Posted on 07/21/2011 5:37:39 AM PDT by massmike
A bill aimed at reforming the state’s alimony system was unanimously approved Wednesday by the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The bill would establish guidelines for alimony payments, and limit the duration of payments, ending so-called “lifetime alimony” payments ordered by some judges in divorce cases.
One of the biggest proposed changes in the bill would set limits on how long a spouse can receive alimony payments, based on how long the couple was married.
For example, for marriages of 5 years or less, the maximum alimony term would be half of the number of months of marriage, or 2 1/2 years. For marriages over 15 years, the maximum alimony term would be 80 percent of the months of marriage. Alimony would end at the federal retirement age for most marriages that lasted more than 20 years.
The state’s current law does not set any duration limits for alimony, and the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2009 that alimony payments do not completely stop when the paying spouse reaches retirement age.
The changes would not nullify alimony agreements already in place, but would allow people to ask judges to modify parts of their alimony agreement.
The measure still must be considered by the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotledger.com ...
2 1/2 years to put it back together again?
I don't think so.
Interesting ruling in a flawed state ... er ... commonwealth.
This wrong. Imagine a young woman marrying, trusting the husband is going to love, provide and protect her for life, and in that assurance, focuses on raising the family, caring for the home and advancing the interests of the family for years, sacrificing her own career in the process. After a time of career development, enhanced by his status as a married man, husband has a zipper problem, wants to spend “his” income elsewhere, on loose women, liquor, a snazzy car, so dumps devout and faithful wife and mother of his children, suddenly thinks kids can be raised on a few hundred bucks a month, yanks the security blanket of multiple people so he can go find himself.
Or worse, husband has been abusive for years, wife is attempting to raise the children in an intact home, sacrificing her career, husband decides to cut bait and “take care of himself” and believes the garbage fed him by his “therapist” that “the kids will be fine as long as he takes care of himself”.
So off he drives in his new BMW, with Trixie LaRue at his side, his wife and kids are left devastated without even the will to put one foot in front of the other due to his treachery.
Divorce law reform needs to take better care of the wife and kids, not worse. Women still can’t earn what men earn and after years out of the job market and a terrible economy, expecting the wife to “bounce back” or “get on her feet” is disgusting and evil. The husband couldn’t have had the career they had without the wife’s assistance and the law needs to acknowledge that contribution.
I need to check my link. I thought I was on Free Republic, not DU.
You must be joking. Divorce law is heavily weighted toward the wife and kids. This legal change is ispecifically about alimony, and DOES NOT affect child support, so let's consider it:
If the woman decides to leave - she gets alimony.
If the man decides to leave - he pays alimony. (In the general case)
What we REALLY need is marriages that last - but we explicitly DO NOT need court ordered money transfers in perpetuity from one party to the other - in either direction - for the dissolution of marriage.
Your post is hyperbolic and emotional. It depends on the reader not thinking in order for the reader to agree with your position. Such methods of argument are beneath us, as thinking conservatives.
Hmmm... I thought that's what community property laws were about - governing the accumulation of items DURING THE MARRIAGE, but not the future potential. After all, would you support a rule that says the woman, after being paid alimony for years, who wins a big lottery jackpot has to share that money with her ex husband?
Essentially, you are arguing that the man must forever hitch his ex wife's wagon to his locomotive, so that she enjoys all of the benefits but none of the risk of his future endeavors.
Hmmm... That would probably be even more detrimental to the foundation of marriage, if only because the perpetual obligations clause would make it prohibitively expensive for any young man in a potentially lucrative career track.
Community property laws were another way to limit the wife’s support when the husband developed a zipper problem. So under your scenario wife gets half the accumulated property, she has to spend it to live while husband gets his half plus his large income? You, sir, don’t know what you are talking about.
Mort man
You are wrong. Perhaps custody is primarily to the wife....guess why....she has been the primary care giver while husband has been the primary income earner. Do the husbands want to stay home with the children and make do with what the market is willing to pay the wife? Usually not. And usually, the husbands wouldn’t even know where to start, plus Trixie LaRue isn’t interested in caring for the children, she is interested in a meal ticket. So, the wives are usually stepping up to the plate to finish caring for the children and the husbands are off with Trixie, who, being an adulteress wouldn’t be a good influence on the children anyway.
You don’t belong here if you can’t see the truth.
Answer me this: If the wife sees a huge income boost (say she wins the lottery) ten years after the marriage dissolves, does the husband get a share?
If he does not - you are advocating hypocrisy.
I’m puzzled, because alimony is rarely heard about today. Now it’s “child support.”
Time and again one can witness that there is a presumption that custody belongs to the wife.
It's similar to the presumption you make that the man is entirely at fault in the dissolution of the marriage.
It's a pity you cannot seem to present a coherent argument based on anything but the worst-case scenario that supports your position. Hard situations make for bad laws. Apparently, you support bad laws, provided they benefit your side of the argument.
If you are interested in debating this rationally, let me know. I will not bother to respond to any further emotionally-laden arguments you present. You apparently don't need facts - your feelings are enough.
Well, for the marriages that break up immediately, “alimony” now called “maintenance” in some places, doesn’t come in to the picture much, maybe for a couple of years. Child support is done by formula, based on the incomes of the parents and credits for overnights, etc.
However, for real marriages, that have been long term, especially with high earner husbands, who at age 50 or so figure out that they are mortal and think they need to sow some more wild oats before they are “put out to pasture”, the outlook for the long suffering wives is bleak.
The dear ex was supposed to pay half of Medical and College expenses, didn't happen and $350,000 later , my daughter hates my ex and I am free of alimony because she is a poor Lier and can't read a contract, in Mass.
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.