Alimony- Outdated?

[Chris]

I was reading an article today in the paper which has really pissed me off. Maybe I am just not seeing it right but a Judge (a female one -no surprise - not that I am saying females don't make good judges but...) has orderd a guy to pay alimony even though the wife signed a Prenup waiving it!

When has the signing of a contract become null and void? If so, what is the purpose of prenups? Have they lost their legality? Forgive my ignorance but maybe alimony was set up in the 1830s when women didn't work and was also probably meant to discourage against divorce -would be my guess.

It is now 2005 and women work- women have achieved a good deal of "equality" with men. Is the system of alimony outdated?

I am in favor of Child support but this story has made me think twice about the purpose of alimony. If someone gets a divorce, they should be able to get their fat ass off the couch and get a JOB.

right?

Link

Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up
By David Weber
Thursday, December 30, 2004

In a possibly precedent-setting case, the state Appeals Court has ruled that an ex-wife is entitled to alimony even though she signed a prenuptial agreement waiving it.
Donna Austin was 37, and Craig Austin was 35 when they were married in May 1989, each for the second time. Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan.
The Appeals Court upheld the portion of the prenuptial that protected assets Craig Austin had acquired before the wedding. But it said Donna Austin's waiver of alimony was not reasonable at the time she and Craig Austin signed the document.
``It was unreasonable to expect that his spouse, who then had no assets and negligible earning capacity, would contribute to the marriage by raising his child and by supporting his ability to work outside the home, with no expectation of future support, no matter how long the marriage, and regardless whether she might never acquire assets of her own,'' Justice Fernande Duffly wrote in the court's opinion.
Craig Austin's attorney, Jacob Atwood, said he will appeal the decision. Atwood said Donna Austin benefitted greatly by receiving ``hundreds of thousands of dollars'' in the division of property assets at the end of the Sandwich couple's 12-year marriage.
``I think this decision flies in the teeth of the DeMatteo case,'' Atwood said, referring to a 2002 Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding prenuptial agreements except in cases where one of the marital parties was left with an extreme hardship.
But Donna Austin's attorney said, ``The court is saying that by waiving her right to alimony, she was essentially waiving her future rights, which was not a realistic thing to do.''

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: |Chris| I was reading an article today in the paper which has really pissed me off. Maybe I am just not seeing it right but a Judge (a female one -no surprise - not that I am saying females don't make good judges but...) has orderd a guy to pay alimony even though the wife signed a Prenup waiving it! When has the signing of a contract become null and void? If so, what is the purpose of prenups? Have they lost their legality? Forgive my ignorance but maybe alimony was set up in the 1830s when women didn't work and was also probably meant to discourage against divorce -would be my guess. It is now 2005 and women work- women have achieved a good deal of "equality" with men. Is the system of alimony outdated? I am in favor of Child support but this story has made me think twice about the purpose of alimony. If someone gets a divorce, they should be able to get their fat ass off the couch and get a JOB. right? Link Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up By David Weber Thursday, December 30, 2004 In a possibly precedent-setting case, the state Appeals Court has ruled that an ex-wife is entitled to alimony even though she signed a prenuptial agreement waiving it. Donna Austin was 37, and Craig Austin was 35 when they were married in May 1989, each for the second time. Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan. The Appeals Court upheld the portion of the prenuptial that protected assets Craig Austin had acquired before the wedding. But it said Donna Austin's waiver of alimony was not reasonable at the time she and Craig Austin signed the document. ``It was unreasonable to expect that his spouse, who then had no assets and negligible earning capacity, would contribute to the marriage by raising his child and by supporting his ability to work outside the home, with no expectation of future support, no matter how long the marriage, and regardless whether she might never acquire assets of her own,'' Justice Fernande Duffly wrote in the court's opinion. Craig Austin's attorney, Jacob Atwood, said he will appeal the decision. Atwood said Donna Austin benefitted greatly by receiving ``hundreds of thousands of dollars'' in the division of property assets at the end of the Sandwich couple's 12-year marriage. ``I think this decision flies in the teeth of the DeMatteo case,'' Atwood said, referring to a 2002 Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding prenuptial agreements except in cases where one of the marital parties was left with an extreme hardship. But Donna Austin's attorney said, ``The court is saying that by waiving her right to alimony, she was essentially waiving her future rights, which was not a realistic thing to do.''

Throwing out a prenup is actually pretty common in some states. I agree that all contracts are final once signed, but our law system is far beyond what you might call "corrupt".

[Chris]

I agree with prenups 100% because of gold digging whores but this is ludicrous.

Probably some feminist bitch judge.

[PatrickHenry]

I fail to see what entitles one individual to the income of his/her ex when divorced. People should get on with their lives and take responsibility for themselves. Alimony should be completely done away with for everyone, rich and poor alike. EXCEPT, if one has helped the other get a business going or a lucrative education by sacrificing. Like a sweetie who puts her man through med school, then gets dumped. That case would require compensation.

Child support is another matter entirely, and I do not comment.

[...Kate]

Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan. The Appeals Court upheld the portion of the prenuptial that protected assets Craig Austin had acquired before the wedding. But it said Donna Austin's waiver of alimony was not reasonable at the time she and Craig Austin signed the document

If this niggardly ex- had considered the nature of his *adhesion* contract, and set it up so the bethrothed could think about it, when she was not under pressure of a wedding ceremony happening *in two days* ... he probably wouldn't be paying alimony.

;-)

[Chris]

But... When did a signature not mean a signature?

In that case I am going to by me a new iPod Photo for about $500 and pay with my credit card, sign the receipt and then refuse to pay.

[...Kate]

you ever have a dispute with your insurance company?

a car dealer?

a seller of electronics?

Two words: adhesion contract.

If it's a "take it or leave it" proposition, the non-dominant party has some "wiggle room" on the signature thing.

[Chris]

OK.

If thats how you want to see it -its no sweat off my balls. I just saw this and had a instant reaction. Obviously the article doesnt give enough info, as it is the Herald. We were just talking about this at work and a co-worker said it was a female judge. I don't even know that for a fact -admittedly.

Didn't mean to come across as a jackass. Sorry.

[...Kate]

Nice to meet you, Chris.

I think most people would miss the importance of the two days before marriage point. I just happen to know about it because, well because, there was a chance in one of my prior lives, that I might have signed one. And it's pretty clear out there, if you look it up, that the "needy" spouse has to have some chance to think it over for a decent amount of time, and two days isn't much time, not with that wedding gown hanging in the closet and the wedding cake on order and the invitations going out. If you want one to stick, you've got to plan ahead a little bit more than that. LOL.

As far as ones that "worked" ... I'm thinking of the lovely Anna Nicole and her 90 year old paramour. Now that's a prenup that makes sense and should stick. That's a gold digger.

Too bad love has been reduced to such depths.

[Starboy]

The groom was pretty sleazy springing the prenupt two days before the wedding. But why wasn't this a big red flag for the bride? So she signs anyway? And what was the duress? That she might not get to play princess for a day? So now she gets to go back on what she agreed to?

Someone on this board posted something that I thought was very interesting regarding marriage. I can't remember who it was. They said something to the effect that, ‘Any contract that required you to have the same feelings about someone until you died was a fools bargain and only a fool would enter into it.’

Starboy

[...Kate]

Well, we both know that marriage is lots of hard work.

Romance, eh?

Well, what's a contract anyway? What does the bride give up to "get" the prize husband, with his considerable strings? Her right to marry someone else? Her purity? Her good name and honor? Who knows?

I don't live in that world. I chose a partner who is a partner. I think an uneven relationship, in terms of what both parties bring to the marriage, is a recipe for disaster. ... at least if you're thinking about living with the likes of me.

[Starboy]

Quote by: ...Kate Well, what's a contract anyway? What does the bride give up to "get" the prize husband, with his considerable strings? Her right to marry someone else? Her purity? Her good name and honor? Who knows?

I always went by the rule that the contract is just a reminder as to what the parties agreed to. But that if all parties were not to be trusted then there was no point in going ahead with it unless the intent was to see it broken. Contracts do not make people into honerable participants. That woman getting a prenupt two days before the wedding should have walked. Unless she was already preparing for divorce as she said 'I do'.

Starboy

[Vee]

Is that Judge incorrect? Depends on other factors in the case. However on the basis we have there - yes.

Is Alimony outdated? - no.

You should still have to pay for the raising of your child.

[...Kate]

And why did Romeo present the paper work? Wasn't he looking forward to a divorce himself?

You bring up a good point I forgot to mention. You can't use the word "divorce" in your prenups ... the idea is that they are set up to preserve marriage, so to say you're doing it in case of divorce doesn't make any sense at all.

And you are right as rain on that point.

Now, how do you put together a prenup without using the word "divorce"?

[Starboy]

Quote by: ...Kate And why did Romeo present the paper work? Wasn't he looking forward to a divorce himself?

Maybe he was, but so what? She did not have to agree to it. I know adhesion was argued but what was the unequal barganing power? What was the duress that forced her to agree to both the prenupt and the marriage? Were the groom’s parents there with shotguns?

If I were the groom I would argue breach of contract since the entry into the marriage was contingent on her agreement to the prenupt. If she had not signed then he would not have married. I would argue for a declaration of the original marriage as being immaterial since she did not honor the prenupt upon which the marriage was contingent. I’m not a lawyer and perhaps this is a nonsense claim but hey, it’s only Volconvo.

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

It appears to me that this argument is hinging on putting the woman into the "dumb broad" category, where she is assumed to be so bamboozled by this wedding that she has become too stupid to see a raw deal when she is given one. I don't care if it's two MINUTES before the wedding, if the guy springs a bad deal on her, it's HER responsibility to say "whoa, slow down Trump. I don't like the looks of this and considering your timing I don't think this 'sacred union' is such a hot idea."

In this case, it just looks like she is trading her hard-won empowerment for some cold cash and doesn't mind looking like either an avaricious swine or a gullible twit.
So what happened to the term "binding contract" anyway, and what happened to "equality" of the sexes? I strongly doubt any judge would side with a man if he presented the exact same case.

[...Kate]

http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/pr...up_USA-main_d1

Here's a do-it-yourself pre-nuptial agreement.

I'm still working on the man who got alimony even though he signed one of those love notes. lol

[...Kate]

I'mnot finding anything about the men who got alimony, even though they signed a prenuptial agreement, but I did find this discussion of how CEO wives should prepare for the day their hubby becomes their ex-

These issues came into focus for me as I marveled at the extraordinary pay package unveiled last week for former GE executive Gary Wendt, the new boss at Conseco, whose high-profile divorce in 1997 became a test for the worth of a dutiful corporate wife. Some would say the position pays quite well, thank you. Lorna Wendt got $ 20 million in parting. Yet that's barely 15% of her estimate of her husband's net worth at the time. She has appealed and seeks an additional $ 35 million. If that sounds greedy, consider her husband's five-year deal to serve as CEO of this beleaguered insurance company. Wendt landed a $ 45 million signing bonus and a guaranteed bonus of up to $ 50 million in two years--although he did forfeit some GE incentive money. He will also be getting stock, stock options and, oh yeah, a salary of many millions more. His ex will get none of it. As noted, Lorna Wendt won't go begging. But the man she spent 32 years with is now, just a few years removed, infinitely more wealthy than she. Fair? We could argue that all day. Clearly, though, the Wendt case shows how women fall behind and points up their greater need to be prepared. Step one is to know the family finances. "Knowledge is power," says lawyer Sarah Oldham, who represents Lorna Wendt. "If you know what's there, you can have input on how it gets spent." And you won't feel helpless in the event of divorce or death. Get a handle on your household income, savings and investments--and know where the records are. Also, make certain your husband is adequately insured and that you are the beneficiary.

http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/d/Pressroom/time.html

[Chris]

Quote by: ...Kate Nice to meet you, Chris. ... Too bad love has been reduced to such depths.

Nice meeting you too.

And I agree 100%

[Chris]

Quote by: Vee Is that Judge incorrect? Depends on other factors in the case. However on the basis we have there - yes. Is Alimony outdated? - no. You should still have to pay for the raising of your child.

Why isn't alimony outdated? I guess that is my primary question and reason for starting this thread -sorry.

And As I said, Child support payments should remain in force. Alimony payments may be outdated in my opinion.