Fair? Man must pay alimony dispite ex-wife's lesbian partnership

13»

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Hiyooo!!! And she hasn't been getting antsy for a ring? Wow. That's a keeper right there.
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    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
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Jeanie wrote:
    But why mamma? :confused: 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
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    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.

    Well here in the 21st century yes they can, but I really wouldn't worry if I were you.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,216
    mammasan wrote:
    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.....
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    RainDog wrote:
    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
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Jeanie wrote:
    Well here in the 21st century yes they can, but I really wouldn't worry if I were you.

    lol, I'll have you know that my girlfriend would never propose to me, but that's just because she's a good conservative.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    markymark550 wrote:
    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.....

    It really doesn't matter much what state you are in. The man will always get the shaft.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    mammasan wrote:
    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? :D

    Seems that it's the girls that get shafted here!
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    lol, I'll have you know that my girlfriend would never propose to me, but that's just because she's a good conservative.

    I'm sure you'll be very happy together.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Jeanie wrote:
    Perhaps you should move to Australia mamma? :D

    Seems that it's the girls that get shafted here!

    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
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    lol, I'll have you know that my girlfriend would never propose to me, but that's just because she's a good conservative.
    Conservative? I'm sorry to hear that, man. Got repetitive stress disorder in your wrist yet?
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    Conservative? I'm sorry to hear that, man. Got repetitive stress disorder in your wrist yet?

    No but she does!!!11 lolz!!

    Nah, that isn't very funny.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    markymark550 wrote:
    It seems like an easy fix, but we all know it would take an act of God to pass that kind of law...so not quite so easy

    havent you been listening? the only act of god homos are gonna get is the lightning come down to smote them!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    mammasan wrote:
    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.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,216
    .....

Categories