Comments on: Coming back for alimony 20+ years after disavowing it

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:21:23 +0000

This story needs to be covered by ABOVE THE LAW; for it clearly is. Anybody know any of the editors there?

By: Gerard M. Delaney

Gerard M. Delaney — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:49:12 +0000

The WSJ article noted that she was a day trader back when that was a popular of separating a …. person and her money. So she is claiming that he needs to make her whole for her bad choices long after leaving the “marital bed.”

By: wfjag

wfjag — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:08 +0000

Another example of why my gay friends all oppose SSM.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:41:03 +0000

“she should expect to get whatever he originally promised her on their wedding day”

Malcolm – What about what he was promised by her on their wedding day? Are a man’s hopes and expectations any less valid than a woman’s?

That’s why any “she expected this, she expected that, accustomed this, accustomed to that” argument falls flat in the face of gender equality. What about what he is accustomed to?

By: A.W.

A.W. — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:02:52 +0000

Malcolm

except they agreed not to take any alimony.

I mean doesn’t the guy have at least a right to plan his life. he worked for over two decades on the assumption that he was a free man. he planned his entire retirement around the idea. and then suddenly out of nowhere, BAM, he has an obligation to her? that’s simply not fair.

i actually have some sympathy for the concept of the return of fault, but how about the statute of limitations. if she accuses him of sleeping with a woman in miami on a date certain, maybe if they tried it at the time he could have found reciepts proving he was actually in Philadelphia. but now 20 years after the fact, the administration of justice is harmed.

No, she agreed to leave without taking his money. he shouldn’t pay now.

And bluntly, the law can and should expect a person to get off their behinds and work.

Really the idea that she has a right to a certain lifestyle she is accustomed to, is bull. If they were married and he suddenly takes a lesser paying job and says, “you’re going to have to live on less” is he liable for breach of contract? Um, no. So why should that change if they divorce?

I think all of this is based on certain assumptions of female idleness and lack of development that frankly doesn’t hold water anymore.

By: Malcolm Smith

Malcolm Smith — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:01:23 +0000

One issue which needs to be raised is: what was the reason for the divorce in the first place? If he deserted her for another woman, or treated her so badly that she was forced to leave him, then he has broken his marriage vows, and she should expect to get whatever he originally promised her on their wedding day. On the other hand, if it were she who broke the marriage vows, she isn’t entitled to anything. The root of all evils in divorce law is “no fault”.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:08:32 +0000

What this ruling says is that if you’ve ever been divorced, anytime, anywhere, you are basically a dead man walking. Don’t bother to bust your ass in any kind of job or endeavor, because any promotion/raise that you get will not be yours. It will just be used to impute an even higher income and will literally become your golden-alimony-handcuffs in a very literal sense.

How pathetic of a society we’ve become. Scraping the very bottom of the barrel now. This is surely the beginning of the end of our empire.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:51:41 +0000

You can’t judge a book by its cover, of course, but what a terrible title. okay seriously, 6th sense references were stale about 5 minutes after the movie made $100 million.