spousal support after separation

[mimmelit]

What is the name of your state? NY

Is is NY law that the spouse that earn more money ALWAYS has to support the other one after separation even when there are no kids involved?
Maybe I should explain. I am a German native and getting married to an American. In the case of a divorce (hopefully this will never happen) I would most likely go back to Germany. By nature the wages are higher there so I will always have a higher income as my separated spouse. But I don't see the point in supporting my then ex husband if there are no children involved. So does it make sense to set up a premaritial agreement about that issue? Or is this already regulated in state law?

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by mimmelit

What is the name of your state? NY

Is is NY law that the spouse that earn more money ALWAYS has to support the other one after separation even when there are no kids involved?
Maybe I should explain. I am a German native and getting married to an American. In the case of a divorce (hopefully this will never happen) I would most likely go back to Germany. By nature the wages are higher there so I will always have a higher income as my separated spouse. But I don't see the point in supporting my then ex husband if there are no children involved. So does it make sense to set up a premaritial agreement about that issue? Or is this already regulated in state law?

Since you are female, there is almost no chance a judge would order you to pay alimony, however, if I were you I would get a prenup in place. Even then, there could be some risk.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by mimmelit

What is the name of your state? NY

Is is NY law that the spouse that earn more money ALWAYS has to support the other one after separation even when there are no kids involved?
Maybe I should explain. I am a German native and getting married to an American. In the case of a divorce (hopefully this will never happen) I would most likely go back to Germany. By nature the wages are higher there so I will always have a higher income as my separated spouse. But I don't see the point in supporting my then ex husband if there are no children involved. So does it make sense to set up a premaritial agreement about that issue? Or is this already regulated in state law?

No, its not the law that the spouse with more money ALWAYS has to support the other one after separation.

It depends on many factors, most particularly the length of the marriage, and the actual incomes of the parties, and the difference in the income.

For example, if they have been married 5 years, and one makes 50k per year, and the other 70k per year....its unlikely that there would be any spousal support. The marriage would be too short term, and the difference in incomes not significant enough.

However, if they are married for 20 years, and one makes 30k per year, and the other 100k, spousal support would be VERY likely. But if the income differential is 70k per year vs 100k per year, again, its far less likely.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

No, its not the law that the spouse with more money ALWAYS has to support the other one after separation.

It depends on many factors, most particularly the length of the marriage, and the actual incomes of the parties, and the difference in the income.

Why would the length of the marriage be a significant factor??

For example, if they have been married 5 years, and one makes 50k per year, and the other 70k per year....its unlikely that there would be any spousal support. The marriage would be too short term, and the difference in incomes not significant enough.

Is this a lawful guideline that judges have to follow??

However, if they are married for 20 years, and one makes 30k per year, and the other 100k, spousal support would be VERY likely.

Is this a law or is it up to someones discretion? Again why does a 20 year marriage carry more weight, and for who??

But if the income differential is 70k per year vs 100k per year, again, its far less likely.

You are throwing numbers around and speculating what the court might do. Do you know what exactly the court will do??

[CJane]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

You are throwing numbers around and speculating what the court might do. Do you know what exactly the court will do??

Bali, you always try to argue this 'length of marriage' idea, when in fact it's well documented that the length of the marriage IS A FACTOR in determining whether to award alimony, how much to award, how long to award it for, etc.

From [url]http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/nyart29[/url]

Statutory Maintenance Factors In Divorce Actions

The following outline sets forth the factors that a New York Supreme Court must consider in determining a request for spousal maintenance:

The income and property of the parties including marital property distributed as part of Equitable Distribution.

Courts are required to consider the property owned by both parties. They will consider all property that was defined when the couple Equitably Distributed their property. This includes property obtained by either spouse during or even prior to the marriage. If the person seeking spousal maintenance will receive a significant amount of property as a result of Equitable Distribution, or if that person has significant other resources, such as an inheritance, the award of spousal maintenance will be lower than if those if factors had not been present.

The duration of the marriage and the age and health of the parties.

A long-term marriage will often result in a greater spousal maintenance award than a short-term marriage. If a spouse has been a homemaker or earned considerably less than the payor spouse, those factors will be critical especially in a long-term marriage. A spouse who has cared for home and hearth in lieu of building a career will, over time, lose the ability to pursue a career fully. The spousal maintenance award will reflect that. If one spouse is in poor health or of an advanced age, the spousal maintenance award may be greater.

The present and future earning capacity of both parties.

In determining maintenance, the Court will focus on both the current status of the person seeking support and his or her future ability to be self-supporting. If the person has the ability to obtain employment or education and eventually become self-supporting, any maintenance award will be of shorter duration.

The ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting and, if applicable, the period of time and training necessary for the party to become self supporting.

An overriding purpose of the spousal maintenance provisions in the New York Domestic Relations Law is to provide the person receiving support with an opportunity to achieve financial independence. In considering maintenance the Court's focus will be upon the financial future of the recipient. If maintenance is awarded, it can be limited to the time period needed for the recipient spouse to pursue additional educational opportunities or to build a career. If the person seeking maintenance truly lacks the ability to become self-supporting, due to age or other factors, the Court will structure maintenance to address the person's financial limitations.

The reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance as a result of having forgone or delayed education, training, employment or career opportunities during the marriage.

This factor addresses the lifetime impact that the parties' family choices have upon the financial security of one of the parties if they Divorce. It is common for spouses to decide that one person will be the primary caretaker for the children and the home while the other person pursues a career and provides economically for the family. While this arrangement works well for intact families, the result of that decision can be devastating to one spouse if the parties Divorce. New York law acknowledges the lasting impact a spouse's decision to forego career, educational or employment opportunities can have. In many instances, it is impossible for that spouse to resume their career after five, ten, or twenty years of marriage. The amount of spousal maintenance awarded in such cases much include a consideration of the stay at home partner's loss of lifetime earnings.

The presence of children of the marriage in the respective homes of the parties.

If the person receiving support is the primary caretaker of unemancipated children, the Court must also consider the need, if any, of the parent to be with the children. If, due to young age or ill-health, the ability of the custodial parent to work outside of the home is limited, the Court must determine if Child Support alone is sufficient to enable that person to meet his or her reasonable expenses, as well as those of the children. If not, an additional award of maintenance is a proper remedy.

The tax consequences to each party.

Spousal maintenance is considered income. A person receiving spousal maintenance must claim the amount received as income on his or her Federal and State income tax returns. Conversely, the person paying support is entitled to an income tax deduction. In considering the amount of spousal maintenance to be awarded, the Court will consider the impact of taxes on any support paid or received.

The contributions and services of the party seeking maintenance as a spouse, parent, wage earner, homemaker and to the career or career potential of the other party.

Financial contributions are not the only contributions which couples make during the course of a marriage. This factor recognizes the non-financial contributions of spouses. Where one person has not worked, but has contributed as a spouse, parent or homemaker, or has assisted the other spouse in advancing his or her career, the Court must recognize these important contributions in structuring a fair and equitable maintenance award.

The wasteful dissipation of marital property by either spouse.

When one spouse frivolously spends or dissipates a marital account or other asset, he or she will be deemed to have wastefully dissipated the asset. This is especially crucial when Courts are dividing property under Equitable Distribution. If a marital asset is no longer in existence because one spouse wasted it, the Courts can require that spouse to pay the other spouse his or her equitable share in the asset. The Court can also Order the payment of spousal maintenance to help to alleviate the effect of wasteful dissipation. Such a remedy is effective in a case where the payor spouse has reduced the assets available for Equitable Distribution, but has sufficient income to provide for the recipient spouse at a level that accounts for the dissipation.

If, the person seeking maintenance, has wastefully dissipated assets, this waste could serve to reduce the amount of maintenance they would otherwise receive.

Any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration.

The total assets of the party will be considered including those that have been knowingly transferred after, or just prior to, a Divorce or Separation action being commenced. The Courts will consider such a transfer as a deliberate action to effect the outcome of Equitable Distribution. As with assets that have been wastefully dissipated, those that have been transferred in such a manner can still be considered part of the marital estate. Just because the asset is no longer in existence will not deprive the "innocent" spouse from receiving money or property as his or her share of the missing asset. Courts can consider those transfers part of the marital estate and include them in structuring awards of spousal maintenance.

Any other factor which the Court expressly finds just and proper.

Other factors that Courts have consider include marital fault, such as adultery, which contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. While Courts will consider marital fault, fault itself will not determine spousal maintenance.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by CJane

Bali, you always try to argue this 'length of marriage' idea, when in fact it's well documented that the length of the marriage IS A FACTOR in determining whether to award alimony, how much to award, how long to award it for, etc.

From [url]http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/nyart29[/url]

I am aware of the New York statutes.

I am also aware that they were written for women by a legislature that was lobbied by women who vote.

Is it time to apply the statutes equally or not? i.e. when a stay at home husband in a long term marriage comes to this site asking what "rights" he has as far spousal support, he is jumped on with both feet by you women. He is asked by you "objective" women "why didn't you have a job during this long term marriage"?

[CJane]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

I am aware of the New York statutes.

I am also aware that they were written for women by a legislature that was lobbied by women who vote.

Is it time to apply the statutes equally or not? i.e. when a stay at home husband in a long term marriage comes to this site asking what "rights" he has as far spousal support, he is jumped on with both feet by you women. He is asked by you "objective" women "why didn't you have a job during this long term marriage"?

I have never asked a man that question. Nor have I ever asked a woman that question. I HAVE asked why they couldn't go out and get a job NOW because that's relevant and a question the court would ask.

But, as someone who was a stay at home mom for 1/2 the marriage and has managed since the marriage to not only become employed in a field that was wholly unfamiliar to her until she talked her way into a job, but to be promoted through the ranks until she's making a fairly decent salary - and did it w/out a dime of support (child or spousal) from the ex, I have little empathy or sympathy for people who claim to be unable to work.

That said, I also have little sympathy or empathy for people on this board who want to figure out how to keep from helping a spouse who might truly need some assistance getting on their feet - particularly if that person could afford to pay the support, and particularly if the marriage was a long (more than 10 years) one.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by CJane

I have never asked a man that question. Nor have I ever asked a woman that question. I HAVE asked why they couldn't go out and get a job NOW because that's relevant and a question the court would ask.

IF the court asked that question, it's just a formality and doesn't amount to anything more than a popcorn fart.

But, as someone who was a stay at home mom for 1/2 the marriage and has managed since the marriage to not only become employed in a field that was wholly unfamiliar to her until she talked her way into a job, but to be promoted through the ranks until she's making a fairly decent salary - and did it w/out a dime of support (child or spousal) from the ex, I have little empathy or sympathy for people who claim to be unable to work.

You have my respect. (so far)

That said, I also have little sympathy or empathy for people on this board who want to figure out how to keep from helping a spouse who might truly need some assistance getting on their feet

Truly in need of assistance is subjective to one person deciding the issue and more times than not, POLITICAL.

- particularly if that person could afford to pay the support, and particularly if the marriage was a long (more than 10 years) one.

Why ten years?? Why not nine years?? Why not seven years?? Why not twenty years??

What a person can afford to pay a deadbeat in terms of support decided by another person is also SUBJECTIVE by the other person.

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

I am aware of the New York statutes.

I am also aware that they were written for women by a legislature that was lobbied by women who vote.
Is it time to apply the statutes equally or not? i.e. when a stay at home husband in a long term marriage comes to this site asking what "rights" he has as far spousal support, he is jumped on with both feet by you women. He is asked by you "objective" women "why didn't you have a job during this long term marriage"?

What, Men can't vote now???

Boy I have been gone for a long time.

Did ya miss me? LOL

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by fairisfair

What, Men can't vote now???

Men can and do vote, but they are busy working to support women who are in Albany lobbying the legislature to keep the men working for them while the same women sit on their asses racking up alimony points in case of divorce.

Boy I have been gone for a long time.

Did ya miss me? LOL

Yeah I missed you, where have you been?

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

Yeah I missed you, where have you been?

out looking for rich men to marry!!! LOL

Hey I found this for you, I knew you would like it

[url]http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/ThePriceOfAMom.aspx?GT1=10019[/url]

You notice, they don't mention a stay at home dad being worth anything at all. Now that just "ain't" right.

[Silverplum]

Originally Posted by CJane

But, as someone who was a stay at home mom for 1/2 the marriage and has managed since the marriage to not only become employed in a field that was wholly unfamiliar to her until she talked her way into a job, but to be promoted through the ranks until she's making a fairly decent salary - and did it w/out a dime of support (child or spousal) from the ex, I have little empathy or sympathy for people who claim to be unable to work.

That said, I also have little sympathy or empathy for people on this board who want to figure out how to keep from helping a spouse who might truly need some assistance getting on their feet - particularly if that person could afford to pay the support, and particularly if the marriage was a long (more than 10 years) one.

Sing it, my SISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!

ahem...
Yes, I agree with CJane.

[Silverplum]

Originally Posted by fairisfair

out looking for rich men to marry!!! LOL:

Hold my hand, Bali...I'm scared!

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by Silverplum

Hold my hand, Bali...I'm scared!

you are a girl. you don't have to be afraid. Now, Bali on the other hand. . . . . . . . .

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by fairisfair

out looking for rich men to marry!!! LOL

Hey I found this for you, I knew you would like it

[url]http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/ThePriceOfAMom.aspx?GT1=10019[/url]

You notice, they don't mention a stay at home dad being worth anything at all. Now that just "ain't" right.

Of course they don't mention stay at home dads because they are a bunch of one way a-holes.

They are embellishing the mother because she will be the one to petition the court and be awarded alimony.

Courts now may order either the husband or wife to pay alimony, though in practice it is far more often the husband who pays and this biased article attempts to justify why.