|
| Friday, October 30, 2009 |
| Another reason to never marry |
The Wall Street Journal article: The New Art of Alimony tells the tale of several Massachusetts couples who learned the hard way that a failed marriage can cost you for the rest of your life...Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."
But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.
"This is insane," Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. "Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, 'My life went down the toilet, and you're doing good—so now I want some of your money'?"
[...]
In 2003, more than two decades after agreeing to end a 17-year marriage without alimony, Ms. Taylor was diagnosed with melanoma. She lost her publishing job when her employer of 38 years filed for bankruptcy protection. She'd recently surrendered her home to the bank and filed for personal bankruptcy to resolve $27,000 in medical and credit-card debts.
Mr. Taylor, meanwhile, had retired after 33 years working for the city of Boston, with an annual pension of $56,000.
In a September 2007 complaint filed in a state probate court, Ms. Taylor cited "changes in circumstances" and sued her former husband for support payments. She wrote that Mr. Taylor owned homes in Florida and Cape Cod and traveled to Europe.
In court, Mr. Taylor said he was sensitive to his former wife's plight, but that too much time had passed and that their divorce was final 25 years ago. His second wife, he said, had inherited the Cape Cod house from her father. Their trips were financed through home-swaps and reduced-fare tickets from his stepson, an airline employee.
In June 2008, a probate judge ordered Mr. Taylor to pay temporary alimony based on Ms. Taylor's "dire immediate need" and his "ability to pay." In its January final order, the court, citing Mr. Taylor's income from his pension, told Mr. Taylor to pay his ex-wife $400 per week for five years. The payment will eventually fall to about $250 a week for the rest of her life.
Virginia Connelly, Ms. Taylor's lawyer, says she can see how Mr. Taylor could find the situation unfair. But under Massachusetts law, she said, judges who want to keep a person off public services can turn to the ex-spouse.
In May, to seek relief from legal and other bills, Mr. Taylor declared personal bankruptcy. He is still responsible for supporting his ex-wife. "If she loses all her money, so what? She can just take me back to court," he says. "Somewhere along the line I should have peace of mind." |
| posted by Boston Gal @ 10:22 PM *
* Subscribe to Boston Gal's Open Wallet |
Links to this post:
|
| 28 Comments: |
-
That really sickens me. I've never heard of such a thing. I do know people who have been divorced at least a decade, are engaged but refuse to marry because they would be giving up their alimony. And these are people with well paying jobs! UGH.
-
Alimony should be two-way. If one spouse got "accustomed" to the cash, the other spouse surely got accustomed a few things too: homemaking, cleaning, laundry, cooking, companionship, sex.
How come one spouse gets enslaved for life after the marriage, and the other one walks scott free the very day that the divorce petition is filed?
See what these laws are doing to the marriage-rate in Massachusets (CDC data):
Massachusetts
Year : Marriage Rate (per 1000 population)
1990 : 7.9
1995 : 7.1
1999 : 6.2
2000 : 5.8
2001 : 6.2
2002 : 5.9
2003 : 5.6
See a trend? People think alimony hurts old men. What it's really hurting is the wedding prospects of future young women.
-
@ anonymous I don't think people who want to get married think about alimony or look up alimony laws and decide otherwise.
-
I agree that this sets a very bad precedent. It means a divorce is never really final, even if you split everything equally and don't ask for alimony you could end up paying it. I agree with you BG that marriage isn't all we think or hope it will be.
-
I'm really struck by the fact that she turned to bankruptcy to resolve just $27,000 in debt. The personal finance blogs are FILLED with stories of people who have, through hard work and sacrifice, dug themselves out of much bigger holes than that.
-
Appalling and just so wrong. Shame on Ms. Taylor, her lawyer, and that judge. Maybe this will prompt the state to set a statute of limitations? Bet the outcome would have been different in other states and they would have thrown the book at her.
If I were Mr. Taylor, I would take up residence in another country where I could not be found. Just until the melanoma runs its course.
This sets a dangerous precedent for other types of relationships. So could your 40-something kids sue you for support when they get into trouble?
-
The story is unfortunate and sad for all parties involved. This similar situation can happen to almost anyone. Life is not fair. It would be nice if they could find compassion, forgiveness, and peace within themselves. Life is too short. Move on.
But for these unfortunate incidents, there are happily married couples that we seldom seem to hear about. Yes its true. There are happily married couples that have enjoyed the bountiful fruits of silver and golden anniversaries. To be fortunate enough to have a life long companion that reciprocates love, compassion, understanding, and devotion is one of life's blessings.
-
This is the problem with the liberal mindset.
There is no sense of "personal accountability" nor "self reliance".
These laws were put on the books by liberal politicians voted in by a liberal constituency. The whole state has nobody to blame but themselves for allowing the situation to begin with.
-
@5th Anon: I'm VERY liberal and this disgusts me. It offends me that you would assume this incident stems from the "liberals". I know plenty of conservatives who live off of others and don't do anything to help themselves. And even more liberals who are self sufficient and successful. It has nothing to do with politics.
-
That's sad ... and I suspect we'll see more of this as states try to keep folks off their welfare roles.
Hmm .. wonder if the courts will go after the kids to support their mother now? (I'm assuming the kids are still around ... and where were they when their mom needed help?)
-
I'm a lawyer and I'm pretty sure I read recently that this decision was reversed on appeal, because once divorced, an ex-spouse is a "legal stranger" who owes no more obligation than anyone else to his or her ex.
-
If she worked for a publishing company for 38 yrs and she is now 64 yo, she probably has a decent income from social security. There are many people that are forced to live off of their SS because they didn't fund a retirement. Why should she be any different just because she used to be married? My guess is that the house she got in the divorce could have been paid off but she might have borrowed heavily from it to support a lifestyle.
-
Sure hope the decision was reversed and that word gets out about this woman. No doubt, she's out looking for the next person to sue. Who would want her on their property, in their workplace, etc.? Also hope Mr. Taylor got his expenses back in the appeal. Would serve her right if he sued her for all the emotional distress I'm sure this has caused him and his current family.
-
What a strange story! Awful. But I'd like to echo what DUDE said earlier: there are so many good long-term marriages that I know of: I see many around me in my own town. My own parents have been married for more than 50 years. My husband and I have been married for almost 20. Sure, there are ups and downs and stresses and all of that. But also such friendship and joy and constancy. To build a life together with mutual give and take and affection--what a lovely thing marriage can be.
-
There is a cheaper alternative, STAY MARRIED!
-
Sadly, the cost of an appeal is upwards of $20,000, if not $30,000. There was no appeal in this case. Further, appeals in the probate court in MA, almost always side with the woman/lower-earner. Mr. Taylor was also forced to pay some of his ex-wife's atty's fees. You will note that Mr. Taylor had to declare bankruptcy because of what happened to him.
If you are appalled by this case, please contact the organization fighting to change these barbaric laws: www.massalimonyreform.org.
Also, there is a new article in today's Metrowest Daily, singling out Sen. Cynthia Creem and Rep Alice Peisch, who support adding 2 words to the current awful statute ("and duration"), instead of a complete and much-needed overhaul to this system that treats women as though it is 1850.
Metrowest Daily: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1659494053/Update-sought-for-alimony-criteria-in-Massachusetts
-
i think that legally he has no obligation to pay for his ex wifes problems. the obligation is moral since they were married and all and had children together. this should count as something. i wonder if a pre nup would have worked??
-
... as though another reason were necessary!
-
I read about this article and was really blown away that the judge ordered Mr. Taylor to pay $1,600 a month for, indeed, a legal stranger.
I wrote about it on my blog: http://www.wellheeledblog.com/2009/11/02/art-alimony-support-spouce-25-years-divorce/
Most of the commenters are pretty outraged.
-
The part of this that bothers me most is this: "agreeing to end a 17-year marriage without alimony". An agreement was forged, through the divorce, that she would not receive alimony - wouldn't that agreement be binding? I guess MA allows the courts to change those agreements if it means putting less of a burden on the state?
I don't care who is to blame (the court, the state or either individual), it sickens me as well that this was allowed to happen. Very unfortunate.
-
i agree with Lazo. it disturbs me that the state would basically invalidate the contract they signed.
and for kenyantykoon
I am not sure what moral obligation he has.They were divorced longer than they were married. I hope he gets out of having to pay anything. she had more than enough time to work and make a new life unencumbered by anything he did. There is no way she is entitled to 40% of his pension.
-
"Another reason not to get married"--yeah if your entire life is centered around money. They have 3 children that is a legacy that no amount of money can buy.
-
FYI - I thought you might like this radio interview with the WSJ reporter and a family law historian from Florida. I heard it last night and was riveted.
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/11/til-death-does-he-pay
-
A lot of commenters didn't catch the basis for the decision, it is based on a MA law that is meant to keep people off the public dole. The ex wife was going to need public assistance otherwise, rather than make her the taxpayers burden the judge made it the ex-husband's burden. Would you rather your money was used to support her? I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I understand where the state is coming from.
-
I feel really sad for anyone avoiding marriage because they are so afraid to lose any money.
Folks, it's called a prenup. I've been happily married for years because 1. we had the money talk early and often, and 2. we have a prenup.
Plus, the tax benefits to marriage can be pretty sweet, depending on how your family rolls.
Oh, hey, and there's the whole "I have someone I love with me forever," which is an added bonus.
-
Miss M,
I don't agree with the decision. The person is essentially a stranger. Holding the exhusband of25 years liable for her is like you having to pay for your neighbor who moved away 25 years ago. The state is actually singling out a sinlge person for persecution. I sure hope this was overturned.
-
What was she doing for those 21 years while she was on her own, but before she got sick? Why was it OK for her to NOT put away anything into a retirement fund? She worked at one place for 38 years and has nothing but credit card and medical bills? I wonder how much of the $27K was credit cards and how much was medical bills...(I thought all Mass people were insured? Why did she have to surrender her home?) And he works for 33 years and has to give up a chunk of his retirement? That is absolutely galling. Without knowing the full story, it sounds like she mismanaged her financial situation and he married into a better one...what a mess.
-
Hmmm-...given the judges' reasoning here, why doesn't the judge just randomly pick someone off the street and make them liable for the ex-spouse's support?
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
That really sickens me. I've never heard of such a thing. I do know people who have been divorced at least a decade, are engaged but refuse to marry because they would be giving up their alimony. And these are people with well paying jobs! UGH.