Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386818)

I hope so. But the fact that anyone could be in her position and ask for this is outrageous.
TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386818)

I hope so. But the fact that anyone could be in her position and ask for this is outrageous.

And I disagree with your reading of why the law is the way it is. His wife could have gone to school, gotten the best job she could have and had a dozen people taking care of their house and kids and she would still (presumably) be entitled to half of what he has earned, plus spousal and child support. In other words, the presumption that she is his business partner, enabling him to succeed by taking care of the house should not be a given.

I'm not completely opposed to splitting what was earned during the marriage down the middle. But this ongoing obligation to someone (especially in these circumstances) who could and probably should work is ridiculous. And sure it's tough to figure out the cut off point where one would say, "You are not entitled to additional cash," but that sure as hell isn't the toughest thing judges and juries decide.

This particular example is ridiculous because there is so much money involved. But it is more disturbing at the other end of the spectrum. If one person in a couple (man or woman) has compiled a million dollars for the two of them and they split that down the middle when the marriage is over, why should the person who has earned that money be responsible for additional payments for the rest of their lives? This idea that one person has grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle and can't live any other way after the marriage is over is absolutely ridiculous. For years, you lived way above how you would have lived if you had not married this person. That's your reward. Now you need to find a job like anybody else.

If you got married very young, completely gave up a career and stayed with the same person for decades and divorced when you're too old to pick up a new career, then you deserve half of what was earned during the marriage and your spouse owes you something going forward. But let's face it. This is not the case in most situations. If you got married, had a career and gave it up, you have the right to half and can litigate exactly how much you have given up for the sake of the team. But that should be mitigated by the fact that you can now get a job and support yourself.

I have at least two friends whose wives have been enjoying themselves and living very good lives during a marriage in which their husbands built a pretty good career. The marriages were long enough that they each deserve a good chunk of what was earned during the marriage, but neither of these women has any interest or incentive to work again for the rest of their lives when they can just live off of spousal and child support. So, they don't.

I think New York does a good job of telling the "dependent" spouse to get a job and might even phase out support. But I still don't understand why the great number of responses to many people asking for ongoing support isn't: "Start looking for work."

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386821)

Two reasons. First, the presumption (an admittedly sexist one) is that the woman will be in less of a position to support herself coming out of the marriage. Second, the law isn't written for these bizarre exceptions.

In this case, or any case involving marital property even 1/10 the size of theirs, it's not fair at all. Unfortunately for Mel, his quibble there is with the legislators.

Can't wait to hear his crazy father's comment on this. I can't help thinking somehow, some way, this will be the Jews' fault.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 386812)

Pony, I love you in an anon relationship way, but guys like you have more to do with this recall then anyone designing or building the engines.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 386823)

Saving everyone a very long story, I will simply reply 2, sigh while my fiance writes another ridiculously large check to his ex-wife (who is living with someone else, with whom she had a child in December), and move along.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386818)

This idea that one person has grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle and can't live any other way after the marriage is over is absolutely ridiculous. For years, you lived way above how you would have lived if you had not married this person. That's your reward. Now you need to find a job like anybody else.

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 386824)

what's her lawyer's name?

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 386819)

Um, I was kind of talking out of my ass.

But from the looks of it, you are really looking forward to your upcoming wedding!

(this is meant to be a gentle dig, so please don't take my head off)

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 386822)

part of the problem is the laws were developed when a lady did not work, certainly not a married lady.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386820)

Robin Gibson is 52 and was with Mel for decades but I really think she can find a way to live on half of $900mm. I think asking for more is just trying to stick it to him for running around on her. I have a fair amount of sympathy for that, but even so taking half his assets is probably enough.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386831)

I do not understand this. Why do you think she deserves millions of dollars because she was cheated on? It's not a tort.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386828)

Laura Wasser. Do a Google image search. In the right light, she looks pretty naughty.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 386822)

Take one of Sebby's poor. A litigator making $500,000, with a $750,000 house, $500K in the bank. Say that husband and wife made the same decision- "daddy goes away on lawsuits for weeks at a time so mommy shouldn't work." then it gets to be a tougher question when they break up the day the youngest kid goes to college- I mean part of her not being to earn much is reliance on him, and based upon his agreement.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386826)

I take it there was no relief in NY law for living together with a kid to be treated as a remarriage.