• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Arguments against spousal support

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bali Hai

Senior Member
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.
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
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.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
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.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
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.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
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.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
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!!
 
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)
 
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. :(
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
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.
 

Cat77

Junior Member
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!
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
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.

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
Cat77 said:
tell him to take a hike. ooops!
Indeed. That's a great idea. ;)
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
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.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top