Fair? Man must pay alimony dispite ex-wife's lesbian partnership
SuzannePjam
Posts: 411
I guess this guy gets screwed by the religious right's insistance that there must be no gay marriage. While I sympathize with the man, I agree with the judge. She isn't offically married. What do you all think?
Man must pay alimony despite new partnership
Judge: Ex-wife’s lesbian relationship not marriage, payments to continue
Updated: 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she’s in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman’s last name.
California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state’s domestic partnership law.
An Orange County judge didn’t see it that way.
The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.
'Irrationality of unequal scheme'
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state’s domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn’t provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows “the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme” for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Unfair law?
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn’t know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
“This is not about gay or lesbian,” Garber said. “This is about the law being fair.”
Kirkwood’s attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood’s relationship.
Garber’s attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
“If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void,” Hulsy said.
Man must pay alimony despite new partnership
Judge: Ex-wife’s lesbian relationship not marriage, payments to continue
Updated: 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
LOS ANGELES - A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she’s in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman’s last name.
California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state’s domestic partnership law.
An Orange County judge didn’t see it that way.
The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.
'Irrationality of unequal scheme'
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state’s domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn’t provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows “the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme” for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Unfair law?
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn’t know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
“This is not about gay or lesbian,” Garber said. “This is about the law being fair.”
Kirkwood’s attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood’s relationship.
Garber’s attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
“If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void,” Hulsy said.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-Enoch Powell
And I can't ever imagine a time when I would ask for it or expect to get it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I've never really understood the how or why it's awarded marky. I'm not sure that we have it here.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/Alimony.html
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Say you're a stay at home mom/dad for 20 years. Your occupation has been to take care of the kids, raise them, guide them, teach them. Your spouse takes care of the bills while you take care of things at home.
Then your spouse hooks up with a hot 23 year old and dumps your ass and files for divorce. You have no skills, no education, no work history. Hell, there was no internet the last time you worked and even orders at Wendy's have computer screens (when you worked there, they took orders by pen).
You have no trade skills to offer employers, and suddenly you're on your own while your spouse is doing someone younger, while still making tons of green. And let's assume for argument's sake the your ex is taking care of the kids, you still have to take care of yourself, pay rent, eat, etc.
That's why there is alimony.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it fanch. I can understand why it exists. I'm just saying that I can't imagine I would ever ask for it or expect to get it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
They punched the orders into the register, just like today, more or less, in 1980 or so. No pens.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
East Rutherford '98
Merriweather '98
Gorge '05
Vancouver '05
Los Angeles I,II '06
Santa Barbara '06
Fonda Theater '06
...
Continue with the Wage Garnishing.
Hail, Hail!!!
That's getting closer to reality here in Norway now. The gender-nautral marriage law seems like it will pass.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
See? And this is where I would take issue with it mamma.
If I had contributed to a marriage as the sole care giver, child rearer and household manager to the detriment of me also having out of the home employment during the course of a marriage, then possibly I could see the point to alimony. But really, once a divorce is in the process of being settled to my mind the only thing that needs to be looked at is the distribution of assets and the financial support of any children which should be divided equally between the partners. And supposing I did apply for alimony, I really can't see it being a responsibility once I begin another relationship, married or otherwise.
But then I can't see me ever being married and relying solely on a partner for my livelihood anyway.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
In the situation you just described I would agree with alimony. In many situations what you have is two people who both have full-time jobs/careers and just because one makes more does not entitle the other to alimony.
In my case I made more than my ex by a decent amount. She was making a good salary just mine happened to better. She used this as a basis for claiming she needed alimony. With her salary and the amount of child support I pay she can live comfortably but definitely not have the life style she had before. Had it not been for a NJ statute that states that a couple must be married for 10 years to collect lifetime alimony I would be paying her every month. For what so she can go shopping like she used to. Take her new boyfriend out on the weekends because he doesn't have a pot to piss in. It is in these cases where I see alimony as a fucking scam. I was saved because of a technicality. Others are not so lucky.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes. I agree that in your case it's not reasonable.
I'm still a little mystified by it though, because as far as I'm aware, we really don't have it here. I mean child support yes, but spousal support, I'm really struggling to find anything on it.
Frankly if I walk out of a relationship with what I walked in with and manage to equally and fairly devide what was accrued during the course of the relationship then I'm a happy camper. I wouldn't want to be continually attached to an ex for any reason. And I certainly wouldn't want to rely on them for money. Of course this could possibly explain why I've never married or had children.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yeah, good questions baraka.
It seems to get really convoluted doesn't it?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
It is a huge mess. If the spouse paying alimony losses his/her job I believe you can file with the courts to have a hold period on your payments until you are finacialy able to resume. It also depends on the reason you lost your job. If your ex for some reason starts making more than you do, and you become aware of it, you again have to file with the courts to cease paying alimony.
Hi Jeanie!
Yeah, the whole alimony thing has always confused me. I can see where it applicable in a few cases, but not across the board.
Also, let's say one decided to have an affair and end the marriage due to 'finding someone else'. If the one ending the marriage makes less, are they entitled to alimony?
Also, what about health insurance? How does that work if you are on your spouses plan?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
For the second question, most alimony settlements are contingent upon getting remarried, so I don't think alimony would stop.
On the third question, if it's the one paying alimony, they have to continue paying if they get remarried. If it's the one receiving alimony, the payments stop if they get remarried.
So had she filed 4 months later she would be living the high life and I would be living in a van down by the river.
I think, and I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that the health insurance would be considered an asset? So therefore it would be necissary for it to be divided. Somehow. I think we have similar things here with Superannuation, where that is considered an asset and therefore part of the division of assets at the termination of a marriage.
I'm really not sure about the other. To my mind if you were the reason for the disolution of the marriage then I can't see why you would be entitled but who knows?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well I can answer the health insurance question because I was on my ex's plan. The answer is you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK. I was dropped from her plan and now have to pay for my own benefits, since I am a freelancer I do not qualify for employer's plan.
I would think the situation would be different if you where a stay at home mom or dad and where on your spouses plan. In that situation I would think a case can be made for the working spouse to provide some type of finacial support to help cover the ex. It would probably be built into the alimony payment.
Mammasan, are you saying that had your ex waited 4 more months, she would have been able to 'milk' you even though she was the one that filed for divorce? In other words, the one filing for divorce can receive alimony?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
that depends on what state you live in. New Jersey is a no fault state, which means that having an affair is completely irrevelent in court and will have no bearing on the Judge's decision.