First? What if the woman's the higher earner?

This? Is bullshit. And, I say this as a woman. Spousal support, for the most part, is bullshit. You shouldn't get to have the same lifestyle after a divorce. Suck it up, get a job, and downsize, whether it be a man or woman. This "accustomed to lifestyle" argument has to go. I see why many men don't want to get married in case of this outcome.

THIRD

First! (since no one claimed it)

Elie,

If you're black and you get divorced shouldn't your white neighbors have to contribute to your alimony?

What a remarkably sexist and old-fashioned statement. Needless to say, Cynthia Creem obviously has no idea about the men and women who work hard to raise kids and develop their careers DESPITE deadbeat spouses who drain family finances and contribute little to households. People are getting divorced usually have a reason...because the marriage is dysfunctional in some way.

3 - will you marry me? I think I'm in love.

One word: Prenup. Well, I guess that's technically 2.

Back in my day, marriage was a beautiful and sacred bond. Today, the courts and the judicial system have made marriage and divorce all about money. I am going to be a good dad to a few of you lads and impart the same wisdom I gave to my two sons. In this day, if you want to avoid the harsh penalty of marriage (e.g., Michael Strahan divorce) and the jurisdiction of draconian family courts, all you have to do is not marry. Simple, right? If you don't get married, family courts have no jurisdiction over you. Now I am sure some of you will say but what about palimony? Here is more advice: don't live with the woman. Have her come over but do not let her stay. You can thank me when you smile at your best friend's penurious fate suffered at the hands of his ex-wife.

PE = VIRGIN

"But for their spouses, they wouldn't be where they are today," she says. "They brought up their children or helped with their businesses or entertained their associates."

This seems like quite an assumption. To the contrary, if the relationship merited divorce it was probably not as productive as she assumes. Couldn't it be argued equally that the spouse actually held the other back?

Can heterosexuals apply for civil unions in lieu of marriage? If that would avoid these problems I'd have to seriously consider it.

High-earning dudes seek out kindergarten teachers who drop their jobs the second they get pregnant and then bitch about their ex's earning power when they get divorced. Typical.

8 - maybe. But, a prenup is necessary!

Honestly, I wouldn't want any ex-spouse to be entitled to my money if I was the higher earner. I can understand why a man would feel the same. It's just so unfair. Equitable distribution of assets made while married (including benefits, pensions) and that's it. A woman in that article is actually getting 78k a year?!?! WTF for? Again--BULLSHIT.

To be honest, my views and ideas often separate me from female associates, but, oh well.

~3

Lat only marries tops.

Off-topic, but you know that guy who is always signing "DOJ SECURE?" Look what I just came across on ABA Journal:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/lightning_kills_doj_lawyer_during_evening_jog/

DOJ NOT SECURE!!!

Teachable moment - the title should only have "-etts' " and not "-etts's"

This would never happen in Texas.

... seriously! No Alimony!

Yes, but in a Texas divorce, your wife is allocated marital assets by the square foot

3 = Kash. A very wealthy (and sexy) divorcee.

17: Teachable moment - not according to Strunk and White.

Why not just get rid of alimony all together? If you want money after the divorce then put that in the prenup. Otherwise you get nothing. That way if the lower earning spouse wants to protect themself they will have to say they want assurances before the wedding. Get it out in the open before you say your vows, not after you both decide you hate each other.

PE - is he still alive? Yawn.

17 - Wrong. An apostrophe without a "s" only works if the preceding "s" was added on to make the noun plural. If the word itself always has an "s," e.g. Massachusetts, the proper possessive form would include both the apostrophe and the "s."

24: Thank you. I don't mind corrections to improper grammar, but corrections to proper grammar are truly insufferable.

Earning potential should never be calculated in alimony. Earning potential (at least for people with enough money to fight over) is generally gained pre marraige. People go to college, law school, etc. and get their earning potential. Then they marry. So now, the well to do cannot marry- ever- because the minute that they realise they are not in a minority marraige (one that lasts) they are fucked more than Lisa Sparxxx.

I call "bullshit" on PE having two kids. That would imply that his wife let him touch her on two occasions...

21 + 24: Strunk and White are fools. Save yourself an s.

wow. the American legal system is really impressive... drop the Common Law system losers and get down with Civil Law!

Most of you readers may be too young to realize this, but many, many female biglaw attorneys drop out of work when they have kids. In my experience, they do this as part of an overall plan that they make with their spouses. And then if their husbands want to leave? Well, that's fine I guess, but how is the woman going to get back into a high paying job after years out of the game? She's not.

I hired a nanny.

27 - That's not the point. They could touch whenever they want. ("They could?")

17/28: You're wrong. The possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding 's. Period.

Period.

You've just been grammarpwned by Elie Mystal. How badly do you suck?

Sucks in Cali--

Judge can impute an income if unemployed or underemployed--so have to stay at the 70-80hr
job--or if laid off find another.

Moreover--if unable to meet the Judge's capricious "spin of the wheel" imputed income level--you get a "go to jail" card.

Brilliant--in progressive Cali.

So yes we effectively now have debtor's prisons
in Cali.

Doesn't the good senator have a major conflict of interest chairing the committee which controls legislation which regulates her profession?

I always read ATL but have never commented before. However, I just have to on this article given that I am a family law attorney in Massachusetts.

There is a valid concern with alimony in Massachusetts in that the Judges cannot award transitional, temporary, or term alimony. Due to the current wording of the statute, a Judge can only award permanent alimony, lump-sum alimony, or no alimony. The Alimony Task Force has come up with some great recommendations to introduce different durations and purposes for alimony given different fact-patterns.

Having said that, this article is completely riddled with inaccuracies. The standard is that ideally both spouses would maintain the same lifestyle they did during the marriage. In some cases, i.e. where there are ridiculous amounts of money, this can be achieved. In most cases though, this cannot be achieved since the spouses were living at the highest standard they could given their income and will both now have to drop their standards as they split one household into two. In these situations the Judges use many different approaches and formulas to arrive at the final outcome. The arguments that are made by attorneys are what both parties actual ability and need are. Once the abilities and needs of both parties are established, the Judge will usually order the spouse with the higher ability (read: money) to pay the other the lesser of the amount needed to maintain the lifestyle during the marriage, the amount needed to equalize the lifestyles of both parties, or 33ish percent or gross income.

It should be noted that this is a simplistic explanation and the real nuts and bolts come in the establishment of the abilities and needs of the parties. The article states that a dependent spouse's earning potential (ability) is not taken into account as it is in a child support calculation - this is flat out incorrect. I have often called employment experts to testify to a spouse's potential earning capacity and I have often had Judge's impute income to a spouse who is earning below their potential. Of course, there are other factors that come into play, such as whether each spouse should be expected to earn to their full potential (Does the dependent spouse have to raise young children from the marriage?).

Another whole issue regarding the reported attempts to modify alimony is whether the original alimony award survived or merged with the judgment. This completely change the standards and burdens during a modification and it wasn't even addressed in passing. I'll just say that if you agree to alimony in a settlement and you have it survive, it is much harder to then modify it in the future.

The article is correct that there are concerns with the alimony statute and system in Massachusetts (the statute does not allow term alimony and the alimony outcome does depend too highly on which Judge you get); but, the article completely undercuts it's argument with its shallow and at times completely inaccurate reporting.

What happens if high earner quits his high earning job, works as high school teacher or peace corps volunteer for a year before divorce? Does the non-income imputation work both ways?

If you're black and you get divorced shouldn't your white neighbors have to contribute to your alimony?
++++++++++++
This is a joke, right? In order to get divoced, a person first needs to be married.

35 - "inaccurate reporting" is the bread and butter of Elie MysTTTal.

3, 8's no good for you. Marry me instead.

36 - The short answer is yes, income imputation does work both ways ... but, everything is really fact-based. If the higher earner can show that the parties both agreed during the marriage that (s)he would leave the high paying job to feed orphans in Somalia or teach budding young minds, then most Judges would not impute income. Just like, for example, if the parties both agreed that one parent would stay at home until the children reached high school, the Judge often would take that into serious consideration when deciding to impute income to the stay-at-home parent.

Let me couch all that by saying that the family court is a court of equity, facts are much more important than straight formulas, and so-so-much depends on which judge you get. Family court judges have such wide discretion. Ultimately, two judges could both find the same facts but make different legal rulings ... and both judges would most likely be upheld on appeal if they could defend their rulings through comprehensive well-supported findings of fact and rulings law.

My advice: treat it like a commodity. Eliot Spitzer has the right idea. I crave hot fudge sundaes on a regular basis. Yet I don't pledge myself (and 50% of my assets and future earnings) to the owner of my favorite ice cream parlor. Addiction does strange things to people.

40: Ditto for New York. People will scream and yell about certain rules and standards, but the truth is that the court will not be nearly as rigorous in application of those rules/standards as litigants think. It is all about what seems fair. Also, courts are notorious about pushing for settlement, so it usually doesn't come to an order from a court in the first place.

37 = Lee Landor

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/nyregion/29fired.html?ref=nyregion

#35 Mass Divorce Lawyer -
What about the report of Mass 2nd wives' incomes being imputed to pay for the 1st wive's alimony? In that case can the former call the latter her slave, or if we use prison lingo, her bitch?

I guess all women are equal, but some women are more equal than others?

44 - That article last year about the 2nd wives club was bogus too. Yes, a person's subsequent spouse's income can be considered in alimony matters, but not in the way the article implies.

The actual answer is fairly complex depending on the underlying facts and I probably shouldn't clog up this board with another memo-length post. I'll just say briefly that it depends on why the alimony payor's ability has decreased and whether the original order merged or survived. Merge means that the alimony order can be modified like any other court order while survive means that the alimony order is treated as an independent contract between the parties.

#45/35 -
So I guess everything is just 'swell the way they are then. To think that all those 72 State Senators sponsoring the alimony reform bill got all hot and bothered about nothing, so funny.

Silly, silly, Senators; the elected representatives of almost half the state's voters. You would think they would know better than to challenge the awesome power of the Family-Law Oligarchs.

46 - Things aren't just 'swell at all. I'm not sure how you got that from my posts. I clearly stated that the fact that a judge can't order term, transitional, or temporary alimony is ridiculous. All the legislature has to do is add the word "duration" to the statute (which is what is in the works) and this will be fixed.

There is also a big problem in that there is so little uniformity between different judges regarding alimony rulings. This could be fixed by including judicial guidance (similar to the child support guidelines) regarding the various purposes of alimony.

I also think that a State Senator who decides these issues (as well as sets judicial pay) should not be allowed to also practice family law. I personally know her and I still find it inappropriate.

My point is that though there are serious problems with Massachusetts' alimony law, this article and the article last year completely weakened their arguments by including incorrect explanations of the current state of the law.

In my opinion, these articles are just another example of the news moving more towards entertaining instead of informing. The fact is that an informative article explaining clearly the boring details of alimony law would not get anywhere near the amount of interest as an article with a few truths sprinkled throughout a litigant's rant about how they were screwed over by the system and how the Judge is personally out to get them.

For example, the article states that Judge Kaplan recused herself because of her prior social relationship with a possible expert witness. The article implies that this is another way the poor litigant is getting the short end of the stick; but, I can only imagine the article that would be written if the Judge didn't recuse herself.

You know it's embarrassing, the way Massachusetts can't DIG its way (no pun intended) out of archaic laws that other states effortlessly reformed over 20-30 years ago.

The real question is, if someone grows accustomed to sitting around eating bon bons all day, is someone else obliged to keep the bon bons coming the rest of their life? If so, where can I find such a deal?

I tried telling my last employer when I quit that I had gotten accustomed to my salary there, and I would very much appreciate it if they kept paying me even though I no longer worked there. They laughed me out of the office. Is there some nice judge somewhere that I can turn to, who will redress this situation? Cuz, you know, I was accustomed to it. Maybe they can keep paying me 1/3 of my old salary for life. That would be fair, no?

In MA the Commission on Judicial Conduct is actually the local branch of the National Organization for Women.

A few years ago a female attorney got herself in a bunch of hot water when she would only accepted female clients. When asked why she did this she said she didn't like to lose and in family court female clients never do.

So if you are a man going in front of the family court in MA, do yourself a favor, bring a jar of vaseline, you're gonna need it.

He he. Chris Rock said it the best:

When it's time to get a divorce, women got it made. You go to court, start talkin' that shit "I'm used to this, I'm used to that. I'm accustomed to this." What the f*ck is accustomed? Whats that got to do with shit? You go to a restaurant, you accustomed to eatin'. You leave, you ain't eatin' no more. They don't owe you a steak. What about what the man's used to? It might not be money, but during the course of a relationship, a man grows accustomed to a few things. I would love to see a man go to court and say, "Your honor, check this out. I'm accustomed to f*ckin' her four times a week. Now I feel I should be able to f*ck her at least twice a week. I mean she can have the alimony, but I want some p*ssy payments."

Here is what Sen. Creem: http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/csc0.htm

No wonder she is an expert at divorce.

DIvorce lawyer by day, senate judiciary comittee co-chair by night? Wowsers! That is even a sweeter business-model than Cold Stone Creemery.

The change in the statue "46" refers to is Mass Senate Bill 1616 filed by none other Cynthia Stone Creem in Jan 2009 - one month before she became judiciary committee co-chair. Unlike the bill Creem is trying to kill (House Bill 1785) it does not have broad support (only one cosponsor when it was filed) nor does it really address the issues with alimony in MA - it just says that judges have the discretion to set duration as they currently do the amount. Still too vague which is precisely the problem. To state as "46" does that this is going to fix anything is patently absurd.

If the MA family lawyer is still checking into this post, or anyone else is, please note that prenups in MA are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are essentially a crap shoot in which the lawyer is the only sure winner. David Lee, divorce law to the richest folks in Boston, charges $700 an hour and likes to say coyly that divorce law is so screwed up in MA that he does many prenups for people. When I posed this question to him, in a telephone interview, "Do the prenups hold up in court?" his answer was, "Sometimes." A woman who marries a man who pays alimony and has a prenup that says her money is hers and not her husband's can be ignored completely. MA family courts are essentially lawless places, where people (almost always men) are jailed for months on end if they cannot pay alimony because of job loss or business failure. I personally took someone to visit her husband in jail, serving 3 months for not having $220,000 PER YEAR to give his deadbeat ex-wife. I agree with the MA family lawyer, that Cynthia Stone Creem, should not be a practicing divorce lawyer and in charge of revising divorce law in the legislature. She is also an avowed water carrier for the Mass Bar Assn., and the association has boasted about this in its newsletter (April 2009). Regarding second wives having to pay alimony to first wives: the courts get the second wives to pay in an indirect, backhanded way. But some court officials simply force the people to add up the husband's and new wife's income and make sure the ex-wife gets a third of it. Yes, there is a lot of technical gobble-dee-gook that explains how this particular theft works. My boyfriend's divorce lawyer told him not to marry, unless he wanted me to be stuck giving money to his X -- AND having all of my financial documents available for discovery by the X and her lawyer. As a wedding present, his X can take us back to court and force us to undergo an effing trial so she can try to get some of my paltry money, even if I have a prenup. The MA alimony statute needs a whole lot more changed than adding the words "and duration" to it. The Mass Bar Assn. and the Boston Bar Assn. have a bunch of suggested guidelines for judges that are all about more and more and more litigation. Lawyers win. Citizens are screwed.

Married 19 years in MA here. My stepfather was instrumental in getting my husband accepted to the medical school where he is an active alum. I always wanted to go into editing, but took a job as a legal secretary because the pay was so much better, particularly with the overtime I earned while my mom watched our kids. Aside from loans, my income as a secretary was our sole source of income during the medical school years, and most of it during the internship (s), when again, my parents helped us out. We've since had four kids, two adopted, and I've been a stay-at-home parent since the first year my husband went into private practice.

At one point a few years ago we had some difficult times. My husband was working long hours and going out after work in Boston. He met a barmaid there and spent around a year thinking he was "in love" and that our marriage was dead. I wasn't leaving, but wasn't sure if he would, so I saw an attorney, and he saw one of his choosing.

We both found out enough so that we are still married today, and after slogging through a lot of crap, I mean a lot of it, things are the better for our kids.

I'm just saying.

My husband just got a summons from the ex for an alimony recalc. She is "unemployed". Oh, did I mention her live in boyfriend, whom she left my husband for, makes $250k a year? No, I guess that won't matter in massachusetts court. The fact that he married me will though - and I may have to provide financials. That swoosh you just heard was our retirement going down the toilet. Wish us luck.

Good luck #57. I agree so much with you. I am so sick of my boyfriend's parasitic ex wife suckling off of us. She is obnoxious and SHE was the one that ended the marriage and kicked him out of his home when she decided she didn't want him anymore. I guess it was crimping her style and ability to bang her best friend's husband. All I can say is thank God she is atheist because surely she will rot in hell. She has made the father of her children's life hell here on earth. Her greed knows no end. She just decided to take him back to court because the $200,000 she got on a stock deal that she contributed ZERO cash and ZERO risk wasn't enough. She wants to forget that he borrowed the $ (post divorce, I might add) and had to pay interest for that deal and yet she wants to take another 50% (another $100,000). Greedy greedy greedy parasite, shame on you. You are an embarrassment to your children, certainly not a role model of what they should be.
Oh, and by the way, these poor wives that 'give up' their careers to 'stay home and take care of the kids' and 'entertain for their husbands'. Give me a break. When you met him, you money grubber, you had NOTHING. But when you divorced him, you took half. And wanted him to continue supporting your fat adultress *ss until you die. One can only hope. Oh, and btw.. while she was married she hired someone to clean and take care of her kids, so she contributed NOTHING to the marriage, not even what married couples are supposed to do. What an embarrassment to my gender. Signed, a furious, independent, career Mom who hates parasitic ex wives who think THEY should live in the lifestyle that they were accustomed to, while their husbands have to rent houses because they had to give theirs to her. Why don't you live like you were accustomed to living BEFORE you were married, you piece of trash? You set women back 50 years.
PS Alimony laws were to protect women who actually were supported by men because women weren't allowed to work then. Any woman who gives up her career now does so with full knowledge that she will be less employable later. Her choice. Why does the man have to pay for it?