Mass. considers ending ‘lifetime alimony’

Mass. considers ending ‘lifetime alimony’

BOSTON - Steve Niro got married three decades ago, but divorced less than five years later. He’s been paying alimony ever since - and there’s no end in sight.

After Niro’s youngest child graduated from college a few years ago, his child support ended and his remaining alimony payment was $65 a week. But his wife took him to court for a modification, and a judge agreed to increase the alimony to $700 a week, or $36,000 a year.

Niro’s story is one of many expected to be heard by Massachusetts lawmakers this week as the legislature considers a bill to reform what critics call an antiquated law that allow judges to grant so-called "lifetime alimony."

"I could be paying alimony for the rest of my life for a 4½-year marriage when I was a kid," said Niro, now 53. "It’s just unfair."

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1338202&srvc=home&position=emailed

More nail coffins, really, in the whole institution of "marriage..."

is nothing but court mandated extortion!
It should be abolished nationwide!

Alimony is passé.

His ex-wife had plenty of time to learn a skill and get a job.

Just pay for the property early and be done with it. Or better, just give up something.

I don't feel sorry for any spouse who has to keep paying for a stay-at-home parent (male or female) even after the children are up and grown. Parenting is valuable but doesn't add (in fact takes away) from the resume when trying to get a decent job outside the home.

P.S. What a shock - its just the men who are all pissed off about alimony.

who has been married only once for nearly 25 years. I have considered divorce once my youngest (7th grade) finishes High School. I would expect to split all of our assets right down the middle, but after that I feel the wife has some obligation to take care of herself. Once children are in school considerable free time is available for working and developing additional skills. I can't see how the described situation is fair.

What do divorce courts due with someone who is underemployed by choice? One potential plan for me would be to quit my job, move to Florida, and take care of my mother after my youngest goes off to college (I will have the college tuition saved by that point).

In my case my wife refuses to work even though the children are in school most of the day.

from $65 to $700 a week. Clearly there is a lot more to the story. Perhaps the spouse put him through law school or business school. Perhaps she (or her parents) gave him the money to start a successful business. Or both. Perhaps for years he lied about his income (a very common problem) and was under-assessed for decades. Alimony is rarely just about spousal support. It is used to try and correct/equalize all sorts of issues.

I don't have a comment about your wife - that is what the court is for once all the facts are in.

That leap from $65 to $700 suggests there is more to the story.

IIRC, there was a highly publicized case similar to this one a few years ago where the wife WAIVED alimony in court because they were pretty well off to begin with, and she was going to re-marry someone even wealthier...

Fast-forward 20 years -- both are retired in their 60s, and ex-wife is widowed from second husband and her cash has dried up. She actually takes the first husband (re-married and living on his pension) BACK TO COURT for back alimony and she actually gets it...

I'll try to find it to get the exact details...We had a long thread on it here...

I can only send you the very best wishes.

I don't know of one who has, that's why it's only men who seem pissed off about it.

and she also pays court ordered child care to him. He co-parents and since he's unemployed most of the time, the court decided that the kids could not be cared for by him in a manner to which they were accustomed, unless she paid him EXTRA for their care.

She step-parented his child from an earlier marriage (his first wife died in a car accident) so even though they have three together, she pays alimony/child care for four.. they were married for 6 years, and have been divorced for 10.

He occasionally takes part time work, but since the divorce, he's rarely been employed.

I've never met one. Hence the reason that "its (sic) just the men who are all pissed off about alimony."

I agree that people who stay at home to raise to be parents should get alimony if they divorce, but it should be limited to about 6 years. That's enough time to get a 4 year college degree and 2 years of work experience.

Probably zero.

Alimony and support are not the same thing. However, men who pay child or spousal support usually refer to it as "alimony". Its a form of bragging like - I have stuff and someone wants it. Or, look at me - I'm a big man.

Why is it that male bashing is always okay on DU? Bad, bad post.

Since you wouldn't answer the question and rushed to change the subject.

Clearly child support and alimony are two different things. Men don't generally complain about paying child support, except in cases where the ex-wife couldn't keep her legs closed and had another man's baby but did not tell her husband and he ended up paying support for a child that wasn't his.

I have known several men who had to pay both alimony and child support. I have never met a woman who had to pay either.

What a ridiculous concept. I hope they do away with it.

Certainly a person (through mutual agreement) that stays home, raises children and supports the working partners life for an extended period of time (20, 30 40 years) has claims to that persons earnings .... but, 4 1/2 years is a joke (a sad, sad joke).

Alimony is a sexist concept anyway

Child Support? Different story

What if one partner puts the other through professional school with the understanding that "their turn will come" and instead Divorce comes ... or the person that raises the children so that the other partner has the freedom to travel for work/ work crazed hours etc.

Sexist .... I don't know ... the 30ish year old couples I am thinking have the guy as primary caregiver ... or the one to sacrifice .... I don't think the women (MDs and one DDS) should be able to walk away saying "this is all mine" anymore than I think a man should be able to.

Rather than paying x dollars in perpetuity

Alimony is not the result of a divorce settlement - Alimony instead is a bill you pay to your ex-spouse, sometimes for a short while, sometimes forever

is ridiculous in most (not all) situations .... if you were to put me through medical school and I were to divorce you ...say four years later ... there may be no real "payoff" in my professional life ... yet. You would deserve some of that "pay off" .... twenty years later after a 5 year or ten year marriage ... that's a different story.

The other scenario (granted, the only examples that come to mind are women as the non-working partner) ... lets say two twenty year olds got married 40 years ago, she stayed home and raised their children ... worked part time here and there .... but her primary role (by mutual agreement) was to care for the house and spouse ... then at 60 the guy reassesses his life and leaves her ... I do think he has some responsibility to her in perpetuity (I will clearly state this is not a common occurrence in todays world)

I just can't see a reason why forced payments of alimony is more equal than making a 60/40 (or 70/30 or 80/20) settlement

If there are assets reflective of the situation ... heck yes I agree.

The value of some degrees or businesses may not have been realized at the time of the divorce ... but have a high likelihood of reaching maturity at a later date.

A year out of medical school: I will not earn much money

5-10 years out: I will probably earn 150,000 (I've specialized ;-)

I think spousal support looks at that 150,000 x the five years you've supported me and gives me a percentage (say 30,000 a year for 5 years = 150,000) ... now if I really suck as a physician and earn only 50,000/ year ... I have a chance to have my spousal support modified (in this case down).

In general the MA law is absolutely ridiculous ... In many (if not most) cases spousal support may not be warranted ... but I don't think it should be "done away with" .... nor do I think it's sexist.

Just for me - the idea that you have to sign away part of your money to a perfectly capable professional seems unfair, no matter the sexes

... frequently (I don't know how "they" do it) everyone gets screwed in the process.

I guess thats what you can expect when participating in an adversarial system to solve "family" matters.

In the end you are probably correct ... we agree more than disagree ...both appearing to fully believe adults are responsible for themselves.

My friend's husband never worked. President of his class at an Ivy League MBA program, took ONE job, worked there a month or two, they didn't make him President immediately, so he quit, and never worked again. Didn't help with the child care, didn't do anything but lawn care (seriously).

When my friend went to divorce him, he insisted on 50% of their money, 50% of the house she bought, joint custody - so she just separated without a divorce. She asked him how he justified his behavior, and he said "it's not me - the state insists I take half."

the parent raising the child/children takes a big career hit which limits earning potential afterwards, with effects on salary and medical/retirement benefits

... Worcester County Probate Judge Ronald King noted that Carol Niro reared the children largely by herself and was unemployed for a year after she was laid off from her job as an administrative assistant. Further, King said that since Steve Niro has an executive salary and Carol Niro was making $30,000 a year as a preschool teacher, he should pay his former wife 30 percent of the difference between their annual incomes, or $36,000 a year indefinitely ... Carol Niro, who was also laid off from her preschool job, recently went to work in a veterinary office. Her lawyer, William Mayer, says she bore the brunt of the child-rearing, which gave her former husband “unrestricted opportunity to develop his career over the last 20 years’’ ...
Years and marriages later, they still pay
July 18, 2010|Bella English, Globe Staff
http://articles.boston.com/2010-07-18/lifestyle/29287117_1_alimony-marriages-child-support

So she was making $30K annually and he $150K annually. She might have taken a big hit for being the mommy

I don't understand how 5 years of marriage should ultimately end up with a life time of support.

:shrug:

serious

makes many folks wary of marriage and it shows repeatedly in personal observations. Why get married when someone can stick around for 4 years and get a payoff for the rest of their lives..........

Oh... I forgot... some 'traditions' have been dropped over time. :dunce:

I think that the concept of lifetime alimony, conceived way back when men were generally the sole bread winner, is outdated and being abused. I've known far too many cases where the woman has continued receive lifetime alimony, despite the fact that she has a well paying career. I also know of many cases where the woman will live with a new partner, on a long term basis, but never marry, just so she can continue to receive alimony checks.

I think that a limited form of alimony, done on case by case basis, is a good thing. But lifetime alimony is outdated and abused, and needs to go.

I could go for, say, a 15-year limit or when the youngest child turns 25, whichever comes later.

BTW, this has nothing to do with child support, that is a separate entity

the folks that think this is a great thing always want to tie child support into it when they are separate issues altogether.

4.5 years and 60 plus years of alimony ahead of someone.... Why get married at all.

Ok I wouldn't get married for that reason but I'm sure some women realize they have the upper hand with crap like this.

get a freaking job woman