How much alimony will I have to pay? Arizona

[Proserpina]

If OP assumes he'll be paying alimony it will not only hurt his own case, but every case that comes after his.

If OP doesn't have the guts to fight alimony, that's going to be his loss and weakens every case that comes after him.

You go to war to win, not lose!!

If you don't agree with 99% of the alimony awards given, you should stand and fight with others who believe the same. Instead you shrug it off and say "the law provides for alimony" so blindly accept that and be happy with it.

That makes me question whether you really mean 99% or you are just saying that to appease the people ordered to pay it. This is what the king of England did to the colonists until the kings army got it's butt kicked and the kings laws and army were sent back to England on the boat they came over on.

LOL not quite.

 

[LdiJ]

LOL not quite.

LOL...you really must not continue to "feed" the animals...LOL.

I actually am in favor of alimony in a long term marriage in many circumstances. The longer the marriage, the older the couple, the more I am in favor...particularly if the lower earning or no earning spouse is the one being kicked to the curb...or who just cannot take it any longer.

I have seen too many 50/60ish spouses kicked to the curb when there is little time to go to school or establish a viable career... and with enough time to actually pay back student loans.

Or worse, disabled spouses with no viable income opportunities.

I know one woman who divorced her spouse at 70. I thought that she was crazy until she explained it to me. She said that she had been miserable for 50 years of marriage, figured she had 10 years more to live at best, and wanted those last 10 years to be peaceful and contented ones. She also wanted a relationship with her children that her husband had "disowened" and a relationship with the resulting grandchildren. After hearing that, I figured that she earned her alimony.

Her husband also really was an Azz...he was a big fish in a small pond, and never could understand that the children he disowened actually went on to live happier lives outside of his control.

 

[Bali Hai]

LOL...you really must not continue to "feed" the animals...LOL.

I actually am in favor of alimony in a long term marriage in many circumstances. The longer the marriage, the older the couple, the more I am in favor...particularly if the lower earning or no earning spouse is the one being kicked to the curb...or who just cannot take it any longer.

I have seen too many 50/60ish spouses kicked to the curb when there is little time to go to school or establish a viable career... and with enough time to actually pay back student loans.

Or worse, disabled spouses with no viable income opportunities.

I know one woman who divorced her spouse at 70. I thought that she was crazy until she explained it to me. She said that she had been miserable for 50 years of marriage, figured she had 10 years more to live at best, and wanted those last 10 years to be peaceful and contented ones.

If she was miserable for 50 years, she should have done something about it 50 years ago!

She also wanted a relationship with her children that her husband had "disowened" and a relationship with the resulting grandchildren. After hearing that, I figured that she earned her alimony.

Show me a statute in any state where this drama is to be considered for an alimony award.

Her husband also really was an Azz...he was a big fish in a small pond, and never could understand that the children he disowened actually went on to live happier lives outside of his control.

You have provided NOTHING to justify why this OP's 37 year old wife making 30k per year should be awarded alimony other than she rode the gravey train for 15 years and purposely under-achieved with the intent of cashing in should there be a divorce.

Feel free to add more irrelevant drama.

 

[Golfball]

If OP assumes he'll be paying alimony it will not only hurt his own case, but every case that comes after his.

If OP doesn't have the guts to fight alimony, that's going to be his loss and weakens every case that comes after him.

You go to war to win, not lose!!

Thus, we can have differing versions of what is a win. A tactical victory can still be a strategic loss, and it matters not how many battles you win, if you end up losing the war. (Or the costs of the war bankrupt you, so that you are unable to enjoy the fruits of any victory, no matter how bitter.)

A tactical loss can entail a strategic victory if an overeager opponent capitalizes on their gains to the detriment of their overall strategy. If a loss leads to a win, was it really a loss?

To borrow from Sun Tzu, "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." and "Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field." (Art of War, Chapter 3, "Attack By Stratagem.") And one of the five essentials for victory: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."


I chose to offer to pay my X a trifling amount of alimony, 4% of what she actually asked for. Said 4% was also less than what I would expect in attorney fees defending against an alimony suit where I won. And who knows, I might have even lost the alimony suit. I chose not to fight (at best, winning a Pyrrhic victory, at worst, a far more expensive loss), and thus came out ahead.

My X chose to focus on something that was more important to her (and cost less to me than her alimony) rather than join battle over the matter or even accept the alimony.

With my forces (or in this context, resources), I disputed the mastery of the situation, and thus without spending my resources, my triumph was complete. This was the method of attacking by stratagem.

 

[Bali Hai]

Thus, we can have differing versions of what is a win. A tactical victory can still be a strategic loss, and it matters not how many battles you win, if you end up losing the war. (Or the costs of the war bankrupt you, so that you are unable to enjoy the fruits of any victory, no matter how bitter.)

A tactical loss can entail a strategic victory if an overeager opponent capitalizes on their gains to the detriment of their overall strategy. If a loss leads to a win, was it really a loss?

To borrow from Sun Tzu, "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." and "Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field." (Art of War, Chapter 3, "Attack By Stratagem.") And one of the five essentials for victory: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."


I chose to offer to pay my X a trifling amount of alimony, 4% of what she actually asked for. Said 4% was also less than what I would expect in attorney fees defending against an alimony suit where I won. And who knows, I might have even lost the alimony suit. I chose not to fight (at best, winning a Pyrrhic victory, at worst, a far more expensive loss), and thus came out ahead.

My X chose to focus on something that was more important to her (and cost less to me than her alimony) rather than join battle over the matter or even accept the alimony.

With my forces (or in this context, resources), I disputed the mastery of the situation, and thus without spending my resources, my triumph was complete. This was the method of attacking by stratagem.

Thank you for your input General Golfball!

 

[Proserpina]

A statement of fact is not the same as a personal belief.

It is what it is - a statement. Whether the author agrees or disagrees with the legal premise behind the statement is irrelevant and does not change the bottom line (in this case, the law does allow for alimony).

(Incidentally I did not say that OP should not fight - on the contrary, OP will be much more prepared to fight if he enters the battle assuming that his exwife WILL be asking for alimony; he won't be taken by surprise and will able to counter, dispute and challenge the matter much more efficiently)

 

[Golfball]

Assume (barring some statutory bar) that one's STBX will file for alimony, or excessive child support (in excess of guidelines), or ask for 100% of the property, etc.

Remember that one's X can have an attorney that tells them that they *can* get something, and one's STBX mistakes that for *will* so don't overestimate the rationality of one's STBX too much.

 

[Proserpina]

Assume (barring some statutory bar) that one's STBX will file for alimony, or excessive child support (in excess of guidelines), or ask for 100% of the property, etc.

Remember that one's X can have an attorney that tells them that they *can* get something, and one's STBX mistakes that for *will* so don't overestimate the rationality of one's STBX too much.

You mean there are rational STBXs?!

 

[Bali Hai]

A statement of fact is not the same as a personal belief.

It is what it is - a statement. Whether the author agrees or disagrees with the legal premise behind the statement is irrelevant and does not change the bottom line (in this case, the law does allow for alimony).

(Incidentally I did not say that OP should not fight - on the contrary, OP will be much more prepared to fight if he enters the battle assuming that his exwife WILL be asking for alimony; he won't be taken by surprise and will able to counter, dispute and challenge the matter much more efficiently)

Well that's much better than your previous post on this thread where you stated that OP can expect that he WILL be paying some alimony period!

 

[Proserpina]

Well that's much better than your previous post on this thread where you stated that OP can expect that he WILL be paying some alimony period!

Well gawsh, Bali, it sure does make my day to see your approval waiting right here for me first thing in the morning!

You missed what I was saying though.

 

[Bali Hai]

Well gawsh, Bali, it sure does make my day to see your approval waiting right here for me first thing in the morning!

You missed what I was saying though.

I know exactly what you are saying:

Fact 1) The duration of the marriage is 15 years.
Fact 2) The disparity in incomes is 45k.
Fact 3) The law allows for alimony in this case. (as the law allows for an alimony consideration in EVERY case by the way)
Fact 4) Your "observation" is that, right or wrong, alimony has been "traditionally" ordered on the above facts alone.

Your "assumption" based on the above facts alone prompted you to tell this OP that he should expect to pay some alimony, although you weren't sure of the amount and duration, and, you don't necessarily agree that alimony should be ordered. After all, alimony is pretty much AUTOMATIC in OP's case, right??

MY position is that each case should be tried on its own merits and we should not be telling anyone how a judge WILL rule, thus possibly influencing posters to just pay the alimony and be done with it.

Taking YOUR approach with this OP, every marriage of 15 years duration and disparate income of 45k WILL result in an alimony award because the law allows for alimony. That is NOT accurate information.

Let me know if I have left anything out.