Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you so invested in a complete stranger's life? Your posts are coming across as the new GF of a guy paying spousal support to his ex-wife and are resentful of it.
Lol, I'm 18 years old. Where would I be interested in an ex-husband in his 30's?
Not remotely resentful. I'm invested because I find these types of laws interesting. I'm studying law on a daily basis. Opinionated, maybe. Why is it wrong to discuss something? haha. Well, I suppose since all we do is discuss case studies in class, I'm used to it.
I don't think I've said anything mean or hateful. You, on the other hand, said something extremely crude about another poster several pages ago.
I've tried to be as fair about it as possible. If you can find a post where I say something hateful or out of line, I would like to see it, please.
In this particular instance it is a blue collar lifestyle while she has a poverty level income.
In some marriages one spouse does not work. If this is what the arrangement has been, yep that's the lifestyle. One that a married couple chooses.
When my ex and I divorced he was on unemployment. It was becoming habitual for him because he knew I would work and make sure bills were paid. If we had been married just a bit longer he could have asked for spousal support and I would have had to pay even though he had equal earning potential but would not keep a job because my income was part of his lifestyle. His not holding down a job lifestyle was one point of contention that led to the demise of our marriage.
Issue with alimony is the whole concept of awarding alimony the way it is awarded, its length and reasoning behind awarding it.
Alimony, for the best part, should be severely reduced and restricted. One cannot be held liable over another individual "until their remarriage". This concept stems from the idea that there should be another "guardian" to substitute your obligation in order for you to get out of it.
In my opinion, one spouse can be held liable over another if the other spouse isn't able-bodied to find a job. This philosophy about being obliged to try to maintain "their standard of living before marriage" is a mockery of legal system. Another reason why alimony should be awarded is as a transition period for those in need. I.e. being unemployed, especially if for the longer period, SHOULD give you alimony, but it shouldn't last for too long either. Pay attention that alimony generally isn't awarded for the unemployed either, unless there's an unemployment which lasted over a year. Pay note that the average person who receives alimony also happens to be employed and even if children were involved he/she didn't drop out of workforce either. This is true for both men and women who receive alimony - with the exception that women too the short break to give birth and get back into workforce.
Today's world generally sees a practice where alimony is used as an excuse to "equalize" future earnings, often to the point where spouse with previous lower personal income ends up with higher income, especially if he/she gets a job. This is true primarily because alimony won't get cancelled if you get higher earnings, unless it gets ridiculous where your salary itself is higher than the paying spouse's salary, even then it's questionable if and when the judge will revoke alimony payment. Another absurdity is the concept where alimony usually won't go down in case if the person who pays it loses the well-paid job which they had... courts usually make hilarious decisions where they consider their "ability to earn" and then they include i.e. university diploma. If you don't work as a waiter instead of being a CEO but you have a degree in management, a judge who has the state as an employer is usually unable to comprehend that "your ability to earn more" isn't realistic. Another hilarious practice is the concept of "total sources of income". Old laws considered a man as the only adult in the house, while a woman was seen as a minor. Her earnings were thus seen as her husband's domain, he would be in control of it. Legal practice never sought to change this and thus the judges continue the practice where new spouses of an alimony payer will have their income included in alimony paying and determination of amount of alimony.
On top of that, there's an absurd legal practice where judicial practice on certain cases despite the numerous changes - UNLESS they get a strong political tone to change their way of doing their work. This "previous practice" part is what determines the way courts will keep handling alimony cases today and in the future - unless strong initiative makes them pressured to change their minds. Oh and before you tell me that the political climate has nothing to do with judicial way of handling cases, just think if any court would vote in favor of gay marriage some 20-30 years ago, despite same arguments... oh wait, forget it... just ask yourself why does everyone want to set up "their" person inside the Supreme Court, as the highest body when it comes to judicial system!
Issue with alimony is the whole concept of awarding alimony the way it is awarded, its length and reasoning behind awarding it.
Alimony, for the best part, should be severely reduced and restricted. One cannot be held liable over another individual "until their remarriage". This concept stems from the idea that there should be another "guardian" to substitute your obligation in order for you to get out of it.
In my opinion, one spouse can be held liable over another if the other spouse isn't able-bodied to find a job. This philosophy about being obliged to try to maintain "their standard of living before marriage" is a mockery of legal system. Another reason why alimony should be awarded is as a transition period for those in need. I.e. being unemployed, especially if for the longer period, SHOULD give you alimony, but it shouldn't last for too long either. Pay attention that alimony generally isn't awarded for the unemployed either, unless there's an unemployment which lasted over a year. Pay note that the average person who receives alimony also happens to be employed and even if children were involved he/she didn't drop out of workforce either. This is true for both men and women who receive alimony - with the exception that women too the short break to give birth and get back into workforce.
Today's world generally sees a practice where alimony is used as an excuse to "equalize" future earnings, often to the point where spouse with previous lower personal income ends up with higher income, especially if he/she gets a job. This is true primarily because alimony won't get cancelled if you get higher earnings, unless it gets ridiculous where your salary itself is higher than the paying spouse's salary, even then it's questionable if and when the judge will revoke alimony payment. Another absurdity is the concept where alimony usually won't go down in case if the person who pays it loses the well-paid job which they had... courts usually make hilarious decisions where they consider their "ability to earn" and then they include i.e. university diploma. If you don't work as a waiter instead of being a CEO but you have a degree in management, a judge who has the state as an employer is usually unable to comprehend that "your ability to earn more" isn't realistic. Another hilarious practice is the concept of "total sources of income". Old laws considered a man as the only adult in the house, while a woman was seen as a minor. Her earnings were thus seen as her husband's domain, he would be in control of it. Legal practice never sought to change this and thus the judges continue the practice where new spouses of an alimony payer will have their income included in alimony paying and determination of amount of alimony.
On top of that, there's an absurd legal practice where judicial practice on certain cases despite the numerous changes - UNLESS they get a strong political tone to change their way of doing their work. This "previous practice" part is what determines the way courts will keep handling alimony cases today and in the future - unless strong initiative makes them pressured to change their minds. Oh and before you tell me that the political climate has nothing to do with judicial way of handling cases, just think if any court would vote in favor of gay marriage some 20-30 years ago, despite same arguments... oh wait, forget it... just ask yourself why does everyone want to set up "their" person inside the Supreme Court, as the highest body when it comes to judicial system!
I agree with that, wholeheartedly. And I believe that is the real reason alimony is even a legal obligation. However, I feel like this particularly case, no longer represents that.
I have never seen a case personally where someone was able to just live off the alimony they recieved. There was always stipulations attached to limit or prevent its abuse.
If there was not it was because the two people splitting ways had not wanted it that way OR never addressed conditions seriously before the alimony was issued.
Everyone I personally know who has accepted it has done so as an alternative. It was the easiest or cheapest way to settle divorce assets and disputes.
Last edited by rego00123; 04-10-2015 at 01:05 PM..
Reason: Phone issues, sorry
I have never seen a case personally where someone was able to just live off the alimony they recieved. There was always stipulations attached to limit or prevent its abuse.
If there was not it was because the two people splitting ways had not wanted it that way OR never addressed conditions seriously.
Yes, and I don't think she does because she is in a committed relationship with a man who also provides for her. Also, in Ontario, there are provisions which allow for a case review. I suppose to revisit the necessity/eligibility for alimony. However, these happen after a certain amount of years. Courts don't necessarily keep in touch with the recipient to find out if alimony is still plausible.
Assets weren't an issue, because they had none. Which is another interesting part of this whole exchange. I have a feeling the husband had a really poor lawyer, or she had a really, really good one haha.
I have never seen a case personally where someone was able to just live off the alimony they recieved. There was always stipulations attached to limit or prevent its abuse.
If there was not it was because the two people splitting ways had not wanted it that way OR never addressed conditions seriously before the alimony was issued.
Everyone I personally know who has accepted it has done so as an alternative. It was the easiest or cheapest way to settle divorce assets and disputes.
My ex-husband was married to his first wife, a SAHM, for 17 years and she was awarded spousal support, time-limited, for 4 years. And $400 a month wasn't much to live on.
In Ontario, when you equalize the net family property, one person usually owes the other some money. If that person doesn't have the lump sum to pay out, the recipient may agree to monthly payments in the form of spousal support (which can be garnished from wages) until the balance is paid off.
It's never as simple as it looks from the outside and it's really no one else's business to pass judgment.
Yes, and I don't think she does because she is in a committed relationship with a man who also provides for her. Also, in Ontario, there are provisions which allow for a case review. I suppose to revisit the necessity/eligibility for alimony. However, these happen after a certain amount of years. Courts don't necessarily keep in touch with the recipient to find out if alimony is still plausible.
Assets weren't an issue, because they had none. Which is another interesting part of this whole exchange. I have a feeling the husband had a really poor lawyer, or she had a really, really good one haha.
I don't see how a court can obligate a man to support her if he's not married to her.
I don't see how a court can obligate a man to support her if he's not married to her.
You mean the boyfriend?
No, of course not. I'm not saying they should, either. I was just saying that she isn't surviving solely on the alimony. I don't think it's enough to live off for the rest of her life. I'm sure the boyfriend pitches in some for their expenses.
I don't see how a court can obligate a man to support her if he's not married to her.
It's Canada the laws could be different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
