When should spousal support be pursued

[midad8]

This is getting interesting, hearing both ends of the spectrum. Just to answer a few questions... Even with me making $70k and her making $110k, I still have to pay child support for 2 kids because the parenting schedule is 4 day her/3 day me per wk. I actually have no problem with the healthcare and childcare portions of the amount, but the base support portion is ridiculous. Not sure how MI came up with the offset formula, but a slight deviation from a 50/50 parenting schedule is a big penalty for me.

Taking into account the following
- A 50%+ disparity in income
- Her having disposable income of $1500 more than me after expenses (even with expenses from the "big house" she could could have downsized from)
- Me still having to pay child support based on an unreasonable formula
I am having second thoughts about not asking for spousal support. Based on the all the above feedback, I am thinking maybe $500/mth for 4 years seems reasonable, but then I don't want to spring a surprise on the ex-wife-to-be and make it difficult for us to resolve issues in the future. Any opinions?

 

[stealth2]

I have an opinion. Anyone - woman OR man - who feels they can't make it on $70k/yr needs a class on financial planning and management.

 

[midad8]

I have an opinion. Anyone - woman OR man - who feels they can't make it on $70k/yr needs a class on financial planning and management.

Stealth2, I never said I can't make in on $70. Like I said above, I've been doing OK the last 8 mths. My issue is that I have lowered my standard living considerably from what I had when we were married in order to be "OK" while she is enjoying the same lifestyle. She will probably have even better standard of living once the child support kicks in. There lies my dilemma...should I accept being "OK" because I actually have good financial planning and management while she continues to do much better than me, even with the "big house" expenses she could easily reduce... or should I ask for some spousal support to at least get the disparity in disposable cash closer to equity?

 

[Proserpina]

Stealth2, I never said I can't make in on $70. Like I said above, I've been doing OK the last 8 mths. My issue is that I have lowered my standard living considerably from what I had when we were married in order to be "OK" while she is enjoying the same lifestyle. She will probably have even better standard of living once the child support kicks in. There lies my dilemma...should I accept being "OK" because I actually have good financial planning and management while she continues to do much better than me, even with the "big house" expenses she could easily reduce... or should I ask for some spousal support to at least get the disparity in disposable cash closer to equity?

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

Really, the best thing you can do at this point is what you've already got planned - speak to an attorney, who will be able to tell you how things tend to go on a local level.

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.

 

[LizzieB]

Unfortunately, your common sense is not accurate. If the situation were 50/50 rather than 60/40 you might be accurate.

Yeah, but she makes over 50% more than him. And he has the kids 40% of the time.

Maybe the OP should just let the courts decide?

LdiJ, where do you get your logic from as it's not based on law?

Just curious.

 

[justalayman]

My issue is that I have lowered my standard living considerably from what I had when we were married in order to be "OK" while she is enjoying the same lifestyle.

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.


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?

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.

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.

 

[CJane]

Dad? Have you run the child support numbers with an increase of $500/month in your income and a decrease of $500/month in Mom's?

And have you considered the amount you might end up paying in attorney fees for the newly contested divorce, in order to fight this out? Even if you're "successful", it's quite possible that $24K would be mostly eaten away in legal fees AND destroy the currently amicable situation.

You REALLY need to do a complete risk/benefit analysis.

 

[mistoffolees]

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.


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?

The fact that she makes more than him is a fact. The court is not going to say to a mother working as a clerk at Walmart that "you could have become a doctor like your husband, so there's no reason to give you spousal support".

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.

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.

The reasons for spousal support in MI are:
Michigan Alimony Factors | divorcenet.com

It could go either way.

 

[justalayman]

mistoffolees;2771807]The fact that she makes more than him is a fact. The court is not going to say to a mother working as a clerk at Walmart that "you could have become a doctor like your husband, so there's no reason to give you spousal support".

but it is often a decision of one party to not improve themselves. If that is the case, it weakens the claim of justification for absolute parity. We aren't talking about somebody paying spousal support as the sole means of that persons living income. We are talking about 2 people that both make well over the average income in their state. There is a difference in paying support just so they can live and paying support because the party making less feels they are entitled to what the other person has worked for. If the person with the greater income has hindered the ability of the other party to improve themselves, then I would expect parity, or something much closer. If the party making less chose to stop improving when they did, and especially if the other party was not in favor of that, then that person is where they are by their choice. There is no reason the other party should be penalized for their efforts to improve themselves while the lesser earning party basically gets rewarded for being a slouch.

The reasons for spousal support in MI are:
Michigan Alimony Factors | divorcenet.com

are these the same factors I posted way back in about the second or third response to this thread?

It could go either way.

sure it could but I suspect, especially since OP said both parties already agreed to no spousal support and have been negotiating from that position, the wife will likely have a radical change of heart and start fighting for some things that she otherwise was willing to give up.

 

[stealth2]

Stealth2, I never said I can't make in on $70. Like I said above, I've been doing OK the last 8 mths. My issue is that I have lowered my standard living considerably from what I had when we were married in order to be "OK" while she is enjoying the same lifestyle. She will probably have even better standard of living once the child support kicks in. There lies my dilemma...should I accept being "OK" because I actually have good financial planning and management while she continues to do much better than me, even with the "big house" expenses she could easily reduce... or should I ask for some spousal support to at least get the disparity in disposable cash closer to equity?

Oh for criminey's sake... Get over it. I bring in ~37k (CS included), while my ex makes in the mid-six figures. Whoop-de. I also have one in college (and I pay more towards it than his Dad does), with another going in just over a year. What needs to get done, gets done. So pardon me for having little sympathy for your horrendous plight. I would be embarrassed to be asking for alimony with your income.

FYI - I do not advocate alimony for ANYONE outside of some very specific situations. You don't fall into any of them.

 

[mistoffolees]

but it is often a decision of one party to not improve themselves. If that is the case, it weakens the claim of justification for absolute parity.

By that standard, we should wipe all the alimony laws off the books unless one spouse is permanently handicapped. After all, ANYONE could go to med school if they tried hard enough, right?

There's no evidence that he made any conscious decision not to improve himself. They were apparently both happy with their situation while married, so why should his be held against him. For that matter, she could have gone back to school and gotten 4 more degrees and bought her own company and worked 100 hours per week and made $300 K. All of that is hypothetical and irrelevant.

Unless there's evidence that one party is intentionally underemployed, any discussion of "what if's" is irrelevant.

 

[justalayman]

mistoffolees;2771855]By that standard, we should wipe all the alimony laws off the books unless one spouse is permanently handicapped. After all, ANYONE could go to med school if they tried hard enough, right?

that is not what I said. I said if one party unilaterally decides to halt their position and especially if it was in contrast to what the other party urged the first party to do, the position in life of the first party is due to their own choice. They should not be rewarded for that.

There's no evidence that he made any conscious decision not to improve himself.

You're right. None of that may apply to the situation at hand. I was simply stating reasons why alimony may not be justified. OP seems to be stuck at "she makes more than I do so I think I deserve some of it" and has failed to provide any other facts.

They were apparently both happy with their situation while married, so why should his be held against him.

Apparently they weren't happy or they wouldn't be divorcing. What disagreements there were is unkown.

For that matter, she could have gone back to school and gotten 4 more degrees and bought her own company and worked 100 hours per week and made $300 K. All of that is hypothetical and irrelevant.

No, it's not. A person who is inhibited from improving themselves, such as the often seen woman who becomes a "kept woman" at the insistence of the husband would surely be due something. But where the person simply said: "I don't have to work. I'm not going to work. S/He can pay for everything." I believe their claim that their former spouse has a duty to continue to support them is unjust and inequitable.

Unless there's evidence that one party is intentionally underemployed, any discussion of "what if's" is irrelevant.[

You will have to ask the OP. As I said, it appears the OP is stuck on "she makes more money than I do. She owes me enough so we have equal incomes", which, without the "what if's" and "why's" is nothing more than whining.

 

[Proserpina]

Oh for criminey's sake... Get over it. I bring in ~37k (CS included), while my ex makes in the mid-six figures. Whoop-de. I also have one in college (and I pay more towards it than his Dad does), with another going in just over a year. What needs to get done, gets done. So pardon me for having little sympathy for your horrendous plight. I would be embarrassed to be asking for alimony with your income.

FYI - I do not advocate alimony for ANYONE outside of some very specific situations. You don't fall into any of them.

*applause*

Specially the "FYI" part.

(Before Bali gets his tighties into a twist again and starts on us just because we happen to be Wimmin)

 

[midad8]

Oh for criminey's sake... Get over it. I bring in ~37k (CS included), while my ex makes in the mid-six figures. Whoop-de. I also have one in college (and I pay more towards it than his Dad does), with another going in just over a year. What needs to get done, gets done. So pardon me for having little sympathy for your horrendous plight. I would be embarrassed to be asking for alimony with your income.

FYI - I do not advocate alimony for ANYONE outside of some very specific situations. You don't fall into any of them.

Stealth2, I think you are real saint then, and I don't mean that sarcastically. Your ex is a poor excuse for a parent if he is sticking you with the majority of the college fees, especially with his income. I am not like him and take my responsibilities seriously, but I am also not as easy-going as you in terms of pursuing what's fair.

 

[midad8]

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.