Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
  1. #16
    Bali Hai is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by TripMom View Post
    This isn't about me "controlling" him, it is about his "ability" to earn more than he currently is so he is purposely keeping himself underemployed. So no, I can't and have no intention of asking the court to "force" him to do anything. Bringing up the argument to the judge is about me showing that he has the ability if he chooses to to earn more money and if he CHOOSES not to fine but I shouldn't have to pay him just because he doesn't want to get off his rear and actually play grown up.
    Many ex-wives do get alimony despite the same arguments from husbands that you have. And I believe YOU would ask for and receive alimony if the roles were reversed.

    Here are the facts you have given:

    1. You have a long term marriage as defined by your state statutes.
    2. You clearly have more earning power than he does.
    3. He could not maintain the current standard of living that he is accustom to without some of your money.
    4. You married him and allowed his behaviour for 12 years that you now object to.

    Sounds like you don't want to play by the same rules when wives ask for and receive alimony.
  2. #17
    mistoffolees is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    21,315
    Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
    The bolded would be my argument AGAINST alimony.
    And that's why you're not an attorney.

    Alimony is not intended to get someone simply to a livable level. It is intended to provide a transition period where both parties are as close to their previous standard of living as possible. The fact that he's making enough to live on isn't sufficient to negate his right to alimony.
  3. #18
    LdiJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,886
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    And that's why you're not an attorney.

    Alimony is not intended to get someone simply to a livable level. It is intended to provide a transition period where both parties are as close to their previous standard of living as possible. The fact that he's making enough to live on isn't sufficient to negate his right to alimony.
    If she made 120k and he made 30k I would be more likely to agree with you. However, their incomes are honestly not that far apart, proportionally.

    Neither one of them is going to be able to continue their previous standard of living on what they are making.
  4. #19
    Bali Hai is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
    If she made 120k and he made 30k I would be more likely to agree with you. However, their incomes are honestly not that far apart, proportionally.

    Neither one of them is going to be able to continue their previous standard of living on what they are making.
    Very astute observation. There isn't 1% of the population in the USA that could! WHY subject EVERY marriage to that BS factor?

    The numbers indicate that she COULD pay him alimony and the law says that she SHOULD pay him alimony (subject to the judges discretion as provided by law of course.
  5. #20
    LdiJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Bali Hai View Post
    Very astute observation. There isn't 1% of the population in the USA that could! WHY subject EVERY marriage to that BS factor?

    The numbers indicate that she COULD pay him alimony and the law says that she SHOULD pay him alimony (subject to the judges discretion as provided by law of course.
    Every marriage in the US isn't subject to that factor. Despite your beliefs on the matter not very many people actually end up paying alimony to the other spouse.
  6. #21
    Bali Hai is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
    Every marriage in the US isn't subject to that factor. Despite your beliefs on the matter not very many people actually end up paying alimony to the other spouse.
    EVERY marriage in a US state is subject to that factor to a degree depending on the state AND the judge who works for them.

    I see alimony replacing welfare. My assertion is just as valid as your's.

    Politicians KNOW that the backs of men are stronger than the backs of women. The problem is that men are WISING up!

    Women have more legal rights to get jobs than men. Well then GO FOR IT!! Don't pick and choose the jobs you want, DO THEM ALL!! Meanwhile us men will be getting fanned with palm leaves on a remote desert island by some women who respect us!!
  7. #22
    CreativeBlock is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    It is intended to provide a transition period where both parties are as close to their previous standard of living as possible.
    Please pardon me (honestly) if I misunderstand the gist of this thread. But isn't it more important to make sure that the children are as close to their previous standard of living?

    And if Mum has to pay alimony to Dad, won't that endanger the children's SoL since they reside with Mum? After all, Mum's providing for four people (herself and three ~ IIRC ~ children), while Dad potentially is only providing for himself.

    Not trying to argue or be otherwise disrespectful, here. I just believe that the children's SoL might be the deciding factor. Or wouldn't it?

    (Genuinely trying to understand)
  8. #23
    CreativeBlock is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by Bali Hai View Post
    Politicians KNOW that the backs of men are stronger than the backs of women. The problem is that men are WISING up!

    Women have more legal rights to get jobs than men. Well then GO FOR IT!! Don't pick and choose the jobs you want, DO THEM ALL!! Meanwhile us men will be getting fanned with palm leaves on a remote desert island by some women who respect us!!
    It's likely already been mentioned prior by others, but I sincerely recommend some sort of anger management or therapy. Blaming all of women-kind for your treatment in court at the hands of a woman is not normal nor beneficial to your future.

    Unless you're either sincerely in search of a slavish woman or a life of solitude.
  9. #24
    Bali Hai is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by CreativeBlock View Post
    Please pardon me (honestly) if I misunderstand the gist of this thread. But isn't it more important to make sure that the children are as close to their previous standard of living?

    And if Mum has to pay alimony to Dad, won't that endanger the children's SoL since they reside with Mum? After all, Mum's providing for four people (herself and three ~ IIRC ~ children), while Dad potentially is only providing for himself.

    Not trying to argue or be otherwise disrespectful, here. I just believe that the children's SoL might be the deciding factor. Or wouldn't it?

    (Genuinely trying to understand)
    Wrong, both parents are responsible to support the children. Alimony is different.
  10. #25
    Cat77 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    Well, we all have our own problems, and in reading yours, I have to say that where I come from (MA) the attorneys/Judge looks at what your POTENTIAL
    INCOME could be. If he COULD make $300 a week but isn't, then he'd
    better start trying to because it's factored in the equation (she's making
    this much, he COULD make this much, if it's less, then she makes up
    the difference). Good luck anyway. Take full support of the kids
    and tell him to take a hike. ooops!
  11. #26
    Silverplum is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Yuma, CO
    Posts
    25,785
    The poster is in CALIFORNIA.

    CALIFORNIA has different laws than MASSACHUSETTS.

    Therefore, we don't discuss other state's laws in threads that belong to other people: it's not useful to the poster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat77 View Post
    Well, we all have our own problems, and in reading yours, I have to say that where I come from (MA) the attorneys/Judge looks at what your POTENTIAL
    INCOME could be. If he COULD make $300 a week but isn't, then he'd
    better start trying to because it's factored in the equation (she's making
    this much, he COULD make this much, if it's less, then she makes up
    the difference). Good luck anyway. Take full support of the kids
    and
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat77
    tell him to take a hike. ooops!
    Indeed. That's a great idea.
  12. #27
    Bali Hai is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat77 View Post
    Well, we all have our own problems, and in reading yours, I have to say that where I come from (MA) the attorneys/Judge looks at what your POTENTIAL
    INCOME could be. If he COULD make $300 a week but isn't, then he'd
    better start trying to because it's factored in the equation (she's making
    this much, he COULD make this much, if it's less, then she makes up
    the difference). Good luck anyway. Take full support of the kids
    and tell him to take a hike. ooops!
    The husband has been out of the work force for 12 years. This will greatly hamper his earning potential for a number of years into the future. Depending on the age of the husband, permanent alimony may be warrented.

    Your state also obligates future spouse's to pay additional alimony if the payor re-marries. Your state also used to burn witches at the stake. Your state is not a very good example to use in this thread.
  13. #28
    mistoffolees is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    21,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat77 View Post
    Well, we all have our own problems, and in reading yours, I have to say that where I come from (MA) the attorneys/Judge looks at what your POTENTIAL
    INCOME could be. If he COULD make $300 a week but isn't, then he'd
    better start trying to because it's factored in the equation (she's making
    this much, he COULD make this much, if it's less, then she makes up
    the difference). Good luck anyway. Take full support of the kids
    and tell him to take a hike. ooops!
    Who say she could make that much? The soon to be ex? You? Me?

    The fact is that he is making a certain amount and has not made more for over 10 years. It would not be easy to prove that he could be making more - which is why courts generally don't like to impute income. When they do, it's almost always one of the following:
    1. Impute minimum wage for someone who isn't working or working less than 40 hours.
    2. Impute previous income for someone who had a good job and quit just before or during the divorce process

    Only in very rare cases would they impute an income higher than what he is currently making - and none of them seem to apply here.
  14. #29
    OHRoadwarrior is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    10,568
    It was the money he is spending on dating sites. Confess.
  15. #30
    divona2000 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Bali Hai View Post
    The husband has been out of the work force for 12 years...
    How did you conclude that...?

Similar Threads

  1. hello i am from india and want to know about oral arguments
    By Zigner in forum Legal Ethics & Lawyer Malpractice
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 10:06 AM
  2. In court arguments for no support
    By tiggerrick in forum Alimony & Spousal Support
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 02:49 PM
  3. Legal advice for arguments
    By orangenerd in forum Landlord / Tenant Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-10-2009, 04:49 PM
  4. Who wins testimony or Arguments?
    By critterperson in forum Child Support
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-13-2006, 04:58 AM
  5. pretrial arguments
    By davjoh in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-20-2002, 01:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.