Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

It's not "being an asshole" to expect your able-bodied ex spouse to have a freeking job, rather than living off the continued hard work of a former husband. In fact, I would argue the opposite: SHE is the asshole to not be working fulltime like any other normal person does (including her ex husband).

He agreed for her to stay home. She is not an asshole for not working full-time. Many people don't work full time. She stayed home to raise their kids, which is equally if not more valuable than working given they can afford it. Would it be better to have two working parents whom the kids don't see? Why have kids a that point. Assuming he cheated, he failed their marriage contract, not her and he should support her life long. There is a huge difference getting divorced at 30 and at 60.

His agreement that she stay home was in exchange for some supposed benefits that she was providing that enabled him to succeed in his career (or so that’s the prevailing argument in favor of alimony). But those benefits to him ended when the marriage ended. You can’t continue to hold him accountable to that agreement: she is no longer providing any benefits to him.

Kids are in school most of the day so why isn’t she working fulltime? Only wealthy people, or married people who provide mutual support, have the luxury of choosing for one spouse to not work a full time job. She isn’t married or rich so she does not deserve the option to not work full time at his expense.



His cheating is irrelevant. Courts don’t care about that and you don’t know his reasons, perhaps she no longer wanted sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

It's not "being an asshole" to expect your able-bodied ex spouse to have a freeking job, rather than living off the continued hard work of a former husband. In fact, I would argue the opposite: SHE is the asshole to not be working fulltime like any other normal person does (including her ex husband).

He agreed for her to stay home. She is not an asshole for not working full-time. Many people don't work full time. She stayed home to raise their kids, which is equally if not more valuable than working given they can afford it. Would it be better to have two working parents whom the kids don't see? Why have kids a that point. Assuming he cheated, he failed their marriage contract, not her and he should support her life long. There is a huge difference getting divorced at 30 and at 60.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Yes! And she did so knowing the very publicly available laws- which assured her alimony.

He presumably did as well.

Marriage is a contract. Those are some of its terms risks and rewards. They entered into marriage willingly. Who is anyone then to say taking what they are legally entitled to is showing “no pride”? It’s the fulfillment of the terms of a voided contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

It's not "being an asshole" to expect your able-bodied ex spouse to have a freeking job, rather than living off the continued hard work of a former husband. In fact, I would argue the opposite: SHE is the asshole to not be working fulltime like any other normal person does (including her ex husband).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

If he cheated on her and wants to play the field at 60, yes, he's an asshole. Not all men are but he is. You don't leave your 60 year old spouse high and dry with no income and in poverty. She should get half the assists and alimony for the rest of her life, child support for the minor child and he should pay college expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

Simple - you have a kid in your mid-40's, so when you are 60, child is still a minor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend going through a divirce. She is almost 60-one child still underage and living at home. She has been married for over 30 years. Quit work over 20 years ago when they started a family as husband worked insanely long hours in Big Law—as husband wanted her to do. It worked best fir the family and for his career fir her to remain home throughout the years. Now she is pushing 60, no job prospects, no marketable skills—she damn well deserves alimony. He benefited from few responsibilities at home and liked it that way. Fortunately, he agrees and will do the right thing by this woman he is throwing away because he wants to feel young again.

How in the world does a 60 yo woman have an underage child?! And how could this child be so young and needy as to prevent her from working? If she has more than 50% custody, she would be getting child support and she should go get damned job. Being a SAHM is a benefit of marriage: that ends when the marriage ends.

At 60, she (and her ex-husband both) should be nearing retirement..... when both would live off their retirement assets... that were already split 50/50 upon divorce. In other words, neither one would have any income, neither would deserve (or be able to pay) alimony, both are living off their retirement...and they have equal retirement.

As to all those benefits he received while they were married: why do you think he should provide ongoing benefits to her (alimony) while she has ceased providing any benefits to him?

If (if) any alimony is deserved, the law should require her to work an equal number of hours per week as her alimony-paying ex-husband. Oh and the day she retires from work, he too can retire (and stop paying alimony). Anything else would be totally unfair to him.

The man in this instance has no interest in retirement. He loves his work and plans to continue indefinitely--so retirement won't be touched and likely left for children. With regard to nearing 60 and still having a child at home--happens all the time. Last child at 42 and and 56-58 --easy. He definitely believes he should pay alimony so it is non-issue here. He knows he benefited from her being home so he could pursue his career. Not all men are assholes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

You are missing a major point which is that she chose to sacrifice those things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

Because for 23 years, she supported him in the background. She may have been a SAHM or had the lower paying, more flexible job. At the time, there was an inherent agreement that both people were working towards the common goal. Once they got to retirement and old age, they would be able to join the fruits of their labor.

Now, as they approach retirement, he has all the money. She has not been on the fast track and perhaps her skills are not what they could be. Perhaps it would have been better during the marriage if she asked for $100K/yr to invest. Then, today, there wouldn't be the need for alimony.

I don't agree with alimony. But I also don't agree that a married person is successful on their own. They have to take of those who took care of them. Perhaps in lieu of monthly alimony, there could be a one time lump sum payment that would acknowledge her contributions to the marriage for 23 yrs.

No, he does NOT have all of the retirement funds accrued during the marriage. Assets were split as part of the normal divorce settlement. So she’s already been fairly rewarded for any wealth built during the marriage.

Their joint Retirement funds are not the issue here. The issue is an ongoing expectation that he must still work a stressful high paying job that apparently he could only do because of her “support and contributions” but somehow now he must keep doing that job WITHOUT her support? How is that even possible, I mean you just said he can’t be successful on his own?

If he is compelled by the courts to work a full time stressful job, so must the court force HER to work a full time stressful job.

The idea behind settlements like this is that she has a right to some percentage of his future earning potential.

Sometimes it’s easier to see why - if he started a business that took off during the marriage and she helped out in the background without being formally employed by said business.

Or alternatively if she back burnered her own career to take care of hearth and home while his career took off. She helped him achieve that success and deserves a portion of it.

There are circumstances where it does make sense.

Your entire premise here is that she too could be earning good money if only she'd not sacrificed her career for his. And in some specific cases, I can go along with that. Note however the exact purpose of such a settlement is to "boost" her salary upwards, from what she is actually earning, towards what she "should" be earning - had she not made the aforementioned sacrifices. This formula computes to $0 if she's not working at all: you can't say that her salary for doing nothing ($0/year) is any lower than it should be on account of her sacrifices for him. In other words, any alimony owed is proportional to how many hours she is working. If she doesn't work at all, she deserves no alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman here and I agree that alimony is ridiculous. There's no reason any person on God's green earth shouldn't be able to support themselves once divorced.

And women who had scaled back work or stayed home when their kids were small, thus sacrificing career advancement, including salary increases? Ever read “The Price of Motherhood”?

You made that choice knowing it might bite you in the ass in the future. Team No Alimony

I bet you call yourself a feminist too. Snort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

Because for 23 years, she supported him in the background. She may have been a SAHM or had the lower paying, more flexible job. At the time, there was an inherent agreement that both people were working towards the common goal. Once they got to retirement and old age, they would be able to join the fruits of their labor.

Now, as they approach retirement, he has all the money. She has not been on the fast track and perhaps her skills are not what they could be. Perhaps it would have been better during the marriage if she asked for $100K/yr to invest. Then, today, there wouldn't be the need for alimony.

I don't agree with alimony. But I also don't agree that a married person is successful on their own. They have to take of those who took care of them. Perhaps in lieu of monthly alimony, there could be a one time lump sum payment that would acknowledge her contributions to the marriage for 23 yrs.

No, he does NOT have all of the retirement funds accrued during the marriage. Assets were split as part of the normal divorce settlement. So she’s already been fairly rewarded for any wealth built during the marriage.

Their joint Retirement funds are not the issue here. The issue is an ongoing expectation that he must still work a stressful high paying job that apparently he could only do because of her “support and contributions” but somehow now he must keep doing that job WITHOUT her support? How is that even possible, I mean you just said he can’t be successful on his own?

If he is compelled by the courts to work a full time stressful job, so must the court force HER to work a full time stressful job.

The idea behind settlements like this is that she has a right to some percentage of his future earning potential.

Sometimes it’s easier to see why - if he started a business that took off during the marriage and she helped out in the background without being formally employed by said business.

Or alternatively if she back burnered her own career to take care of hearth and home while his career took off. She helped him achieve that success and deserves a portion of it.

There are circumstances where it does make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

See, but heres the thing. You think its fair that they divide the assets equally, but they can't divide his decades of work, resume, reputation, and career security. She is left with zero work history, resume, and career security, so by dividing the estate and not factoring in earning potential, you aren't actually dividing the estate equally. If he looks at his half of the nut and determined it enough to retire on, I'm guessing alimony would be moot. But if he doesn't see his half as enough, its likely that her half isnt enough for her either...and she isn't capable of earning enough to supplement because of her losing investment in the ex husband.

One thing I like about America is that forced labor isn't really a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.

That isn't true, if he wasn't working he would not be paying her alimony. He can choose to work or not work, same as her, welcome to America.

Alex Rodriguez's monthly nut to his ex-DW is $115k/month. Wowza's! He's trying to negotiate it down to about $20k/month now that he is out of baseball and she has a fiancé with whom she had another baby.


Here is the article from TMZ:

Alex Rodriguez says enough is enough -- he's been paying his ex-wife a king's ransom for a decade, his income has plummeted, she's now rich and he wants his support payments drastically reduced.

Sources connected to A-Rod tell us, the former Yankee has been locked in a spousal/child support war with Cynthia Scurtis for months. He's been paying $115,000 a month tax free in combined spousal and child support since the couple divorced in 2008. They have 2 daughters, 13-year-old Natasha and 10-year-old Ella.

We're told the agreement was always meant to be adjusted when A-Rod retired from the Yankees. A-Rod claims his income has dropped by 90% ... from $30 million a year, while he was on the Yankees, to around $3 million a year.

Our sources say Alex is especially vexed because he claims Cynthia is now a rich woman with millions in the bank, 3 homes and multiple cars. He grouses she has a master's degree in psychology yet chooses not to work. He also says she has a new child and a fiance, and he feels he's now bankrolling all of them.

A-Rod says the expenses for his 2 kids are somewhere between $7k - $12k a month, yet he's willing to pay $20k a month plus expenses for the kids, including tuition.

We're told Cynthia is negotiating, but wants nearly $50k a month so the ex-couple is at an impasse.

Anonymous wrote:he’s still working. And if they are like me, their net worth is tied up with their home and retirement accounts- not accessible Monty in the short term. Frankly I don’t believe she should be forced to sell her home and while he is still working she gets alimony.

It sounds like she really can't afford her home: she has no income! They should sell the house and split the assets, he could keep it (and buy her out), or she can get a mortgage to buy him out. Regardless, she should be forced to work: given that HE is forced to work... to pay her alimony.