Exceptionally Greedy, Or, Exceptionally Smart...?

[powellrj]

Depending on the situation, I think a spouse should be able to continue even if they remarry. And especially if they just live together. I find it strange a divorce settlement could be written with the rule he/she could not even have a live in of either sex.

So lets get this straight....a person could work to put their spouse through higher education, then stay home and raise their kids. Meaning the spouse gets better earning power and the stay at home ruins their own earning power. The the better educated one strays from the marriage and dumps the at home one. The at home spouse gets alimony (and rightly so in my book), but would lose it if they remarried....but the cheater could remarry and be happy and be even happier if the dumped one remarries because they don't have to keep paying? seems really, really wrong to me. Seems the at home spouse EARNED that alimony through the years by helping the worker be able to achieve their success.

And note I was careful not to label it husband or wife because I don't think it matters .

I know this can happen, but it just seems an at home parent should be protected. Of course, I'm biased because I have been at home for almost 10 years and am now 47. Anything happens to my marriage and I'm toast

I was just coming to post the same thing. I think its also an age thing. While I am in my 50's and don't know anyone who is in this situation, my parents have several friends who have been. Wife gives up her career/school to put her Dh through med/law school only to be dumped for a new model.

Lets face it, in the 50's and 60's it wasn't as easy for a woman to pull it together with young children at home. There weren't child care options available and the world wasn't as working mom friendly as it is now.

Like I said, several of my parents friends were in the same situation and even the ones that didn't get the great alimony deals have still never remarried even 50 years later.

 

[Mermaid02]

Depending on the situation, I think a spouse should be able to continue even if they remarry. And especially if they just live together. I find it strange a divorce settlement could be written with the rule he/she could not even have a live in of either sex.

So lets get this straight....a person could work to put their spouse through higher education, then stay home and raise their kids. Meaning the spouse gets better earning power and the stay at home ruins their own earning power. The the better educated one strays from the marriage and dumps the at home one. The at home spouse gets alimony (and rightly so in my book), but would lose it if they remarried....but the cheater could remarry and be happy and be even happier if the dumped one remarries because they don't have to keep paying? seems really, really wrong to me. Seems the at home spouse EARNED that alimony through the years by helping the worker be able to achieve their success.

And note I was careful not to label it husband or wife because I don't think it matters .

I know this can happen, but it just seems an at home parent should be protected. Of course, I'm biased because I have been at home for almost 10 years and am now 47. Anything happens to my marriage and I'm toast

There was a case MANY years ago where the wife put her husband through law school (he already had attended medical school, but wanted to be a medical malpractice attorney)- then stayed home with their children and he traded her in for a newer sleeker model sort of speak. She shot them both in their sleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Broderick

She was obviously a nutter... but this does happen and as the wife HOW do you not feel used and thrown away like a piece of garbage?

Without knowing the details, I still say she's smart (possibly greedy too).

 

[golfgal]

I say stupid because she settled for $100,000/year from a Cardiologist-who, at least around here make $600,000+/year

HE also agreed to those terms so I say she is just following the divorce contract.

I should also add that the social security is 'peanuts" for them-they can still only collect so much in SS-you stop paying into SS once your income is over a certain threshold-$109,000 or so (changes each year) so they only pay out based on that amount.

edit again--there are also legal considerations for their children together for the wife NOT to remarry (or the dr for that matter). Inheritance is a lot easier without the "step" parents, etc.

 

[tlbwriter]

Not sure what state this is in, but would Common Law Marriage nullify the alimony?

It's not an issue. If they're only living together, and not putting themselves forward as husband and wife, there is no common law marriage, no matter what state they live in.

 

[cabanafrau]

Depending on the situation, I think a spouse should be able to continue even if they remarry. And especially if they just live together. I find it strange a divorce settlement could be written with the rule he/she could not even have a live in of either sex.

So lets get this straight....a person could work to put their spouse through higher education, then stay home and raise their kids. Meaning the spouse gets better earning power and the stay at home ruins their own earning power. The the better educated one strays from the marriage and dumps the at home one. The at home spouse gets alimony (and rightly so in my book), but would lose it if they remarried....but the cheater could remarry and be happy and be even happier if the dumped one remarries because they don't have to keep paying? seems really, really wrong to me. Seems the at home spouse EARNED that alimony through the years by helping the worker be able to achieve their success.

And note I was careful not to label it husband or wife because I don't think it matters .

I know this can happen, but it just seems an at home parent should be protected. Of course, I'm biased because I have been at home for almost 10 years and am now 47. Anything happens to my marriage and I'm toast

Very few of the divorce settlements I see here anymore include spousal support for any length of time after finalization of divorce. Even in cases of long-term marriages, children & a stay at home spouse, about the max you see is 3 years. Most settlements bar spousal support forever. Generally divorce settlements are final, cannot be reopened excepting matters relating to minor children.

If the four children of this marriage are now grown I can see where $100,000 a year would enable this woman to live quite a good lifestyle, especially in any area of Michigan. She may have been awarded the marital home & other assets in the settlement, received adequate child support through the years, may have been employed herself, etc., etc. There's a lot of reasons she could be living a lavish lifestyle.

No doubt there are reasons the good doctor and his ex agreed to the settlement. Guess they're fulfilling the until death do us part vow a bit differently than they realized at the marriage.

 

[ols386]

Disgusting, free loading little so and so. She has a new life but expect her ex to fund her its so wrong on so many levels. I am not suprised though that so many think its a good idea if it was the other way round you would be slagging the husband off.

It was part of the divorce agreement. The husband apparently agreed to it. So why should he not fulfill his part of a legal agreement?

Doesn't matter if it's the ex-husband or ex-wife, either would be obligated to follow through on a legal contract.

 

[bombygriz]

If someone waved $100,000 a year in my face and said I'd have it as long as I was legally single, I'd take it! If my work benefits were good and all the legal/financial stuff worked out with my partner and I being unmarried, it'd seem pretty sweet to me.

 

[almburr]

I beleive that in some states spousal support can go no longer than 10years.

 

[december]

.

 

[bookgirl]

A woman is married to a doctor. He is a well known cardiologist, and brings home big bucks. They have four children together.

They divorce.

It is decided that she will receive something like $100,000 in alimony a year for as long as he works, and she will receive a portion of his social security once he retires stops working... AS LONG as she never remarries.

She meets a new man and they start a life together.

Fast forward 15 years. The children are long since grown. The woman is still with her new man, and they enjoy a luxurious life in a house on a lake, drive nice cars, take lavish vacations, etc., all on the doctors dime. They have been together, living together, for 15 years, but HAVE NOT married.

So, she still receives her $100,000 a year in alimony.

Is she exceptionally greedy? Or, is she exceptionally smart?

FWIW, it is said that the doctor and HIS new wife, and the ex-wife and her boyfriend were ALL very civil at the wedding! The definition of "Game Face"

(A distant relative got married, and this is the GROOM's mother and father...)

Very Smart, but then I have very little tolerance for the 'upgrading' you see with many Doctors/Lawyers. Even if she wanted the divorce I just feel really sypathtic to women and men who support their spouses though professional school (emotionally and usually monetarily) and who raise the kids while the other works long house and have very little personal time with the spouse and kids, and then they divorce the spouse and think that they don't deserve anything because all they did was stay home. So yeah I think the spouse deserves mega bucks. By the way she was ALWAYS going to get part of his SS. That's just the way it's set up, no matter what your income level. If you meant his private retirement account then depending on the state she's entitled to that too according to the law of the land.

 

[sparklynails23]

That's chump change to a cardiologist and certainly doesn't allow one to afford a lavish lifestyle.

 

[tweedlemom]

She's just playing by the rules that HIS lawyer created...