When should spousal support be pursued

[CJane]

The original question about whether to pursue spousal support stems from the fact that she is asking for 50/50 split of FUTURE expenses outside of child support because "50% of the kids are made of your genes" (her words). I think that is not fair and the split should be based on income so the % effect is the same. However, because she insisted on the 50/50 split, I got to thinking maybe I should no longer agree to no spousal support and seek some kind of income parity as well.

Then argue for a split of expenses that's in line with the income differential. Though 50% is pretty common regardless of disparity. My ex makes almost 3x what I make, I pay him child support, and while the order states that I'm to pay 50% of extra expenses (sports, medical, etc), I end up paying almost 100%.

It quit being about my ex and our respective incomes a LONG time ago, and started being about the kids. And when it's only about the kids, different things matter.

 

[mistoffolees]

The original question about whether to pursue spousal support stems from the fact that she is asking for 50/50 split of FUTURE expenses outside of child support because "50% of the kids are made of your genes" (her words). I think that is not fair and the split should be based on income so the % effect is the same. However, because she insisted on the 50/50 split, I got to thinking maybe I should no longer agree to no spousal support and seek some kind of income parity as well.

I would argue strongly for future expenses to be split proportional to income. The judge may or may not do that - and, really, it's not a big enough difference that you might want to fight it. You currently have 39% of the income, so an income shares model means you'd pay 39% of the 'extras'. She is proposing 50%. If the extras amount to $2,000 per year, that means you'd pay $220 more under her scenario than under yours. While I wouldn't suggest that you completely ignore that, it's not a big enough number that I'd lose an agreement over it.

It really sounds like you don't have a meeting of the minds yet. You don't know what to do about alimony, you haven't agreed on future expenses, and so on. Rather than worrying about each item individually, I'd suggest that the two of you consider mediation. A good mediator can help you work through ALL of the issues and come to a mutually acceptable agreement.

 

[LizzieB]

Just to answer everyone's assumptions and unkowns about my situation.... Neither my wife nor I kept each other from advancing in our careers. We did our best in our respective industry and supported each other the whole way. So, there was no "kept woman" or "kept man" or whatever inequality several of you suggested. In fact, all assets have been or will be divided equally, and there is no dispute about that. But I do appreciate all the opinions offered as it has helps me think about all the angles.

The original question about whether to pursue spousal support stems from the fact that she is asking for 50/50 split of FUTURE expenses outside of child support because "50% of the kids are made of your genes" (her words). I think that is not fair and the split should be based on income so the % effect is the same. However, because she insisted on the 50/50 split, I got to thinking maybe I should no longer agree to no spousal support and seek some kind of income parity as well.

Dude... go spend a few bucks and consult with an attorney.

Do a cost/benefit analysis.

Both child support and spousal support are standardized calculations.

Your ex's assertion that you need to pay 50% of this or that due to the kids' DNA is absurd.

There are obviously a lot of angry women on this forum. And, while I say that, I did also post for you to just "man up".

Get some real advice. You'll be better off.

 

[Bali Hai]

that makes absolutely no sense. How could either of you live in the same style when you had joint income of $180k and only one household to support? You both would have a lower standard living now than you had before. It is impossible not to. The other party obviously does not have as much expendable money available and neither do you.

Then I suggest that the stupid law be legislated off the books in every state. The ONLY reason that it's there is to benefit women. Now that the stupid law is coming around to bite them, women are whining about it.

and why do you make $70k compared to your ex making $110k? Did the spouse somehow inhibit you from obtaining training and employment that would allow you to earn $110k? Was it a joint decision for you to quit seeking additional career growth or was it your choice?

Show where that is a factor in the statute for the judge to consider.

as well, there are a lot of other items in a divorce that can be considered when trying to determine if there is some equity between the parties after divorce. Who took on what debt? Who was awarded what in regards to the house or other property? Was either party awarded any retirement benefits earned by the other party?

Stating "she makes a lot more than I do" is such a basic statement. It does not allow for the consideration of so many other possibilities that result in a divorce.

It's used successfully by every wife, why can't the husband use it?

You may also find yourself winning a battle and losing the war. I know that if I was in her position, I would surely reconsider what I tentatively agreed to prior to the claim for spousal support, especially since an agreement of no spousal support was apparently the already agreed to bargaining position of both parties.

Of course the wife will fight the spousal support, for the same reasons that husbands do. If the circumstances were reversed many here would say the wife is entitled to alimony and should ask for it. There seems to be alot hippocrites contributing to this thread.

Applying the law without regard to gender means that the husband is awarded alimony, and, if you don't like that, change the law!

 

[Bali Hai]

You can ask for just about anything, of course. The problem with asking is that nobody can predict the result.

Every wife takes that gamble and usually wins. I'm sure you are happy for those women, you should be just as happy for OP when he wins his alimony award.

I certainly would NOT take Bali's advice and ask for $1700/month for 10 years. Not only will you alienate your ex to the Nth degree, you'll likely be laughed out of court.

This is exactly what every wife does, ask for the moon and hope the judge awards something. I don't believe those wives are laughed out of court, and neither should OP be laughed out of court.

Apparently your spouting in past posts about gender neutrality is just that, spouting.

 

[mistoffolees]

There are obviously a lot of angry women on this forum. And, while I say that, I did also post for you to just "man up".

Get some real advice. You'll be better off.

Well, certainly OP will be better off if he doesn't listen to your advice, anyway.

Hint: there are people of both sexes on this forum.

 

[LdiJ]

You can ask for just about anything, of course. The problem with asking is that nobody can predict the result.

Every wife takes that gamble and usually wins. I'm sure you are happy for those women, you should be just as happy for OP when he wins his alimony award.

I certainly would NOT take Bali's advice and ask for $1700/month for 10 years. Not only will you alienate your ex to the Nth degree, you'll likely be laughed out of court.

This is exactly what every wife does, ask for the moon and hope the judge awards something. I don't believe those wives are laughed out of court, and neither should OP be laughed out of court.

Apparently your spouting in past posts about gender neutrality is just that, spouting.

Bali, can you name one single example of a working wife with a 70k income who asked for alimony? Because I certainly cannot. Or, excuse me, I cannot name one in a non celebrity circumstance.

 

[Proserpina]

You can ask for just about anything, of course. The problem with asking is that nobody can predict the result.

Every wife takes that gamble and usually wins. I'm sure you are happy for those women, you should be just as happy for OP when he wins his alimony award.

I certainly would NOT take Bali's advice and ask for $1700/month for 10 years. Not only will you alienate your ex to the Nth degree, you'll likely be laughed out of court.

Bali, can you name one single example of a working wife with a 70k income who asked for alimony? Because I certainly cannot. Or, excuse me, I cannot name one in a non celebrity circumstance.

Oh why bother, LdiJ?

We ALL know Bali's bias here. And we all know that the vast majority of responders - even female (gasp!) - here do NOT support alimony except in very limited circumstances.

Despite his rantings.


He's just here to argue and rant because of his own situation. We know this.

 

[Bali Hai]

You can ask for just about anything, of course. The problem with asking is that nobody can predict the result.

Every wife takes that gamble and usually wins. I'm sure you are happy for those women, you should be just as happy for OP when he wins his alimony award.

I certainly would NOT take Bali's advice and ask for $1700/month for 10 years. Not only will you alienate your ex to the Nth degree, you'll likely be laughed out of court.

Bali, can you name one single example of a working wife with a 70k income who asked for alimony? Because I certainly cannot. Or, excuse me, I cannot name one in a non celebrity circumstance.

Was Paul McCartney's last wife a celebrity? Why are "celebrities" treated different under the law?

I must agree with you on that, Hollywood is influencing every divorce court across the nation.

Furthermore, why are you picking 70k as the number where alimony shouldn't be awarded? Let's get some numbers legislated so judges have something to refer to instead of their own subjective opinions.

 

[justalayman]

Of course the wife will fight the spousal support, for the same reasons that husbands do. If the circumstances were reversed many here would say the wife is entitled to alimony and should ask for it. There seems to be alot hippocrites contributing to this thread.

Applying the law without regard to gender means that the husband is awarded alimony, and, if you don't like that, change the law!

I don't know what you went through Bali but you apparently feel you were royally screwed. That's too bad. It appears you allow that to consume your entire life. That's a shame. The Serenity Prayer holds wisdom that would be appropriate for you.

Applying the law without regard to gender means that the husband is awarded alimony!

You really think so? Go ahead, show me that law. In fact, show me the law the requires either party is due alimony, especially due to only an income disparity.

Here is the section of MI statute that provides for spousal support in general:

Upon entry of a judgment of divorce or separate maintenance, if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage who are committed to the care and custody of either party, the court may also award to either party the part of the real and personal estate of either party and spousal support out of the real and personal estate, to be paid to either party in gross or otherwise as the court considers just and reasonable, after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case.

In other words; judges discretion and since the OP has stated he is doing just fine on his income, I guess that part:

if the estate and effects awarded to either party are insufficient for the suitable support and maintenance of either party and any children of the marriage who are committed to the care and custody of either party

would mean that alimony is not justified.

and to the $1700/month? That is not even applicable in a temporary order under Michigan's general guidelines. It is much too simplistic and fails to consider anything other than income.

 

[CJane]

Dude... go spend a few bucks and consult with an attorney.

Yes, fo' sho' do this long before you believe THIS >>>

... spousal support are standardized calculations.

Because the above is absolute crap.

 

[Bali Hai]

I don't know what you went through Bali but you apparently feel you were royally screwed. That's too bad. It appears you allow that to consume your entire life. That's a shame. The Serenity Prayer holds wisdom that would be appropriate for you.



You really think so? Go ahead, show me that law. In fact, show me the law the requires either party is due alimony, especially due to only an income disparity.

Here is the section of MI statute that provides for spousal support in general:



In other words; judges discretion and since the OP has stated he is doing just fine on his income, I guess that part:

would mean that alimony is not justified.

and to the $1700/month? That is not even applicable in a temporary order under Michigan's general guidelines.

OP did not say this was alimony pendite lite.

It is much too simplistic and fails to consider anything other than income.

Another man-hater?

OP has stated he managed to pay off bills that were in fact marital. OP also stated that stbx is making unreasonable demands that will put him at an economic disadvantage.

You are arguing for the wife and OP's attorney will be arguing for him. And I believe he has a good chance at some reasonable alimony amount for a reasonable length of time. As I said before, if the roles were reversed, the wife would seek and very likely get an alimony award. It's time to stop bashing men in divorce court because women feel like being vindictive.

 

[ecmst12]

The only one who bashes ANYONE on this forum is you, Bali. You bash women, you hate women, we get it. Go crawl back under your rock until you have something USEFUL to contribute.

I suspect we'd be waiting a very, VERY long time.

 

[LdiJ]

Another man-hater?

OP has stated he managed to pay off bills that were in fact marital. OP also stated that stbx is making unreasonable demands that will put him at an economic disadvantage.

You are arguing for the wife and OP's attorney will be arguing for him. And I believe he has a good chance at some reasonable alimony amount for a reasonable length of time. As I said before, if the roles were reversed, the wife would seek and very likely get an alimony award. It's time to stop bashing men in divorce court because women feel like being vindictive.

Bali you are being absurd here...and that is what scares me for the OP...because he appears to actually be listening to you. Its absurd to think that either a woman OR man would get any alimony in a situation like this one.

Hopefully he will consult with a local attorney and get set straight...before he spends absurd amounts of legal fees.

 

[LdiJ]

Another man-hater?

OP has stated he managed to pay off bills that were in fact marital. OP also stated that stbx is making unreasonable demands that will put him at an economic disadvantage.

You are arguing for the wife and OP's attorney will be arguing for him. And I believe he has a good chance at some reasonable alimony amount for a reasonable length of time. As I said before, if the roles were reversed, the wife would seek and very likely get an alimony award. It's time to stop bashing men in divorce court because women feel like being vindictive.

Bali you are being absurd here...and that is what scares me for the OP...because he appears to actually be listening to you. Its absurd to think that either a woman OR man would get any alimony in a situation like this one.

Hopefully he will consult with a local attorney and get set straight...before he spends absurd amounts of legal fees.