posted
Man and woman married 18 years-divorce. Man agrees to pay exwife $1250 month in alimony until she either remarries or either of them dies. Exwife has sex change operation. Ex-husband is now suing to annul the alimony agreement. His reasoning...same sex marriages are not legal in FL (not recognized)-so why should he be paying alimony to a man?? He also states that since this man no longer goes by the name of his exwife and no longer has the same "physical" attributes of the woman he married-he/she has started a "new life/new identity" that his exwife is (as far as he is concerned) legally dead.
I have mixed feelings on this case. As another option could the husband get an annulment AFTER a divorce claiming fraud in who he married? Either way sets weird precedents.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can honestly say that this is one of those rare times when I cannot articulate any opinion at all, because I am not particularly sure what my position on this would be. I feel sorry for the judge.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think it would depend on what the grounds were for the alimony. If it was based on a general idea that women earn less and are therefore entitled to alimony, well, he's not a woman any more, so he shouldn't be entitled to alimony. If it's a matter that the ex-wife's earning power was less due to training, I'd say that a sex-change hasn't changed that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I'm wondering what place alimony itself has in the 21st century. *shrug*
Let's see. Frequent disparity between husband's income and wife's income, often due to one spouse's having worked less (part-time instead of full-time, taken years off, or chose a less-demanding field) to be able to support the spouse and/or children?
Note: It's not always the wife who does this, and it's not always the wife who gets alimony.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If children were involved, it seems like it would have been mentioned. I think $15,000 a year indefinately is WAY too much money for somebody to be paying. With no children, I could see $15,000 a year for maybe four or five years. That would give the person an opportunity to get a degree or work experience. But as is, even without the sex-change aspect, this strikes me as absurd.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: If children were involved, it seems like it would have been mentioned. I think $15,000 a year indefinately is WAY too much money for somebody to be paying. With no children, I could see $15,000 a year for maybe four or five years. That would give the person an opportunity to get a degree or work experience. But as is, even without the sex-change aspect, this strikes me as absurd.
What we don't know is his income level. $15,000 definitely is felt by singles making less then $150,000 a year. Anything less then 10% of your income though is not that big of a deal, especially since it deductible from the husband's taxes.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest issue I have is with the indefinate nature of alimony. Regardless of how much the husband makes, it seems silly that he'll have to keep paying until she remarries or dies. At some point, she should be expected to provide for herself.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anything less then 10% of your income though is not that big of a deal, especially since it deductible from the husband's taxes.
Quick caution: there are payments that qualify as "spousal support" or "alimony" under various state laws that are not deductible. A family law practitioner will be very familiar with the extra requirements and not have much problem navigating the issue, though, so the statement is very likely to be true for competently represented individuals.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The biggest issue I have is with the indefinate nature of alimony. Regardless of how much the husband makes, it seems silly that he'll have to keep paying until she remarries or dies. At some point, she should be expected to provide for herself.
What if she (or he) supported his (or her) spouse through medical or law school? Gave up their own career to do so. Say he or she is 50. What are they going to do at that point to support themselves?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What everybody else does- work. If they had assets/ retirement savings etc., I would expect those would be split. But even at 50, that's another 20 to 50 years of having to support somebody. And 50 is not too old to go back to school if that's what you want to do. I know a guy who entered law school at the age of 49, and he wasn't even the oldest person in his class. I've had a handful of people over 50 in my own classes (bachelor's degree). These things vary by case, as they should, but I think at some point a person whould be expected to take care of themselves.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if she (or he) supported his (or her) spouse through medical or law school? Gave up their own career to do so. Say he or she is 50. What are they going to do at that point to support themselves?
I agree this should translate to longer duration of payments, but not necessary indefinite.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of firms out there ready and waiting to hire a 60 year old fresh out of law school? And where is he or she going to get the money to go to law school? If they would even qualify to go to law school. A 20 or 30 or 40 year break in your own career in order to make a family, give support to a spouse, raise children etc. is not something you can just pick back up.
edit to add: The spouse who is being asked to pay alimony is the one who enjoyed years of being supported in intangible ways while that career whas building. His or her success was a partially a product of that support.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it should be automatic just because people were married. The situation is different for every couple. If neither spouse made the kinds of sacrifices I mentioned, then I don't think alimony is appropriate after dividing assets.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my neighbors paid alimony to his ex-wife. He told me that a portion of it was delegated to be specifically for training so that she could get a job. When the training was complete and she got a job, his alimony was supposed to be reduced.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of my neighbors paid alimony to his ex-wife. He told me that a portion of it was delegated to be specifically for training so that she could get a job. When the training was complete and she got a job, his alimony was supposed to be reduced.
I could get behind this position, as long as we understand that somethings aren't going to come back. No amount of training can take away twenty years, especially when there is a retirement savings involved or a vested pension, and kmboots' point about the job prospects and potential growth of a 60 year-old fresh out of law school, or even a 55 year-old entreprenuer without credit or contacts really isn't something we should take lightly. Marriage is forever, and it should be engaged in a total commitment. Alimony payments should reflect this profound and lifelong commitment. I don't know if I like the idea of creating a culture where spouses hedge their bets against a divorce because they don't want to be stranded in later life.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
