<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Alimony deal said wife couldn&#8217;t &#8220;cohabit&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/alimony-deal-said-wife-couldnt-cohabit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/alimony-deal-said-wife-couldnt-cohabit/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:55:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: nevins		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/alimony-deal-said-wife-couldnt-cohabit/comment-page-1/#comment-37059</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nevins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=8013#comment-37059</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It would be just as absurd if she maintained the benefit of $2000 per month piling up for her benefit, while she saved on food and rent in the mean time.

The intent of the divorce settlement was met as well.  She was to be provided for a period of time unless her life circumstance changed such that support was no longer necessary.  Seeing as she will be living in public housing for 9 years, her financial need has improved dramatically.  The decision seems not just to meet the letter of the decree, but also the underlying intent.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be just as absurd if she maintained the benefit of $2000 per month piling up for her benefit, while she saved on food and rent in the mean time.</p>
<p>The intent of the divorce settlement was met as well.  She was to be provided for a period of time unless her life circumstance changed such that support was no longer necessary.  Seeing as she will be living in public housing for 9 years, her financial need has improved dramatically.  The decision seems not just to meet the letter of the decree, but also the underlying intent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bill Poser		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/alimony-deal-said-wife-couldnt-cohabit/comment-page-1/#comment-36941</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill Poser]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=8013#comment-36941</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I wonder why the husband didn&#039;t argue instead that his ex-wife has no need for alimony since she is now a ward of the state?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder why the husband didn&#8217;t argue instead that his ex-wife has no need for alimony since she is now a ward of the state?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
