Has anyone here successfully terminated spousal support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absurd that a ten year, childless, marriage should result in alimony. Shame on your ex and anyone who even tries to defend it.

Completely agree. Then again, marriage is just a gravy train for the gals.

Maybe you just marry the wrong gals. I make more and save more $ than my DH. If we split, I'd take a bigger financial hit.

[Anonymous]

I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage).

Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination?

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement?

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award?

In which state did this occur?

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage).

Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination?

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement?

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award?

In which state did this occur?

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

If he was married in CA, 10 years is a benchmark for assets and spousal support. Not an expert, but this is why Tom Cruise filed for divorce one month before the 10 year anniversary with Nicole Kidman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage). She was not disabled in any way. She refused to work full time. She was encouraged and asked to repeatedly. Encouraged to take courses to upgrade her education. At the time, she was working part time 3 hrs a day for a school earning $150 per week. There were opportunities for her to advance to other full time positions and she flat out refused. Money was a huge source of contention in the marriage. She wanted to live on less and put forth less effort and control me down to the penny. I mean getting shit for buying a gatorade.


Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination? [/b]no

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement? My ex, and her attorney flat out refused to negotiate or communicate. My attorney chased her attorney for nearly two years, until it came to us forcing a court date before a judge. They pulled every trick in the book. Not showing up to court dates. Not replying to phone calls or email correspondence. Her lawyer would literally not reply to mine. So when the final court date arrived, it went before the judge and the judge was pissed that nothing had been negotiated up to this point. He demanded that we all to go to a mediation room and come to some agreement. So we did. All parties were present at first. The attorneys, hers and mine, started getting frustrated because my ex kept interjecting with little gems like how she couldn't understand why I don't have to pay her for life, even if she gets remarried. So the attorneys asked us to leave. They negotiated and came to a settlement and presented it to us. My attorneys basically advised me to take it. Because it would have gotten dragged out forever. They said it was a whole lot better than what my ex was originally asking for. I felt stuck and frustrated and like I had no other option.

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award? [b]This was never suggested by my attorney

In which state did this occur? [/b]California

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

it doesn't add up to me either, and never has[b]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage).

Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination?

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement?

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award?

In which state did this occur?

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

If he was married in CA, 10 years is a benchmark for assets and spousal support. Not an expert, but this is why Tom Cruise filed for divorce one month before the 10 year anniversary with Nicole Kidman.

You got it. It was California and that was exactly the issue. She was fighting for lifetime support on those grounds. So my attorneys convinced me to take the ten year deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what state was this, where the judge ordered 10 years? I would have expected 3 years in a case like this. Just long enough for ex to retrain as needed and find a job. It is becoming more and more unusual to see long spousal support awards for childless marriages and young ages upon divorce. It was different decades ago when women couldn't find work and weren't expected to.

+1000. Ten years of spousal support after a ten-year marriage that resulted in no children is highly unusual, which is why I suspect there were other factors at play that OP isn't disclosing.

OP here. It happened in CA. Because we were married just over 10 years, I was bullied to take the agreement based on the threat that she was fighting for lifetime support.

[Anonymous]

The general rule for spousal support in NYS is 1/3 the length of the marriage.
Child support does not factor into spousal support at all, not that that is relevant to this discussion.

OP has been given solid advice as to hiring a PI to build his case as well as do a cost vs benefit analysis.
He should have been able to figure this out on his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The general rule for spousal support in NYS is 1/3 the length of the marriage.
Child support does not factor into spousal support at all, not that that is relevant to this discussion.

OP has been given solid advice as to hiring a PI to build his case as well as do a cost vs benefit analysis.
He should have been able to figure this out on his own.

OP here. I agree, and have figured that out on my own. My original question was if anyone here had successfully terminated their support.
I was curious to hear from someone in a similar situation. Luckily for you all, it doesn't sound like it's that common as I haven't had any replies to that effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage).

Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination?

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement?

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award?

In which state did this occur?

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

If he was married in CA, 10 years is a benchmark for assets and spousal support. Not an expert, but this is why Tom Cruise filed for divorce one month before the 10 year anniversary with Nicole Kidman.

You got it. It was California and that was exactly the issue. She was fighting for lifetime support on those grounds. So my attorneys convinced me to take the ten year deal.

That is insane. In what universe does any able-bodied adult need to be supported for a lifetime?

[Anonymous]

I've posted in this thread 4-5 times.

I second what 12:08 wrote.

Incidentally, although not relevant to O.P.'s situation, here in MD, spousal support typically doesn't come into play unless there is a two to three times earnings disparity between the parties.

In all jurisdictions, both parties always have child support obligations, which are subject to modification at any time, based on a "change of circumstances," and the "best interests of the child(ren). Also, unlike alimony, child support payments are not tax deductible.

O.P., you agreed to the deal. Yes, it sucks for you. But, you're in the homestretch, and have moved on with your life, which includes a new wife and child.

With all this in mind, I still suggest doing a cost-benefit analysis.

But, now, I'm also adding on the advice of taking an emotional inventory of yourself, and to think how going into battle will impact not only you, but your new wife and daughter as well.

Because, going to war with your ex will certainly distract from your relationships with them, economically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Such is my last posting on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must agree with the P.P.'s who have stated that a ten-year award of alimony was excessive, based on the facts the O.P. has provided to us here.

Couple the age of the ex-wife with the short duration of their childless marriage, and a three-year award of "rehabilitative alimony" should have been the maximum given. Maybe only a one-year, or two-year award.

A ten-year award is either punitive for the O.P., or based on some sort of special circumstances which we haven't been made aware of (i.e., she was disabled, or became disabled during the course of the marriage).

Based on the facts we've been provided, I'm not sure that a ten-year award of spousal support would have survived an appellate challenge.

Did the ten-year period come out of a judicial determination?

Or, did you agree to it, as one part of an overall settlement?

Did the $50K attorneys ever suggest an appeal of the 10 -year award?

In which state did this occur?

Something isn't adding up here, although the suggestions of conducting a cost-benefit analysis, for determining how to go forward, should still hold.

If he was married in CA, 10 years is a benchmark for assets and spousal support. Not an expert, but this is why Tom Cruise filed for divorce one month before the 10 year anniversary with Nicole Kidman.

You got it. It was California and that was exactly the issue. She was fighting for lifetime support on those grounds. So my attorneys convinced me to take the ten year deal.

That is insane. In what universe does any able-bodied adult need to be supported for a lifetime?

In the universe of California I guess. I agree, it's insane. She also tried to go after me for child support for her 18 year old daughter from a previous relationship. I cannot make this stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've posted in this thread 4-5 times.

I second what 12:08 wrote.

Incidentally, although not relevant to O.P.'s situation, here in MD, spousal support typically doesn't come into play unless there is a two to three times earnings disparity between the parties.

In all jurisdictions, both parties always have child support obligations, which are subject to modification at any time, based on a "change of circumstances," and the "best interests of the child(ren). Also, unlike alimony, child support payments are not tax deductible.

O.P., you agreed to the deal. Yes, it sucks for you. But, you're in the homestretch, and have moved on with your life, which includes a new wife and child.

With all this in mind, I still suggest doing a cost-benefit analysis.

But, now, I'm also adding on the advice of taking an emotional inventory of yourself, and to think how going into battle will impact not only you, but your new wife and daughter as well.

Because, going to war with your ex will certainly distract from your relationships with them, economically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Such is my last posting on this topic.

Thank you for your time and ideas. I agree with you. I will do the cost analysis and most likely just ride it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's absurd that a ten year, childless, marriage should result in alimony. Shame on your ex and anyone who even tries to defend it.

Completely agree. Then again, marriage is just a gravy train for the gals.

Maybe you just marry the wrong gals. I make more and save more $ than my DH. If we split, I'd take a bigger financial hit.

OP here. Most definitely married the wrong gal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe you just marry the wrong gals. I make more and save more $ than my DH. If we split, I'd take a bigger financial hit.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. There are exceptions to every rule.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Wondering if she helped put you through grad school? Something doesn't seem right about this.