What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ
I didn't want to hijack the thread but to respond to Ld's comment - it is a pure redistribution of wealth. If there is a difference in income, alimony is ordered. The statutory guidelines you see all over the place? No attention paid to them whatsoever. You make X, they make Y so divide the difference by 30-35% (North Jersey) or 25% (South Jersey). Many women in our organization are paying alimony to recipients earning at or close to 6 figures. Amongst the male payers, recipients are often earning in the mid-$150k range and are better educated with more advancement opportunities. One of our members whose spouse had the same career and education, was only earning $5k more annually than their sbtx - the judge imputed them an additional $20K in income, without explanation, and alimony was calculated at the higher income. To date, they have been unable to get a reduction or have it overturned. NJ has moved away from "need" and remains firmly stuck on marital lifestyle. That the marital lifestyle cannot be replicated in 2 separate locations seems to be beyond the understanding of many of the legislators. It seems only the payors have to adjust their lifestyle.
I know many think that Bali is crazed. There are many, many more like Bali. Quite often for very good reason. The process is so subjective, so easy to manipulate that it's disgusting. Judges are not tax experts, financial analysts or employment experts. So rather than expertise, their rulings include their personal opinions on these very topics. The disrespect and callous attitudes alimony payors deal with in court is hard to absorb. When it's directed at you, it's hard to remain calm while continuing to present your case. Some are delighted when ordering permanent alimony.
Some examples: One of our members was told that she wouldn't get any breaks in court, any reward she was due would come when she went to heaven. Another was consistently addressed as "Little Lady" throughout the entire proceeding. Another, custodial mom of 2 young children who lost her job, took a lower paying job 7 months later (as it was the best offer she had received), had to move her girls 4 times in 2 years (2 school districts to boot - her 1st grader really struggled) to cheaper and cheaper locations and finally applied for a downward modification. Judge's advice from the bench? Try harder, work more hours, get a baby sitter so you can get a second job. Not even a temporary reduction despite the impact to the children in her care. Another was told - you women wanted equality, you got it. So here is what you wished for and advised her of the amount of her permanent monthly alimony. For a long time, I kept expecting common sense and documentation to win the day. After 6 years I've finally accepted that when it comes to the subject of alimony, common sense is left at the doors of the NJ courthouse. This is the problem with states (like NJ) that do not have monetary or term guidelines and only have case law upon which to decide cases.
My personal experience/belief is that whoever is the higher wage earner at the time of the divorce is always at a disadvantage when in court at that time and thereafter. Any motion to modify is looked at with skepticism with the underlying prejudice that you must be trying to just "get out of" your court ordered obligation. Recipients, on the other hand, are not required to document a solitary thing and are not responsible for anything, certainly not themselves. They are forevermore viewed as a sympathetic victim in court. I've yet to figure out what makes a person with their hand out for private welfare more trustworthy than the party struggling to pay it.
The whole he/she disparity that Bali resents is slowly going by the wayside. In NJ, 42% of dual income households with children under 18 yo have a female breadwinner. So the times are a-changing in NJ courts. Judges are just as unreasonable with us gals as they have been with the gents...even if the woman alimony payer is also a primary residential parent (although many of our women payers do not have any children). If there's any good news to note it's that it's become obvious the legislators are more willing to listen to women as compared to men about alimony concerns. As more women are paying alimony and becoming active in the reform movement, I have to believe that the laws will change. Perhaps they will become more balanced. After 3 years, the reform group of which I'm a member are very close to reaching one of our objectives - the right to retire at federal retirement age. The same right every other married or single citizen takes for granted. Although we're still fighting the Bar whose preference is for retirement to be treated as "Divorce, Round 2" to get their final bills in (no offense to OG). As an example, we just quashed their most recent "exception to the right to retire." They wanted an exception to granting retirement in cases when the recipient had assumed financial responsibility for their aged parents. That we even had to fend off this type of nonsense and spend 2 hours with legislators explaining that the payor is not granted that same luxury and should not be held financially responsible for decisions made by an ex-spouse shows the kind of mentality we are up against reforming alimony in NJ.
Would be lovely to treat it no differently than child support - with an online calculator and an end date. Allow equitable distribution to be adjusted to balance any inequities. For now? It is, what it is {{shrug}}
Rant over..
I didn't want to hijack the thread but to respond to Ld's comment - it is a pure redistribution of wealth. If there is a difference in income, alimony is ordered. The statutory guidelines you see all over the place? No attention paid to them whatsoever. You make X, they make Y so divide the difference by 30-35% (North Jersey) or 25% (South Jersey). Many women in our organization are paying alimony to recipients earning at or close to 6 figures. Amongst the male payers, recipients are often earning in the mid-$150k range and are better educated with more advancement opportunities. One of our members whose spouse had the same career and education, was only earning $5k more annually than their sbtx - the judge imputed them an additional $20K in income, without explanation, and alimony was calculated at the higher income. To date, they have been unable to get a reduction or have it overturned. NJ has moved away from "need" and remains firmly stuck on marital lifestyle. That the marital lifestyle cannot be replicated in 2 separate locations seems to be beyond the understanding of many of the legislators. It seems only the payors have to adjust their lifestyle.
I know many think that Bali is crazed. There are many, many more like Bali. Quite often for very good reason. The process is so subjective, so easy to manipulate that it's disgusting. Judges are not tax experts, financial analysts or employment experts. So rather than expertise, their rulings include their personal opinions on these very topics. The disrespect and callous attitudes alimony payors deal with in court is hard to absorb. When it's directed at you, it's hard to remain calm while continuing to present your case. Some are delighted when ordering permanent alimony.
Some examples: One of our members was told that she wouldn't get any breaks in court, any reward she was due would come when she went to heaven. Another was consistently addressed as "Little Lady" throughout the entire proceeding. Another, custodial mom of 2 young children who lost her job, took a lower paying job 7 months later (as it was the best offer she had received), had to move her girls 4 times in 2 years (2 school districts to boot - her 1st grader really struggled) to cheaper and cheaper locations and finally applied for a downward modification. Judge's advice from the bench? Try harder, work more hours, get a baby sitter so you can get a second job. Not even a temporary reduction despite the impact to the children in her care. Another was told - you women wanted equality, you got it. So here is what you wished for and advised her of the amount of her permanent monthly alimony. For a long time, I kept expecting common sense and documentation to win the day. After 6 years I've finally accepted that when it comes to the subject of alimony, common sense is left at the doors of the NJ courthouse. This is the problem with states (like NJ) that do not have monetary or term guidelines and only have case law upon which to decide cases.
My personal experience/belief is that whoever is the higher wage earner at the time of the divorce is always at a disadvantage when in court at that time and thereafter. Any motion to modify is looked at with skepticism with the underlying prejudice that you must be trying to just "get out of" your court ordered obligation. Recipients, on the other hand, are not required to document a solitary thing and are not responsible for anything, certainly not themselves. They are forevermore viewed as a sympathetic victim in court. I've yet to figure out what makes a person with their hand out for private welfare more trustworthy than the party struggling to pay it.
The whole he/she disparity that Bali resents is slowly going by the wayside. In NJ, 42% of dual income households with children under 18 yo have a female breadwinner. So the times are a-changing in NJ courts. Judges are just as unreasonable with us gals as they have been with the gents...even if the woman alimony payer is also a primary residential parent (although many of our women payers do not have any children). If there's any good news to note it's that it's become obvious the legislators are more willing to listen to women as compared to men about alimony concerns. As more women are paying alimony and becoming active in the reform movement, I have to believe that the laws will change. Perhaps they will become more balanced. After 3 years, the reform group of which I'm a member are very close to reaching one of our objectives - the right to retire at federal retirement age. The same right every other married or single citizen takes for granted. Although we're still fighting the Bar whose preference is for retirement to be treated as "Divorce, Round 2" to get their final bills in (no offense to OG). As an example, we just quashed their most recent "exception to the right to retire." They wanted an exception to granting retirement in cases when the recipient had assumed financial responsibility for their aged parents. That we even had to fend off this type of nonsense and spend 2 hours with legislators explaining that the payor is not granted that same luxury and should not be held financially responsible for decisions made by an ex-spouse shows the kind of mentality we are up against reforming alimony in NJ.
Would be lovely to treat it no differently than child support - with an online calculator and an end date. Allow equitable distribution to be adjusted to balance any inequities. For now? It is, what it is {{shrug}}
Rant over..
