NationStates

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:I'm going to do absolutely none of those things. Because I neither want, nor will I ever have children. Strange you didn't consider that option. Not everyone plans to live their lives exactly as you do.

Then why do you care, we dont write the law just for you. Itz written to cover most situations. Alimoney isnt given out in every case, only when the court believes its warrented. Do you seriously believe that all divorces end up with alimoney?

Not everyone plans to live out their lives exactly as you do.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Thankfully, that is not how the law works. You sign a marriage contract you have obligations. Unwilling to perform those obligations, dont sign the contract.

Thankfully laws can be changed. Marriage will continue to exist just fine without alimony.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Then why do you care, we dont write the law just for you. Itz written to cover most situations. Alimoney isnt given out in every case, only when the court believes its warrented. Do you seriously believe that all divorces end up with alimoney?

Not everyone plans to live out their lives exactly as you do.

I believe one divorce ending with it is too many. You chose to leave the workforce, you handle the consequences.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:Thankfully laws can be changed. Marriage will continue to exist just fine without alimony.

Nah, we are better off without stupid ideas screwing up contract law.

Neu Leonstein wrote:Yes, it should.

Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.

Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:I believe one divorce ending with it is too many. You chose to leave the workforce, you handle the consequences.

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

Greed and Death wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Obviously I have. I have also heard that marriages can be ended by divorce. So not necessarily a lifelong arrangement.

Solution outlaw divorce whats the worst that could happen.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You're talking like those two things are mutually exclusive. Like, you know that people need food regularly for their whole lives, yeah? You can't just eat once and then never need more food, after a while you'll need food again.

---

If the need is less then of course the payments will be less as well.

1. And you know food banks exist right? Anyone who steals should be in prison.

2. Or the payments can not exist. Charities exist. And spouses have family members.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:I'm going to do absolutely none of those things. Because I neither want, nor will I ever have children. Strange you didn't consider that option. Not everyone plans to live their lives exactly as you do.

Then why do you care, we dont write the law just for you. Itz written to cover most situations. Alimoney isnt given out in every case, only when the court believes its warrented. Do you seriously believe that all divorces end up with alimoney?

Not everyone plans to live out their lives exactly as you do.

Galloism wrote:As women have had to pay alimony more and more (which many derisively call "manimony"), there have been calls to limit the timeframe or eliminate it entirely.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Alright, did the two agree that in the event of a divorce, he’d pay her a monthly sum? Did she stay home with that sort of agreement in place?

That's not the way it works, it is completely the other way around. the pre-nup would specifically exclude future earning, in return for some spefific settlement on the dr's income. In other words If she doesnt get future earnings she gets this instead (which could be nothing), otherwise contractually speaking, without the pre-nup she gets half.

Cekoviu wrote:

Galloism wrote:As women have had to pay alimony more and more (which many derisively call "manimony"), there have been calls to limit the timeframe or eliminate it entirely.

"Manimony"? Are you kidding me? They completely ignored the potential for "aliMANy" and went with that amateur night shit?
Also, that's really stupid, but what really grinds my gears is the terrible attempt at portmanteau.

Ors Might wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:That's not the way it works, it is completely the other way around. the pre-nup would specifically exclude future earning, in return for some spefific settlement on the dr's income. In other words If she doesnt get future earnings she gets this instead (which could be nothing), otherwise contractually speaking, without the pre-nup she gets half.

Again I find myself misunderstanding terms. Alright so to clarify, your argument for alimony is that in marriages in which one partner chooses to stay at home so that the other can focus on their career, sacrificing future earning potential, they need compensation in the event of a divorce?

If that’s more or less a correct summary, would you say alimony payments should still be made after the recipient finds a steady occupation and/or remarries?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Ors Might wrote:Again I find myself misunderstanding terms. Alright so to clarify, your argument for alimony is that in marriages in which one partner chooses to stay at home so that the other can focus on their career, sacrificing future earning potential, they need compensation in the event of a divorce?

If that’s more or less a correct summary, would you say alimony payments should still be made after the recipient finds a steady occupation and/or remarries?

You are asking two questions, I will answer the second one first, cause its easy.
In the event of remarriage alimony stops. See that's easy.

To the first

Alimony by definition isnt necessarily forever. Agreements can specify how much as well as how long.



Alimony does not have to go on forever, and can be modified if there is a change in status. Often alimony sunsets over a matter of years.

There seems to be a feeling in this thread that there is only alimony and it's set by statue. Neither is true.

Ifreann wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:Solution outlaw divorce whats the worst that could happen.

Divorce lawyers would switch to other fields of law and you'd suddenly have a lot of competition.

---

The Republic of Fore wrote:1. And you know food banks exist right? Anyone who steals should be in prison.

I do know that food banks exist. But I'm making a point about it being moral for society to redistribute wealth from those who can afford it to those in need and hungry people stealing food is just an example I'm using because most people agree that there's nothing wrong with stealing to avoid starvation. The existance of food banks isn't really relevant.

2. Or the payments can not exist. Charities exist. And spouses have family members.

Charities do not always have enough funding to help everyone in need, and in fact people do not always have family members. Like, duh? You complain in a later post about someone not considering the possibility of a person not wanting to have children, but it didn't occur to you that a person might not have any family?

Elwher wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
You are asking two questions, I will answer the second one first, cause its easy.
In the event of remarriage alimony stops. See that's easy.

To the first

Alimony by definition isnt necessarily forever. Agreements can specify how much as well as how long.



Alimony does not have to go on forever, and can be modified if there is a change in status. Often alimony sunsets over a matter of years.

There seems to be a feeling in this thread that there is only alimony and it's set by statue. Neither is true.

I have only practiced in New York, so i cannot opine on other states, however NY does have a calculation of alimony in statute as follows:
Formula 1: The court will subtract 20 percent of the supported spouse’s income from 30 percent of the paying spouse’s income.
Formula 2: The total income of both will be multiplied by 40 percent and then the supported spouse’s income will be subtracted from that amount.
The court will choose a temporary alimony award based on the lower of the one or two.

The Court is, however, allowed to deviate from that standard for sufficient reason.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Elwher wrote:
I have only practiced in New York, so i cannot opine on other states, however NY does have a calculation of alimony in statute as follows:
Formula 1: The court will subtract 20 percent of the supported spouse’s income from 30 percent of the paying spouse’s income.
Formula 2: The total income of both will be multiplied by 40 percent and then the supported spouse’s income will be subtracted from that amount.
The court will choose a temporary alimony award based on the lower of the one or two.

The Court is, however, allowed to deviate from that standard for sufficient reason.

Three questions, Do you do family law? And if so what % of your cases end up with alimony being awarded. And do you feel this % is representative of divorces in nys?

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Divorce lawyers would switch to other fields of law and you'd suddenly have a lot of competition.

---

I do know that food banks exist. But I'm making a point about it being moral for society to redistribute wealth from those who can afford it to those in need and hungry people stealing food is just an example I'm using because most people agree that there's nothing wrong with stealing to avoid starvation. The existance of food banks isn't really relevant.

Charities do not always have enough funding to help everyone in need, and in fact people do not always have family members. Like, duh? You complain in a later post about someone not considering the possibility of a person not wanting to have children, but it didn't occur to you that a person might not have any family?

1. It's not moral to steal from someone regardless of what you do with it. And it is relevant because there's no reason to steal. If you steal from someone, regardless of what your motive is then you should be in prison.

2. Most people do have family members. It's extremely rare that you have absolutely no one.

But even in that case, the spouse would be suffering because of their decision. Don't want to risk having no one to help you? Don't leave the work force. It's not that difficult. Especially today when It's becoming less and less common to have one spouse stay home. Don't play stupid games and you won't win stupid prizes.

Cekoviu wrote:

Galloism wrote:As women have had to pay alimony more and more (which many derisively call "manimony"), there have been calls to limit the timeframe or eliminate it entirely.

"Manimony"? Are you kidding me? They completely ignored the potential for "aliMANy" and went with that amateur night shit?
Also, that's really stupid, but what really grinds my gears is the terrible attempt at portmanteau.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:Thankfully laws can be changed. Marriage will continue to exist just fine without alimony.

Nah, we are better off without stupid ideas screwing up contract law.

Novus America wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Nah, we are better off without stupid ideas screwing up contract law.

Under contract law the party at fault for the breach usually gets nothing though. Which is not the case with alimony. The at fault party can still get it.

And even in so called “no fault divorce” states, there is always someone at fault (often both).
The idea of “no fault” divorce is idiotic. Because both promised it would be until death, in all cases someone (maybe both) screwed up. Or at very least “until death do us part” should never be used in a vow in a no fault divorce state.

The vow should state “until we decide to divorce” instead.

Elwher wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Three questions, Do you do family law? And if so what % of your cases end up with alimony being awarded. And do you feel this % is representative of divorces in nys?

I did, now I am almost exclusively doing probate. When I did, I would estimate that 60% ended up with some alimony payments being awarded, with about 5% of those cases the man was the one receiving the payments. As to the last question, I really have no idea as the social situation in Erie County, where I worked, is very different from either Northern NY or NY City.

Elwher wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Under contract law the party at fault for the breach usually gets nothing though. Which is not the case with alimony. The at fault party can still get it.

And even in so called “no fault divorce” states, there is always someone at fault (often both).
The idea of “no fault” divorce is idiotic. Because both promised it would be until death, in all cases someone (maybe both) screwed up. Or at very least “until death do us part” should never be used in a vow in a no fault divorce state.

The vow should state “until we decide to divorce” instead.

.

Not necessarily. Let us presume I have contracted to plow your driveway all winter, and you agree to pay me $100 at the end of each winter month. On Dec. 20th, my plow breaks down so badly I decide to go out of business. I am at fault for the breach of contract, by deciding not to fix my plow. In all likelihood, however, I will still be awarded a percentage of the December payment to compensate me for the work I did while the contract was in force.

Novus America wrote:

Elwher wrote:.

Not necessarily. Let us presume I have contracted to plow your driveway all winter, and you agree to pay me $100 at the end of each winter month. On Dec. 20th, my plow breaks down so badly I decide to go out of business. I am at fault for the breach of contract, by deciding not to fix my plow. In all likelihood, however, I will still be awarded a percentage of the December payment to compensate me for the work I did while the contract was in force.

Which is why I said usually.
There are times the at fault part gets something, but it will generally be for services or goods already rendered, the at fault party cannot usually claim expectation damages.

It would still invalidate on going alimony, though not necessarily invalidate a one time payment for services already rendered.

In your hypothetical you will not get money in future months you no longer plow.

Also that would still invalidate the concept of no fault divorce (at least the “until death do us part” bit).

Elwher wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Which is why I said usually.
There are times the at fault part gets something, but it will generally be for services or goods already rendered, the at fault party cannot usually claim expectation damages.

It would still invalidate on going alimony, though not necessarily invalidate a one time payment for services already rendered.

In your hypothetical you will not get money in future months you no longer plow.

Also that would still invalidate the concept of no fault divorce (at least the “until death do us part” bit).

And often, the alimony is based on services already rendered, such as support during education. The fact that it is not a one time payment is based, to some extent, on the fact that a lump sum payment for the full value of the support would be impossible for most people to make. There are cases, however, where a sufficiently large lump sum payment is acceptable instead of the monthly checks.

As to the till death do up part, all contracts have termination clauses. That is the marriage contract's one, and if it is not acceptable to either party they should not enter into the contract; and if they wish to modify the contract by early termination, they must agree to whatever penalties that may cost.

Novus America wrote:And yet alimony is often based on expectation damages, to allow the party to maintain their lifestyle after the divorce. And if the one time payment is to much for the at fault party to make, it SHOULD never be indefinite. But in terms of installment payments. It should still be a fixed amount, and cease when that amount is paid.

In fact it is extremely rare (if ever) outside of divorce that there be indefinite damages for breach of contract.

Well not all contracts have an explicit termination clause, but yes, they will have ways to end the contract without fault. As you said in marriage death is explicitly the only clause for termination.

So I agree, if both parties cannot agree to that clause, they should not bind themselves too it.

At the very least we need to reform the way alimony is awarded, and “no fault” divorce states should stop using the vow stating otherwise. The fact is quite often it is not in line with other contracts.

Actually I can see the libertarian argument of removing the state from marriage. Where marriage contracts would be no different than any other contract.