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?
Yep. Thankfully my ex was not aware of the statute. Once she found out she looked like she was going to vomit. She knew at that instant that had she waited just 4 more months before filing I would have been ass raped in court.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
just to show you how fucked up the system is here. My child support in 25% of my net salary. I have no problem paying that money. The amount of alimony my ex would have received had she only waited 4 more months to file would have been 27% of my net salary. She would have been receiving more money than my kids. Now that 25% for child support does not include any extra-curricular activities, such as sports, any type of lessons such as dance, tutoring, music. All of those have to be equally split and my half of the cost is added on top of the child support. The same goes for any medical bills.
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.
Now that I do not get at all. Alimony confuses me. It really doesn't seem fair in a lot of cases.
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.
oh ok, that stinks for NJ...and I just looked up the law here, if you have an affair before reaching a divorce settlement, you are not entitled to alimony....that's not even a judge's decision
Alimony is probably one of the biggest fucking scams on this planet. In certain cases I can understand it but for the most part it is used by one spouse to financially punish the other. My ex tried to get me for alimony but lucky for me our divorce was filed prior to our 10 year anniversary. So in the state of New Jersey that means no alimony for you.
Alimony is complete crap.
It's supposed to ensure that the spouse is paid in return for the sacrifice that they supposedly endured for the marriage. Usually that means that they stayed home with the kids and as a result, couldn't get a job working.
That's a load of shit. Staying home with your children is not a punishment - it's a blessing. You shouldn't have to be paid for it after you've been divorced. You made a choice to have children and stay home. You didn't have to.
Also, frequently after divorce, the spouses find other people. You mean I have to pay alimony to my former spouse even when she's dating some jerk? Nope, not happening.
This is another reason why I plan to wait to get married.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I really don't think we have alimony. I can't seem to find anything on it and I've never heard of it being awarded or applied for so I'm thinking not.
This paper on "spousal support" seems to indicate that we don't have it here.
Now that I do not get at all. Alimony confuses me. It really doesn't seem fair in a lot of cases.
In my case the real fucking kicker is that for 2007 my ex and I are making the same amount of money. She is making more and I took a significant hit because I am freelancing and I am not working at the same level as I was those past 5 years. Just because I made more from 2001 to 2006, they usually only look back 5 years, she would have been entitled to that 27% of my net salary. At the end of 2007 I would have the opportunity to file a motion to have the amount of alimony decreased because of the change in salary, but I would still have to pay her every month till she either remarries, dies, or starts making a significant amount more per year than I do.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Also, frequently after divorce, the spouses find other people. You mean I have to pay alimony to my former spouse even when she's dating some jerk? Nope, not happening.
This is another reason why I plan to wait to get married.
You are preaching to the choir my friend. My ex has a boyfriend, he has to pay child support for 3 children and alimony, his soon to be ex did not work. So he doesn't have a fucking pot to piss in. Every time they go out she pays. I have seen her credit card and bank statements to prove this. So my alimony payments would have been going to support this fucking douche bag. And as i stated had she waited those 4 months there wouldn't have been a thing in the world I could have done.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
I thought "no fault" meant that you could get a divorce at your discretion without one of the spouses having committed some marital sin like abuse or infidelity. Basically, that we've been a "no fault" divorce nation since around the beginning to middle of the 20th century. Prior to that, something bad had to have happened or a divorce wouldn't be allowed by law.
I also thought that an at fault spouse was entitled to child support (if applicable) and a split of the assets, and that's it. Basically, that he or she broke a legally binding contract. Am I wrong?
Jeez. And people wonder why my lady and I have been living together for 10 years without walking down that aisle (and, no, common law doesn't apply to us, as we haven't lived in any single state long enough).
In my case the real fucking kicker is that for 2007 my ex and I are making the same amount of money. She is making more and I took a significant hit because I am freelancing and I am not working at the same level as I was those past 5 years. Just because I made more from 2001 to 2006, they usually only look back 5 years, she would have been entitled to that 27% of my net salary. At the end of 2007 I would have the opportunity to file a motion to have the amount of alimony decreased because of the change in salary, but I would still have to pay her every month till she either remarries, dies, or starts making a significant amount more per year than I do.
But why mamma? This sounds like institutionalized prostitution to me or a version of it anyway. I really don't get it. I mean it's not even reasonable, let alone fair or just. I'm struggling with what the rationale is behind it?
Here is another wonder alimony story for you. One of my older brothers was recently divorced as well. His ex had 3 kids from a previous marriage. My brother and her have one daughter together. Her ex-husband owes her $75,000 in back child support but he doesn't work so doesn't have to pay it. After the birth of their daughter she decided to stay home for 2 years to raise her. She finally returned to work as an operating room technician. She files for divorce and wants alimony. My brother has a really good job and makes a nice salary. They where married for less than 10 years so she could not receive lifetime alimony, but because she stated financial hardship due to her ex husband not paying any child support my brother has to pay her temporary alimony. He has to pay her $18,000 per year for the next 3 years. It's not even his fault that the first ex-husband didn't pay child support and those other 3 kids aren't even his but because she is a woman, sorry girls but it is a fact that woman get special treatment specially if children are involved in divorce cases, she was able to receive alimony because of financial hardships she will endure due to her 1st ex having not payed child support.
That just proves how fucked up alimony and our system is.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well, age is catching up to us, and tradition along with it. I suspect she's been getting antsy lately.
Either that, or she's got some plot in the works.
Women can't propose to men, can they?
Wouldn't that be the most emasculating thing ever? Proposing is kind of that chore that most people just don't want to get it over with. Like scraping the horseshit from the stable floors.
Oo, thanks hunny I'd been meaning to do that but I'm glad you took care of it for me.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
But why mamma? This sounds like institutionalized prostitution to me or a version of it anyway. I really don't get it. I mean it's not even reasonable, let alone fair or just. I'm struggling with what the rationale is behind it?
One simple reason, and I hate to sound like some woman bashing male pig but, is that the courts always favor the woman specially if children are involved. When a man and a woman go to court to get a divorce it is basically to decide how much she will win and how hard he is going to get it up the ass. the best a man can hope for is that they will use some lube. The woman has to be a complete fucking degenerate in order to "lose out" in the divorce.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Wouldn't that be the most emasculating thing ever? Proposing is kind of that chore that most people just don't want to get it over with. Like scraping the horseshit from the stable floors.
Oo, thanks hunny I'd been meaning to do that but I'm glad you took care of it for me.
Well here in the 21st century yes they can, but I really wouldn't worry if I were you.
Here is another wonder alimony story for you. One of my older brothers was recently divorced as well. His ex had 3 kids from a previous marriage. My brother and her have one daughter together. Her ex-husband owes her $75,000 in back child support but he doesn't work so doesn't have to pay it. After the birth of their daughter she decided to stay home for 2 years to raise her. She finally returned to work as an operating room technician. She files for divorce and wants alimony. My brother has a really good job and makes a nice salary. They where married for less than 10 years so she could not receive lifetime alimony, but because she stated financial hardship due to her ex husband not paying any child support my brother has to pay her temporary alimony. He has to pay her $18,000 per year for the next 3 years. It's not even his fault that the first ex-husband didn't pay child support and those other 3 kids aren't even his but because she is a woman, sorry girls but it is a fact that woman get special treatment specially if children are involved in divorce cases, she was able to receive alimony because of financial hardships she will endure due to her 1st ex having not payed child support.
That just proves how fucked up alimony and our system is.
note to self: don't move to NJ......or get divorced
yeah, your brother shouldn't be penalized for her first ex-husband
even though I think it says a lot that this is her second divorce.....
I thought "no fault" meant that you could get a divorce at your discretion without one of the spouses having committed some marital sin like abuse or infidelity. Basically, that we've been a "no fault" divorce nation since around the beginning to middle of the 20th century. Prior to that, something bad had to have happened or a divorce wouldn't be allowed by law.
I also thought that an at fault spouse was entitled to child support (if applicable) and a split of the assets, and that's it. Basically, that he or she broke a legally binding contract. Am I wrong?
Jeez. And people wonder why my lady and I have been living together for 10 years without walking down that aisle (and, no, common law doesn't apply to us, as we haven't lived in any single state long enough).
Raindog yes it does mean that but it also carries with it that one spouse can not be punished for committing some marital sin. That act is completely irrevelent in court unless it is some type of abuse, but even then the abusing spouse can not be financial punished with alimony. It will only affect child custody.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well that is not fair either. No one should get shafted in a divorce or if there is going to be some shafting involved it should be both parties. I have always felt that the person filing the divorce should be penalized, unless it is a case of abuse or the other spouses continued infidelity. By doing this you would probably cut down on the number of divorces and people would actually attempt to work out the problems in their marriage.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well that is not fair either. No one should get shafted in a divorce or if there is going to be some shafting involved it should be both parties. I have always felt that the person filing the divorce should be penalized, unless it is a case of abuse or the other spouses continued infidelity. By doing this you would probably cut down on the number of divorces and people would actually attempt to work out the problems in their marriage.
True, but then my view is probably subjective. I'm sure there are men here in Australia that would disagree with me. I agree that neither party should be financially shafted in a divorce. And that the welfare of any offspring is paramount. I guess I've never really considered marriage a viable option for myself. Considering that we have many of the same rights recognized in de facto relationships here it's never really been a necessity for me personally. And alot of other Australians seem to share the same view. I suspect that there are some cultural differences at play. I suppose for me personally just the thought of divorce is enough to never want to get married and just looking at the statistics has also been quite sobering in the past.
Having said that, I do think that more attention needs to be paid to educating people on what it is to be married and how to stay that way.
And that family counselling and marriage counselling needs to be made more readily available to people long before they reach the stage that their marriage hits the rocks. And as for alimony. Well I don't think I'll ever really understand it. I mean I understand it, but I could never see a time when I would partition the court for it.
Well that is not fair either. No one should get shafted in a divorce or if there is going to be some shafting involved it should be both parties. I have always felt that the person filing the divorce should be penalized, unless it is a case of abuse or the other spouses continued infidelity. By doing this you would probably cut down on the number of divorces and people would actually attempt to work out the problems in their marriage.
infidelity doesn't mean dick legally in terms of divorce. kind of a bummer actually.
Comments
Yep. Thankfully my ex was not aware of the statute. Once she found out she looked like she was going to vomit. She knew at that instant that had she waited just 4 more months before filing I would have been ass raped in court.
Now that I do not get at all. Alimony confuses me. It really doesn't seem fair in a lot of cases.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Alimony is complete crap.
It's supposed to ensure that the spouse is paid in return for the sacrifice that they supposedly endured for the marriage. Usually that means that they stayed home with the kids and as a result, couldn't get a job working.
That's a load of shit. Staying home with your children is not a punishment - it's a blessing. You shouldn't have to be paid for it after you've been divorced. You made a choice to have children and stay home. You didn't have to.
Also, frequently after divorce, the spouses find other people. You mean I have to pay alimony to my former spouse even when she's dating some jerk? Nope, not happening.
This is another reason why I plan to wait to get married.
-Enoch Powell
This paper on "spousal support" seems to indicate that we don't have it here.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/behrens.html
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
In my case the real fucking kicker is that for 2007 my ex and I are making the same amount of money. She is making more and I took a significant hit because I am freelancing and I am not working at the same level as I was those past 5 years. Just because I made more from 2001 to 2006, they usually only look back 5 years, she would have been entitled to that 27% of my net salary. At the end of 2007 I would have the opportunity to file a motion to have the amount of alimony decreased because of the change in salary, but I would still have to pay her every month till she either remarries, dies, or starts making a significant amount more per year than I do.
You are preaching to the choir my friend. My ex has a boyfriend, he has to pay child support for 3 children and alimony, his soon to be ex did not work. So he doesn't have a fucking pot to piss in. Every time they go out she pays. I have seen her credit card and bank statements to prove this. So my alimony payments would have been going to support this fucking douche bag. And as i stated had she waited those 4 months there wouldn't have been a thing in the world I could have done.
I also thought that an at fault spouse was entitled to child support (if applicable) and a split of the assets, and that's it. Basically, that he or she broke a legally binding contract. Am I wrong?
Jeez. And people wonder why my lady and I have been living together for 10 years without walking down that aisle (and, no, common law doesn't apply to us, as we haven't lived in any single state long enough).
But why mamma?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Hiyooo!!! And she hasn't been getting antsy for a ring? Wow. That's a keeper right there.
-Enoch Powell
Either that, or she's got some plot in the works.
That just proves how fucked up alimony and our system is.
Women can't propose to men, can they?
Wouldn't that be the most emasculating thing ever? Proposing is kind of that chore that most people just don't want to get it over with. Like scraping the horseshit from the stable floors.
Oo, thanks hunny I'd been meaning to do that but I'm glad you took care of it for me.
-Enoch Powell
One simple reason, and I hate to sound like some woman bashing male pig but, is that the courts always favor the woman specially if children are involved. When a man and a woman go to court to get a divorce it is basically to decide how much she will win and how hard he is going to get it up the ass. the best a man can hope for is that they will use some lube. The woman has to be a complete fucking degenerate in order to "lose out" in the divorce.
Well here in the 21st century yes they can, but I really wouldn't worry if I were you.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
yeah, your brother shouldn't be penalized for her first ex-husband
even though I think it says a lot that this is her second divorce.....
Raindog yes it does mean that but it also carries with it that one spouse can not be punished for committing some marital sin. That act is completely irrevelent in court unless it is some type of abuse, but even then the abusing spouse can not be financial punished with alimony. It will only affect child custody.
lol, I'll have you know that my girlfriend would never propose to me, but that's just because she's a good conservative.
-Enoch Powell
It really doesn't matter much what state you are in. The man will always get the shaft.
Perhaps you should move to Australia mamma?
Seems that it's the girls that get shafted here!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm sure you'll be very happy together.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well that is not fair either. No one should get shafted in a divorce or if there is going to be some shafting involved it should be both parties. I have always felt that the person filing the divorce should be penalized, unless it is a case of abuse or the other spouses continued infidelity. By doing this you would probably cut down on the number of divorces and people would actually attempt to work out the problems in their marriage.
No but she does!!!11 lolz!!
Nah, that isn't very funny.
-Enoch Powell
True, but then my view is probably subjective. I'm sure there are men here in Australia that would disagree with me. I agree that neither party should be financially shafted in a divorce. And that the welfare of any offspring is paramount. I guess I've never really considered marriage a viable option for myself. Considering that we have many of the same rights recognized in de facto relationships here it's never really been a necessity for me personally. And alot of other Australians seem to share the same view. I suspect that there are some cultural differences at play. I suppose for me personally just the thought of divorce is enough to never want to get married and just looking at the statistics has also been quite sobering in the past.
Having said that, I do think that more attention needs to be paid to educating people on what it is to be married and how to stay that way.
And that family counselling and marriage counselling needs to be made more readily available to people long before they reach the stage that their marriage hits the rocks. And as for alimony. Well I don't think I'll ever really understand it. I mean I understand it, but I could never see a time when I would partition the court for it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
havent you been listening? the only act of god homos are gonna get is the lightning come down to smote them!
infidelity doesn't mean dick legally in terms of divorce. kind of a bummer actually.
Oh I know that. It should count against the person who committed it, but like you said it never does.