Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386829)

But I am looking forward to my wedding. Hell, I have no negative feelings about my last marriage. I get along very well with my ex-wife, pay no spousal support, the few marital assets we had were split very fairly and she and I figured out child support together and I don't mind paying it at all. As for my upcoming wedding, after figuring out what not to do (and the right and wrong reasons to get married), I'm in about as good a place in a relationship as I could hope to be. Good times. Good times.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386835)

Then litigate it. Put out your evidence that you have no future. Phase out payments so that she has some incentive to get a job.

The law is clearly outdated. My ex-wife said she didn't want to work after we had our daughter. Guess what? Tough shit. Take some time and let's get acclimated, but you're going back to work. If she tried to argue in court that she was put in a position where she was behind in her career because she needed to run the house, it would be bullshit. After we separated, she got a job fairly quickly in the field she went to school for. That's how it should work. If the law is going to allow people to divorce, the marriage should be over and both parties should move on.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386827)

I think you're missing the law's intent here. It's not intended to keep a person exactly where she was before. It's intended to work like a promissory estoppel claim - to give the person who has presumably sacrificed the ability to go into the workforce a level of financial stability they can't achieve on their own.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386835)

Phase out payments so that she has some incentive to get a job.

The law is clearly outdated. My ex-wife said she didn't want to work after we had our daughter. Guess what? Tough shit. Take some time and let's get acclimated, but you're going back to work. If she tried to argue in court that she was put in a position where she was behind in her career because she needed to run the house, it would be bullshit. After we separated, she got a job fairly quickly in the field she went to school for. That's how it should work. If the law is going to allow people to divorce, the marriage should be over and both parties should move on.

TM

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 Fugee (Post 386843)

2 separate issues. She deserves millions of dollars because that's CA law. The sympathy for her sticking it to him by going for more is because I hate cheaters and on a purely emotional level think they deserve* whatever they get.

*Deserve in that case having no basis in current day divorce law, more like "karma" and I'd take back my sympathy if she cheated too because then they'd be on even ground.

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 386842)

This is why I do not understand why people get married these days. It makes no sense. Women used to get married out of economic necessity. We don't need to do that anymore. (I have no idea what the incentive was for men to get married). Now that divorce is so prevalent and if divorce laws evolve the way they should, as you are describing, there doesn't appear to be any long-term benefit to marriage. As soon as we get rid of the insidious laws that prop up marriage, there really will be no reason to get married.

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 386842)

This is why I do not understand why people get married these days. It makes no sense. Women used to get married out of economic necessity. We don't need to do that anymore. (I have no idea what the incentive was for men to get married). Now that divorce is so prevalent and if divorce laws evolve the way they should, as you are describing, there doesn't appear to be any long-term benefit to marriage. As soon as we get rid of the insidious laws that prop up marriage, there really will be no reason to get married.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386843)

2 separate issues. She deserves millions of dollars because that's CA law. The sympathy for her sticking it to him by going for more is because I hate cheaters and on a purely emotional level think they deserve* whatever they get.

*Deserve in that case having no basis in current day divorce law, more like "karma" and I'd take back my sympathy if she cheated too because then they'd be on even ground.

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 ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386841)

I understand perfectly the law's intent. It is outdated and rarely conforms to reality anymore.

Some people actively give up a profession to stay home. In those cases, losing opportunity is costly. Some people never fucking intended on working, always wanted to stay home and found someone they could do that with. Some people are too stupid to have a job better than retail, are lazy and don't feel like working retail, especially after their spouse has provided a beautiful house, a car and a sizeable bank account. Ridiculous. The marriage is over. Get a job. If you got married young and gave up a lot, then litigate it. But you're not guaranteed a certain lifestyle forever just because you married someone who was a good provider. That's fucking life.

TM

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 386843)

2 separate issues. She deserves millions of dollars because that's CA law. The sympathy for her sticking it to him by going for more is because I hate cheaters and on a purely emotional level think they deserve* whatever they get.

*Deserve in that case having no basis in current day divorce law, more like "karma" and I'd take back my sympathy if she cheated too because then they'd be on even ground.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 386849)

I always thought the split down the middle approach was intended to avoid continued spousal support later on down the line. I've always liked the community property approach, because theoretically you're over and done with each other once the marriage is over (assuming no kids).

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 386851)

I'm with you in theory, really. But you understand, that's not how our society works. We are in a "compensation" society. Maximization of redress for the "victimized" is literally - in the law books, written into the fiber of our legal system via things like joint and several liability - paramount to all other concerns.

Our fucked-up, childish, no assumption of the risk society long ago weighed the issues of equity you describe against the issues of forcing a spouse back into the workplace to fend for him or herself and determined that maintenance and protection of the weaker party trumped fairness.

The breadwinning spouse's protection and rights are simply deemed less important. Call it socialist, call it tort-lawyer thinking run amuck in the domestic arena... It's there, and it's not changing.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 386852)

As for #2, you still have given no good reason why someone who has been cheated on deserves whatever they get. If your answer is, "Because it's mean and I don't like it," well then I guess there's nothing really to discuss.

TM