Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think the rapid fire posts lashing out at anyone who is opposed to permanent alimony come across as deeply entitled and sexist.

These are the same people who think it is horrifying if a woman in her 70s and 80s has to work, but are gleeful about how making the elderly ex-husband continue to work into his 80s to support that permanent alimony is fine, great even. It is greedy and hypocritical.

Yet the divorce decree states that reality and the judge signed off on it, and the woman gave up marital assets for the alimony. That’s not greedy. That’s buyers remorse on the husband’s side.

Why should the elderly husband be the only one who suffers for buyer’s remorse? It is immoral for these ex-wives to force elderly men to keep working when they refuse to do the same.

If both parties are working, then I think the situation is different. But forcing an elderly man to keep working into his 80s so you don’t have to sully yourself with a job? That is flat-out immoral and horribly greedy.

The women who received alimony had a cap on how much they could make each year. The paying husbands didn’t. So in addition to earning less and giving up assets, now the women must give up their alimony.

The divorce settlements were not immoral. They had to adhere to legal guidelines or else the judge wouldn’t have signed off on them.

Let’s just be clear here: you are advocating for forcing elderly men to work until they die, so elderly women don’t have to.

There is no world in which this is not immoral. And just because the law permitted that sort of immorality at the time (which is why the men had to agree) does not remove the immoral aspect of it.

No one is forcing elderly men to work. Social Security and pensions have rules about ex-spouse benefits based on when and for how long they were married. Other income and investments are covered by divorce agreements. If you agreed to it you should pay it, as you guys say about student loan debt. Alimony debt is an obligation.

The alimony payment was a pay as you go plan over time so the husbands could keep their businesses, or expensive homes, or some tangible property or asset.

They kept those assets and the wives said fine, keep them. Instead of paying me for my share now, I will accept x amount of alimony. Husband agreed. He kept the marital assets.

Now, he’s so old he can’t work and pay the amount he agreed to pay. Fair enough.

Back to court and renegotiate the settlement. Time to divide said asset/s.

And then the monthly alimony payment stops.

The bolded is completely untrue. I don’t know why you are propagating so many lies. The assets are split evenly at time of divorce. The only reason alimony was given was that in the old days, older women with no work history couldn’t get any jobs, so the alimony was to compensate for that. Nowadays there really isn’t the same justification for it, because there isn’t the same barrier to work for ex-wives.

So it sounds like what you want in addition to half the marital estate (which the wives already get) is to force an elderly man to work until he dies so you don’t have to get a job.

Look, you can take that position if you want, but it’s not going to find you a lot of supporters, because it is immoral and greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a crazed ex-wife who is rapid fire posting in this thread, I think.

No, just familiar with family court regarding divorce and marital asset division.

There are some crazed second wives posting here who are sure their husbands were immorally tricked by their first wives. They are salivating over the possibility hubby gets a get out of jail free card and can stop paying wife #1.

If I were an ex-wife and my ex-husband wanted to terminate alimony payments in Florida, I’d definitely insist a forensic accountant examine all financial statements, bank accounts, business records, etc, my ex-husband and his salivating 2nd wife submitted to the court. Fun times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think the rapid fire posts lashing out at anyone who is opposed to permanent alimony come across as deeply entitled and sexist.

These are the same people who think it is horrifying if a woman in her 70s and 80s has to work, but are gleeful about how making the elderly ex-husband continue to work into his 80s to support that permanent alimony is fine, great even. It is greedy and hypocritical.

Yet the divorce decree states that reality and the judge signed off on it, and the woman gave up marital assets for the alimony. That’s not greedy. That’s buyers remorse on the husband’s side.

Why should the elderly husband be the only one who suffers for buyer’s remorse? It is immoral for these ex-wives to force elderly men to keep working when they refuse to do the same.

If both parties are working, then I think the situation is different. But forcing an elderly man to keep working into his 80s so you don’t have to sully yourself with a job? That is flat-out immoral and horribly greedy.

The women who received alimony had a cap on how much they could make each year. The paying husbands didn’t. So in addition to earning less and giving up assets, now the women must give up their alimony.

The divorce settlements were not immoral. They had to adhere to legal guidelines or else the judge wouldn’t have signed off on them.

Let’s just be clear here: you are advocating for forcing elderly men to work until they die, so elderly women don’t have to.

There is no world in which this is not immoral. And just because the law permitted that sort of immorality at the time (which is why the men had to agree) does not remove the immoral aspect of it.

No one is forcing elderly men to work. Social Security and pensions have rules about ex-spouse benefits based on when and for how long they were married. Other income and investments are covered by divorce agreements. If you agreed to it you should pay it, as you guys say about student loan debt. Alimony debt is an obligation.

The alimony payment was a pay as you go plan over time so the husbands could keep their businesses, or expensive homes, or some tangible property or asset.

They kept those assets and the wives said fine, keep them. Instead of paying me for my share now, I will accept x amount of alimony. Husband agreed. He kept the marital assets.

Now, he’s so old he can’t work and pay the amount he agreed to pay. Fair enough.

Back to court and renegotiate the settlement. Time to divide said asset/s.

And then the monthly alimony payment stops.

The bolded is completely untrue. I don’t know why you are propagating so many lies. The assets are split evenly at time of divorce. The only reason alimony was given was that in the old days, older women with no work history couldn’t get any jobs, so the alimony was to compensate for that. Nowadays there really isn’t the same justification for it, because there isn’t the same barrier to work for ex-wives.

So it sounds like what you want in addition to half the marital estate (which the wives already get) is to force an elderly man to work until he dies so you don’t have to get a job.

Look, you can take that position if you want, but it’s not going to find you a lot of supporters, because it is immoral and greedy.

You cannot know what each party agreed to in every divorce. There are definitely women who received less than 50% of marital assets for a monthly alimony payment. They will get their 50% when their ex-husband petitions the court to terminate their alimony payments.

I don’t need supporters, weirdo. Anyone who uses the word “nowadays” probably needs lots of online supporters to stroke their ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a crazed ex-wife who is rapid fire posting in this thread, I think.

No, just familiar with family court regarding divorce and marital asset division.

There are some crazed second wives posting here who are sure their husbands were immorally tricked by their first wives. They are salivating over the possibility hubby gets a get out of jail free card and can stop paying wife #1.

If I were an ex-wife and my ex-husband wanted to terminate alimony payments in Florida, I’d definitely insist a forensic accountant examine all financial statements, bank accounts, business records, etc, my ex-husband and his salivating 2nd wife submitted to the court. Fun times.

Are you the one who keeps insisting that alimony happens because somehow the ex-wife didn’t get half the marital estate originally? Because if you are, you are clearly not in fact familiar with family court and marital asset division.

Also, you can “insist” on whatever you like, but that doesn’t mean a judge is going to grant it. You stamping your foot making demands is not the same as a court order.

I’m in a happy long-standing first marriage, FWIW. Maybe that’s why I am more neutral in this. I think the PPs who are likening removal of permanent alimony to abortion rights are completely and totally insane, and sound profoundly entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think the rapid fire posts lashing out at anyone who is opposed to permanent alimony come across as deeply entitled and sexist.

These are the same people who think it is horrifying if a woman in her 70s and 80s has to work, but are gleeful about how making the elderly ex-husband continue to work into his 80s to support that permanent alimony is fine, great even. It is greedy and hypocritical.

Yet the divorce decree states that reality and the judge signed off on it, and the woman gave up marital assets for the alimony. That’s not greedy. That’s buyers remorse on the husband’s side.

Why should the elderly husband be the only one who suffers for buyer’s remorse? It is immoral for these ex-wives to force elderly men to keep working when they refuse to do the same.

If both parties are working, then I think the situation is different. But forcing an elderly man to keep working into his 80s so you don’t have to sully yourself with a job? That is flat-out immoral and horribly greedy.

The women who received alimony had a cap on how much they could make each year. The paying husbands didn’t. So in addition to earning less and giving up assets, now the women must give up their alimony.

The divorce settlements were not immoral. They had to adhere to legal guidelines or else the judge wouldn’t have signed off on them.

Let’s just be clear here: you are advocating for forcing elderly men to work until they die, so elderly women don’t have to.

There is no world in which this is not immoral. And just because the law permitted that sort of immorality at the time (which is why the men had to agree) does not remove the immoral aspect of it.

No one is forcing elderly men to work. Social Security and pensions have rules about ex-spouse benefits based on when and for how long they were married. Other income and investments are covered by divorce agreements. If you agreed to it you should pay it, as you guys say about student loan debt. Alimony debt is an obligation.

The alimony payment was a pay as you go plan over time so the husbands could keep their businesses, or expensive homes, or some tangible property or asset.

They kept those assets and the wives said fine, keep them. Instead of paying me for my share now, I will accept x amount of alimony. Husband agreed. He kept the marital assets.

Now, he’s so old he can’t work and pay the amount he agreed to pay. Fair enough.

Back to court and renegotiate the settlement. Time to divide said asset/s.

And then the monthly alimony payment stops.

The bolded is completely untrue. I don’t know why you are propagating so many lies. The assets are split evenly at time of divorce. The only reason alimony was given was that in the old days, older women with no work history couldn’t get any jobs, so the alimony was to compensate for that. Nowadays there really isn’t the same justification for it, because there isn’t the same barrier to work for ex-wives.

So it sounds like what you want in addition to half the marital estate (which the wives already get) is to force an elderly man to work until he dies so you don’t have to get a job.

Look, you can take that position if you want, but it’s not going to find you a lot of supporters, because it is immoral and greedy.

Exactly! +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a crazed ex-wife who is rapid fire posting in this thread, I think.

No, just familiar with family court regarding divorce and marital asset division.

There are some crazed second wives posting here who are sure their husbands were immorally tricked by their first wives. They are salivating over the possibility hubby gets a get out of jail free card and can stop paying wife #1.

If I were an ex-wife and my ex-husband wanted to terminate alimony payments in Florida, I’d definitely insist a forensic accountant examine all financial statements, bank accounts, business records, etc, my ex-husband and his salivating 2nd wife submitted to the court. Fun times.

Are you the one who keeps insisting that alimony happens because somehow the ex-wife didn’t get half the marital estate originally? Because if you are, you are clearly not in fact familiar with family court and marital asset division.

Also, you can “insist” on whatever you like, but that doesn’t mean a judge is going to grant it. You stamping your foot making demands is not the same as a court order.

I’m in a happy long-standing first marriage, FWIW. Maybe that’s why I am more neutral in this. I think the PPs who are likening removal of permanent alimony to abortion rights are completely and totally insane, and sound profoundly entitled.

Yes, increased and/or lifelong alimony payments can happen because the wife agreed to less marital asset division. The divorcing couple can agree to virtually anything that they wish, that falls within state guidelines.

Most of the Florida women interviewed regarding their divorce settlements stated that is why they are so upset about this decision. They gave up property or assets for lifelong alimony payments.

A judge will not stop alimony payments to those women unless they receive an equal amount of compensation from the marital estate. Stopped alimony under those circumstances would be immoral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a crazed ex-wife who is rapid fire posting in this thread, I think.

No, just familiar with family court regarding divorce and marital asset division.

There are some crazed second wives posting here who are sure their husbands were immorally tricked by their first wives. They are salivating over the possibility hubby gets a get out of jail free card and can stop paying wife #1.

If I were an ex-wife and my ex-husband wanted to terminate alimony payments in Florida, I’d definitely insist a forensic accountant examine all financial statements, bank accounts, business records, etc, my ex-husband and his salivating 2nd wife submitted to the court. Fun times.

Are you the one who keeps insisting that alimony happens because somehow the ex-wife didn’t get half the marital estate originally? Because if you are, you are clearly not in fact familiar with family court and marital asset division.

Also, you can “insist” on whatever you like, but that doesn’t mean a judge is going to grant it. You stamping your foot making demands is not the same as a court order.

I’m in a happy long-standing first marriage, FWIW. Maybe that’s why I am more neutral in this. I think the PPs who are likening removal of permanent alimony to abortion rights are completely and totally insane, and sound profoundly entitled.

Yes, increased and/or lifelong alimony payments can happen because the wife agreed to less marital asset division. The divorcing couple can agree to virtually anything that they wish, that falls within state guidelines.

Most of the Florida women interviewed regarding their divorce settlements stated that is why they are so upset about this decision. They gave up property or assets for lifelong alimony payments.

A judge will not stop alimony payments to those women unless they receive an equal amount of compensation from the marital estate. Stopped alimony under those circumstances would be immoral.

Well, we can’t say what a judge will do for sure in any individual situation, can we? It will be fact-dependent and judge-dependent. And what you are describing is not the norm in most marital asset division, which you should know if you are as familiar with family court as you claim to be. It doesn’t make sense for a punitive
and out-of-date legal policy to remain in place to account for a small number of outside-the-norm martial estate settlements.

As you say, if the women truly did not receive an even share of the marital estate and took alimony instead of their fair share (which argues that they had bad counsel, but I digress), they can respond in court to any petition to reduce alimony and the court will consider the totality of the circumstances. But I suspect the people advocating against this change are largely not in that highly unusual circumstance.

[Anonymous]

I have no dog in this fight as I don’t expect alimony in the event of a divorce - I would just get half of our communal assets, including his pension and retirement savings.

That said, I can confirm that there are plenty of women out there who still get the short end of the stick because they throwaway or seriously backtrack their careers/job and income growth in order to support their family common goal.

My father was a doctor with crazy hours and eventually my mother had to stop working in order to support a decent family life, even though we had maids.

Maids and babysitters are hired help, and while they make life a lot easier, they do not make up for the presence of a parent. If only one parent is the one who always have to take the kids to doctors appointments, go to teacher/parent conferences, drop everything to rush to school/daycare on emergencies, take time off work or arrive late/leave early to deal with all of what life is constantly throwing at you, you bet that will impact that person’s career.

And it doesn’t get easier as the child grows older - matter of a fact it only gets harder as older children have more complex issues.

After my father asked for a divorce when I was 12 (so he could marry his cliché nurse mistress and ride his midlife crisis in all its glory), he somehow convinced my mother to leave the relationship without any division of assets.

He got us a house and furnished it and payed its rent until she died (lucky for him, only four years later).

He payed all the bills directly- my private school, extracurricular activities and utility bills.

Plus HE did a big grocery shopping every month and delivered it.

She had a nominal $ every month of about u$300.00 to use for incidentals, like weekly produce shopping, taking me to the movies or ice cream and such.

I never went without, but she did. If nothing else, at least the dignity of choosing where to live or which the brand of rice to buy.

It still baffles me that she agreed to this crap, but in some ways I understand- I highly doubt she would get the $$ to support our life after the divorce as it was if it was left for the courts to decide.

Even more so because he was a doctor and had plenty of opportunity to hide income, and she definitely didn’t have the financial resources to fight this legally. Or the $$ resources to live while the fight played out in courts.

Some people here need to get out of their bubble and realize that not all cases are equal and there are plenty of circumstances where alimony is warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in this fight as I don’t expect alimony in the event of a divorce - I would just get half of our communal assets, including his pension and retirement savings.

That said, I can confirm that there are plenty of women out there who still get the short end of the stick because they throwaway or seriously backtrack their careers/job and income growth in order to support their family common goal.

My father was a doctor with crazy hours and eventually my mother had to stop working in order to support a decent family life, even though we had maids.

Maids and babysitters are hired help, and while they make life a lot easier, they do not make up for the presence of a parent. If only one parent is the one who always have to take the kids to doctors appointments, go to teacher/parent conferences, drop everything to rush to school/daycare on emergencies, take time off work or arrive late/leave early to deal with all of what life is constantly throwing at you, you bet that will impact that person’s career.

And it doesn’t get easier as the child grows older - matter of a fact it only gets harder as older children have more complex issues.

After my father asked for a divorce when I was 12 (so he could marry his cliché nurse mistress and ride his midlife crisis in all its glory), he somehow convinced my mother to leave the relationship without any division of assets.

He got us a house and furnished it and payed its rent until she died (lucky for him, only four years later).

He payed all the bills directly- my private school, extracurricular activities and utility bills.

Plus HE did a big grocery shopping every month and delivered it.

She had a nominal $ every month of about u$300.00 to use for incidentals, like weekly produce shopping, taking me to the movies or ice cream and such.

I never went without, but she did. If nothing else, at least the dignity of choosing where to live or which the brand of rice to buy.

It still baffles me that she agreed to this crap, but in some ways I understand- I highly doubt she would get the $$ to support our life after the divorce as it was if it was left for the courts to decide.

Even more so because he was a doctor and had plenty of opportunity to hide income, and she definitely didn’t have the financial resources to fight this legally. Or the $$ resources to live while the fight played out in courts.

Some people here need to get out of their bubble and realize that not all cases are equal and there are plenty of circumstances where alimony is warranted.

Nobody is claiming there aren’t circumstances where alimony is warranted. But it should not be the default position under the law. It should be an exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no dog in this fight as I don’t expect alimony in the event of a divorce - I would just get half of our communal assets, including his pension and retirement savings.

That said, I can confirm that there are plenty of women out there who still get the short end of the stick because they throwaway or seriously backtrack their careers/job and income growth in order to support their family common goal.

My father was a doctor with crazy hours and eventually my mother had to stop working in order to support a decent family life, even though we had maids.

Maids and babysitters are hired help, and while they make life a lot easier, they do not make up for the presence of a parent. If only one parent is the one who always have to take the kids to doctors appointments, go to teacher/parent conferences, drop everything to rush to school/daycare on emergencies, take time off work or arrive late/leave early to deal with all of what life is constantly throwing at you, you bet that will impact that person’s career.

And it doesn’t get easier as the child grows older - matter of a fact it only gets harder as older children have more complex issues.

After my father asked for a divorce when I was 12 (so he could marry his cliché nurse mistress and ride his midlife crisis in all its glory), he somehow convinced my mother to leave the relationship without any division of assets.

He got us a house and furnished it and payed its rent until she died (lucky for him, only four years later).

He payed all the bills directly- my private school, extracurricular activities and utility bills.

Plus HE did a big grocery shopping every month and delivered it.

She had a nominal $ every month of about u$300.00 to use for incidentals, like weekly produce shopping, taking me to the movies or ice cream and such.

I never went without, but she did. If nothing else, at least the dignity of choosing where to live or which the brand of rice to buy.

It still baffles me that she agreed to this crap, but in some ways I understand- I highly doubt she would get the $$ to support our life after the divorce as it was if it was left for the courts to decide.

Even more so because he was a doctor and had plenty of opportunity to hide income, and she definitely didn’t have the financial resources to fight this legally. Or the $$ resources to live while the fight played out in courts.

Some people here need to get out of their bubble and realize that not all cases are equal and there are plenty of circumstances where alimony is warranted.

Nobody is claiming there aren’t circumstances where alimony is warranted. But it should not be the default position under the law. It should be an exception.

Who the hell is claiming it is or should be a default position? It’s truly aggravating when people are on a thread and have seemingly no awareness of what the thread is about. There are about 3,000 women in Florida getting screwed over because Desantis is a sadist who enjoys causing women pain and distress. Given how many retirees there are in Florida, that’s not many. It’s hardly the default position.

Ron is just your average POS Republican trying to prove how much he hates women to earn the jerk vote.

[Anonymous]

This is a huge W for women, isn't it? Finally, they are treated as equals. Adults who are responsible for their own sustenance, rather than entitled, lazy parasites that leech perpetually on men. Well done Ron!

Feminists should be happy! This is returning to equality.