I suspect she’ll live to be one day older than me.
If I’d have shot when I 1st wanted to, I’d have been out by now.
alimony.......the screwing you get for the screwing you got.
She was in the process of preparing another appeal to the court but she wasn’t very hopeful. She had supported him during part of their marriage (which was actually not even very long) because he was going to school. And this was the rationale of the judge, that if she supported him then, she should continue to support him later. He simply said he’d decided not to work after he graduated, and that was that.
Amazing.
Wow that’s an odd divorce settlement. You got the kids but she got the house?
At least you got the kids.
“Instead of getting married again, I am just going to find a woman I don’t like, and give her a house.”- Rod Stewart
Started my divorce back in the late 80’s. I got our 4 kids and all the bills. She got the house and most assets. Been paying her over $20K/yr ever since and I suspect she’ll live to be one day older than me.
If I’d have shot when I 1st wanted to, I’d have been out by now.
******************
Much domestic violence is rooted in such pharisaical legal inequities.
I will never understand why homosexuals even want to play marriage.
WTF ! This is not right !
A few years ago I talked with a gentleman and he told me that his ex-wife had him called into court and she decided she wanted alimony. The kids were already gone and he was already divorced for 20 years ! By the time court was finished, he had to start paying her alimony ! This is in California.
Alimony should be limited to 5 years at the most, enough time for a non-working spouse to get trained, go to school and then hit the job market and work to support themselves. Other than the children, the former couple are considered strangers under the law and should be treated as such.
When I got remarried a few years ago, I set the prenup with a severability clause and that no alimony would be paid. It was also set where whoever owns the assets keeps the assets regardless of gain or loss in value.
Going to divorce court for most guys....they get the shaft, the wife gets the elevator.
Listening to Handle on the Law yesterday while he fielded a call from a guy who was divorced 15 years ago..wife got kid(s) and the house. She could not keep up mortgage payments after a few years and approached him with an agreement to pay the ten years remaining on child support 0f 30K, up front, so she could pay off the house. He did after they both signed the agreement (dope). He just received a notice for back child support from the state...seems the fact he did a non court approved change of the divorce decree means in effect he gave his wife $30K says Handel and regardless of the agreement, he owes the back support, with interest!
I thought this was ironic as I was heading to the range when I heard this as I know where I would be heading after getting such a demand.
Vince
The guy needs a better lawyer...
The lawyers want them to. good for business.
Hoping that the Gay State's legislature has *sense*?? What's this guy been smoking?
texas has post-divorce maintenance under very limited circumstances, for no more than 3 years. Encourages the ex to get job training.
How is this any different than any woman that sucks the life out of a man after marriage even though she is as capable of earning a living to support themselves?
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.