PDA

View Full Version : Life Long Alimony Awards Gets Nailed in Mass.



Sev
10-02-2011, 06:33 AM
In today's world alimony this in one of the most ridiculous laws on the books. The great majority of woman are in the work place and new studies show that due to the doctorates that woman have earned their pay scale is now eclipsing men.
The cynical side of this would be that there is now way that with male pay rates in the decline that woman will allow a reverse in the alimony role.
Men will not get the opportunity to make woman pay their fare share. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Its good to see a state such as Mass making changes to the alimony laws. Hopefully others will follow and perhaps make the entire structure of alimony illegal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us...-payments.html

Alimony in Massachusetts Gets Overhaul, With Limits
By JESS BIDGOOD
Published: September 26, 2011

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday signed into law new limits on alimony in Massachusetts, sharply curbing lifetime alimony payments in divorce cases and making a series of other changes to a system that critics considered outdated.
Related

The previous system allowed judges to award lifelong alimony after both short and long marriages, in contrast to the practices of most states. It often required payments to continue even after the spouse paying the alimony retired or the spouse receiving it moved in with a new partner.

The new law, which had widespread support in the legislature, allows most of those paying alimony to stop once they retire. It also sets limits, based on the length of a marriage, on the number of years former spouses can receive payments.

A marriage of five years or less that ends in divorce, for example, could require alimony payments for up to half of the length of the marriage. Those lasting between 15 and 20 years could require payments for up to 80 percent of the marriage.

“It’s a good bill that balanced the needs of the payees and those who are paying their spouses,” said Denise Squillante, a family law lawyer who worked on the task force that wrote the bill. “It strikes a balance between the two.”

Linda Lea Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said the law represented an about-face that could reverberate across the country. Most states, she said, do not have such specific guidelines for determining the length of alimony. “They’ve gone from the extreme of having it set in permanency to now being specific about when it terminates,” Ms. Viken said of Massachusetts.

Steve Hitner, president of Massachusetts Alimony Reform, a grass-roots group made up mostly of alimony-paying men, said he hoped the law would prevent situations like his. When Mr. Hitner sought to have his $45,000-a-year alimony payments reduced in 2000, he said, the judge refused and Mr. Hitner went into bankruptcy, having spent more than $250,000 on legal fees.

“It put a lot of people in the poorhouse,” he said. “It made people never able to retire.”

But Wendy Murphy, an adjunct law professor at New England Law of Boston, said she worried that the new law could be unfair to women who leave the work force to raise their children.

“It’s arbitrary to have cutoff periods that effectively make it harder for that opportunity loss to be valued in the divorce,” Ms. Murphy said.

Ms. Murphy also said the new system might encourage women to stay in abusive marriages longer in order to qualify for more alimony.

“It’s kind of a one size fits all,” she said. “I’m worried that the hard lines that have been drawn will become the rule.”

eg8r
10-02-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The great majority of woman are in the work place and new studies show that due to the doctorates that woman have earned their pay scale is now eclipsing men.
</div></div>This is news to me. Which studies are these?

Sev
10-02-2011, 04:27 PM
I saw it on the news today.

Didnt catch the studies name. I'll see if I can find it.

Soflasnapper
10-02-2011, 06:44 PM
I'm guessing that is a false factoid. I've heard women earn on average about 80 cents to the average man's dollar in income, which is a catchup from a larger deficit than before, but still a deficit.

However, even if my alternate take is correct, this would seem a good reform to me.

Sev
10-02-2011, 07:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing that is a false factoid. I've heard women earn on average about 80 cents to the average man's dollar in income, which is a catchup from a larger deficit than before, but still a deficit.

However, even if my alternate take is correct, this would seem a good reform to me. </div></div>

A couple of things are occurring.
More woman are completing college and earning higher degrees than men now. Social engineering designed to change mens role in society as taken hold.

The economic down turn has resulted in men being effected more than woman. Down sizing has effect more senior and higher paid men.

The result is that more qualified woman are filling the positions once occupied by men.

Just remember sofla its never about being equal. Its always about getting even. Be careful what you wish for.

Sev
10-02-2011, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm guessing that is a false factoid. I've heard women earn on average about 80 cents to the average man's dollar in income, which is a catchup from a larger deficit than before, but still a deficit.

However, even if my alternate take is correct, this would seem a good reform to me. </div></div>

Here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030913,00.html

Soflasnapper
10-03-2011, 06:32 AM
While it's true that most women still earn less than men, are far less likely to be in the highest-salaried executive positions and suffer a prohibitive motherhood penalty, about a third of women out[-]earn their husbands

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2030913,00.html#ixzz1ZimOtTLm

Your link denies the claim as a general matter, which means it is a false factoid. True only as of a narrow slice of the population, comparing younger single persons in (some named) urban situations.

eg8r
10-03-2011, 07:45 AM
Yeah, I did not think they made that much progress in such a short time. I do believe they are doing better but still not equivalent and did not really believe they were making more.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-03-2011, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In today's world alimony this in one of the most ridiculous laws on the books. The great majority of woman are in the work place and new studies show that due to the doctorates that woman have earned their pay scale is now eclipsing men.
The cynical side of this would be that there is now way that with male pay rates in the decline that woman will allow a reverse in the alimony role.
Men will not get the opportunity to make woman pay their fare share. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Its good to see a state such as Mass making changes to the alimony laws. Hopefully others will follow and perhaps make the entire structure of alimony illegal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/us...-payments.html

Alimony in Massachusetts Gets Overhaul, With Limits
By JESS BIDGOOD
Published: September 26, 2011

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday signed into law new limits on alimony in Massachusetts, sharply curbing lifetime alimony payments in divorce cases and making a series of other changes to a system that critics considered outdated.
Related

The previous system allowed judges to award lifelong alimony after both short and long marriages, in contrast to the practices of most states. It often required payments to continue even after the spouse paying the alimony retired or the spouse receiving it moved in with a new partner.

The new law, which had widespread support in the legislature, allows most of those paying alimony to stop once they retire. It also sets limits, based on the length of a marriage, on the number of years former spouses can receive payments.

A marriage of five years or less that ends in divorce, for example, could require alimony payments for up to half of the length of the marriage. Those lasting between 15 and 20 years could require payments for up to 80 percent of the marriage.

“It’s a good bill that balanced the needs of the payees and those who are paying their spouses,” said Denise Squillante, a family law lawyer who worked on the task force that wrote the bill. “It strikes a balance between the two.”

Linda Lea Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said the law represented an about-face that could reverberate across the country. Most states, she said, do not have such specific guidelines for determining the length of alimony. “They’ve gone from the extreme of having it set in permanency to now being specific about when it terminates,” Ms. Viken said of Massachusetts.

Steve Hitner, president of Massachusetts Alimony Reform, a grass-roots group made up mostly of alimony-paying men, said he hoped the law would prevent situations like his. When Mr. Hitner sought to have his $45,000-a-year alimony payments reduced in 2000, he said, the judge refused and Mr. Hitner went into bankruptcy, having spent more than $250,000 on legal fees.

“It put a lot of people in the poorhouse,” he said. “It made people never able to retire.”

But Wendy Murphy, an adjunct law professor at New England Law of Boston, said she worried that the new law could be unfair to women who leave the work force to raise their children.

“It’s arbitrary to have cutoff periods that effectively make it harder for that opportunity loss to be valued in the divorce,” Ms. Murphy said.

Ms. Murphy also said the new system might encourage women to stay in abusive marriages longer in order to qualify for more alimony.

“It’s kind of a one size fits all,” she said. “I’m worried that the hard lines that have been drawn will become the rule.” </div></div>

You have made quite a few broad, sweeping statements, which aren't true.

Speaking just from my life experiences, jusges don't usually give away alimoney for a lifetime, unless a woman has spent more of her loifetime, raising chidren, working in the family business, is near retirement, or was married to a very wealolthy man, who just wanted out for some younger eye candy, after his former wife had made years of contributions, to his successes.

Additionally, even in child support settlements, how often do men actually pay what they are supposed to pay, on time, annd without battle after battle. We have loads of Dead Beat Fathers, who think that once they have had their fun, they can just walk, and hide under the radar, off the books, and desert their responsibilities, entirely.

Some do, of course, are responsible, many are not, apparently even when they are "Family Values" Tea Party Repiglicans...

CHICAGO (CBS) — The Illinois Republican congressman who accused President Barack Obama of lying about the risks of not raising debt ceiling, is now accused of owing a six-figure sum in child support.

North suburban Congressman Joe Walsh might need an increase in his personal debt ceiling. As CBS 2′s Derrick Blakley reports, Walsh’s ex-wife is suing him for $117,000 in unpaid child support.

In a statement, Walsh said the story was false, labeling it as a “hit piece”



http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/28/report-rep-walsh-owes-over-100k-in-child-support/





Laura Walsh was at Wednesday’s hearing before Cook County Judge Raul Vega, but the congressman was not, prompting the judge to ask Rep. Walsh’s attorney why he wasn’t there.

Walsh’s new attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look.

To which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge said. Vega said he expects Rep. Walsh to show up at the next hearing, in November.

But Laura Walsh’s attorney later said the congressman probably wouldn’t have to come to court for the next hearing after all.

Meantime, Vega said he was going to issue a “rule to show cause” why Walsh shouldn’t be held in contempt for falling behind on child support over the past five years.

The effect of that ruling is that, instead of Laura Walsh having to prove the congressman owes the money, the burden shifts to the congressman to prove that he doesn’t owe money, according to attorneys for both Walshes.

Laura Walsh said her husband started making half-payments years ago and then making no payments at all, claiming he had no money.

Last year, when she saw he had made a $35,000 contribution to his own congressional campaign, Laura Walsh said she became suspicious about his “no money” claims and had her attorney file the motion that Judge Vega granted on Wednesday.

In less than a year in Congress, the telegenic, silver-haired freshman has catapulted to the top of the cable television short-list, offering pithy anti-Obama soundbites, often criticizing the Obama administration for fiscal irresponsibility.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/09/14/r...-child-support/ (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/09/14/rep-walsh-ordered-to-prove-he-doesnt-owe-100k-in-child-support/)


G.