A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Maybe the state should take both parties' assets and redistribute them to the still-happily-married. What could go wrong?

Obama's going to do this in year 6. Don't tell anyone, though.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

*Hey.
I'm not a lumberjack,
or a fur trader...
and I don't live in an igloo
or eat blubber, or own a dogsled...
and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada,
although I'm certain they're really, really nice.

I have a Prime Minister,
not a President.
I speak English and French,
NOT American.
and I pronouce it ABOUT,
NOT A BOOT.

I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack.
I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing.
DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation,
AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL.
A TOQUE IS A HAT,
A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH,
AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!

CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS!
THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY!
AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA!

You Canadians are so cute.

CDF

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obama's going to do this in year 6. Don't tell anyone, though.

Is that part of the secret plan where the rich flee to Canada and screw it up too?

(I don't know...it'll be kinda hard for them to get all "Fifth Column" while clutching lattes and wearing slippers...)

CDF

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Obama's going to do this in year 6. Don't tell anyone, though.

if he did that slave would actually come on board, but somehow I bet there'd be a factor declining with income.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I love Econ as much as the next guy (on these boards) but I was more of a romantic then. I had read The Unbearable Lightness of Being as a freshman and was looking for ways to make intercourse an act with more universal and timeless significance. Success! Sting had tantric orgasms, I had what improv nerds call commitment to the bit. Marriage is what brings us together today.

I find econ to be rather oaky.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I find econ to be rather oaky.

Suck, don't chew.

CDF

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I am so sad that PLF is not on facebook (unless he is there and has deliberately not friended me (Hi Coltrane!)) because it means I can't give him a "17 Again Zac Efron gift."

Hi!

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Geldof. Because by definition, he must not be looking away, grimacing, with his hands over his ears.

CDF

So, we're supposed to be in on the joke. Good to know.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

So, we're supposed to be in on the joke. Good to know.

Well, the "benefit" of the doubt is debatable. But I gave it to him.

CDF

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That said, I'll defend the presumption, because when a married couple make career decisions, I think it's fair to presume that they do with their collective best interests in mind, not unilaterally, even if one can hypothesize otherwise. I won't say that's how everyone's marriage works, but the nature of the institution is that two people start to act jointly.

Once again, the examples I'm trying to get you to look at revolved around choices made before a marriage is even entered into. I can give you lots of examples, but I guess mine works best. My ex-wife wanted to be a teacher. She went to school, got certified and began teaching. Then we got married (but I guess the example works better if we got married before she got certified). Now, according to you the presumption is that we got together and made a decision that she should become a teacher because the hours work so well for raising a family. That ain't true so why should I have to pay her to remain in the lavish lifestyle we enjoyed (with all the pizza and chinese food deliveries) while we were married? Luckily our divorce was amicable, our marriage was very short and we're still pretty good friends. But I could have very easily gotten screwed on maintenance payments if we had stayed married for a long time. And I have a not insignificant number of friends in similar situations (in longer marriages) who are completely fucked. That's bullshit.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Certainly, for couples who have been married for a long, long time, traditional marriages, I think you would agree that what I describe is more common. Since the most difficult divorces to untangle will be longer marriages, and since the language you quoted applies "especially in long-term marriages" (or something like that), I think you're seeing a judicial rule designed for yesterday's marriages rather than today's.

I still think it's crazy that if you're married for 10 years, you have to pay 5 years worth of maintenance, especially if the rationale is that the other person needs to ramp up their career.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Still, I disagree that things are completely different now, and particularly with your suggestion that both halves of a couple tend to work and bring home as much as possible. As I think about couples I know, that's the exception rather than the rule.

I could walk down the hall of this firm and point to 80% of the women and it's an absolute fact for them.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For one thing, it's very hard to raise children without making any accommodations, and once you do it's very easy to start wondering whether those decisions on the margin are having an outsized effect on your career. E.g., the associate who bills 2300 instead of 2600 hours because she's leaving the office to get home to a kid will worry, justifiably, that not spending that extra time will hurt her.

Give me a large break. That's called "life." And both people in a relationship make accomodations. Singling out the 2300 biller and saying they're at a disadvantage seems silly.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Finally, there's a more fundamental question about what courts should be doing when they decide divorce cases. Not having been through one, maybe I'm just being naive, but I think it makes more sense for a court to ask what the parties were agreeing to when they got married, rather than what is fair now that they no longer what to be together. The latter question is imponderable; the former question is simple if you have clear state laws as a background presumption, and the opportunity to depart from them with a prenup.

Please. What's the alternative for a young couple getting married? Don't get married? Work out a prenup even though neither has anything? Those aren't legitimate alternatives. So the on notice-argument doesn't really get us anywhere.

TM

[greatwhitenorthchick]

He looks like a waxy mix of Keanu Reeves and Kevin Kline.

Edited to note that if one is considering plastic surgery, one should stay far away from the offices of Dr. Brian S. Glatt.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I guess I'd need to see how it is awarded to know that. I mean, when my parents divorced in NY over 20 years ago (when spousal support was much more favored than it is today) after 19 years of marriage, her spousal support was nominal at best and she supported the family doing crappy office jobs all through my dad's PhD education. Granted my dad didn't make huge bucks, but really once I hit 18, mom's finances changed significantly (such that she could no longer afford the house that I grew up in). As RT has mentioned, the concept in Texas is that in most or all circumstances spousal support (or maintenance or whatever) is to end after 1 year and I thought that was sort of the modern model. 1/2 length of marriage may be the maximum, but is that the common award in NY? I have no idea. And is it (as opposed to child support) awarded in more than nominal amounts?

That definitely sucks for your mom.* And I'm not sure how long before you hit 18 they got divorced, but wonder why she should have a guarantee to the house you grew up in indefinitely. But I think your mom deserves maintenance based on the fact that she probably contributed to your dad's PhD and therefore has a right to see some return on that investment.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I just don't know. And I'm not going to do research to find out because I just don't care that much.

Me either. All my crap is anecdotal (as usual).

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And yeah, I doubt Mel Gibson's wife will get any spousal support in CA if in fact she ends up with 1/2 of $900 million. I do think that community property states tend to try to limit spousal support awards as part of their underlying philosophy.

Cool enough. I just thought it was crazy that her lawyer could even ask for it. And since I've seen stories about people getting huge amounts of money, plus maintenance recently, I didn't think it was completely out of the realm of possibility that she could get it.

TM

*And after this string it may sound funny, but I'm more sympathetic to moms who end up in tough spots because my mother never got a red cent from my dad once they split. She just picked up, moved on and made her own way.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I just thought it was crazy that her lawyer could even ask for it.

I find it hard to believe you haven't asked for lunatic things before.

You represent lenders, right? Don't you not just ask for but actually get all kinds of ridiculous things?

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

He looks like a waxy mix of Keanu Reeves and Kevin Kline.

Edited to note that if one is considering plastic surgery, one should stay far away from the offices of Dr. Brian S. Glatt.

He may look younger, but he doesn't look like Rupert Everett. I think he looked better with the wrinkles.

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Ironweed, see what I did there with the asterisk?

Let it go already, Miss Canadian National Front.