Divorce law really screwed this guy.

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: lupi
that's why my wife has a virtual bum for an uncle; required divorce payments pretty much would have taken all of his salary so he quit and lives with the parents doing nothing. Hard to collect any money on $0 earned.

he may be in for a surprise when his social security starts up.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: BehindEnemyLines

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Wow, I don't think I'll ever want to get married, especially living in WA where the man gets fucked no matter what.

Is there any literature for this? I am not aware of WA divorce laws.

Not sure, but I have friends that have gone through the divorce system only to get screwed by our courts. It's a very woman friendly state.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Wow, I don't think I'll ever want to get married, especially living in WA where the man gets fucked no matter what.

No you aren't understanding...you aren't getting fucked no matter what...it's a long period of not at all followed by in the ass when she's on her way out.

Then you can enjoy a once a month anal probe she uses to see what she can drain out of you.

 

[lifeobry]

Stuff of nightmares indeed.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
Stuff of nightmares indeed.

indeed

 

[n7]

This is uneffingbelievable.

Unreal.

:|

 

[yh125d]

Absolutely sickening


Single 4 lyfe

 

[lizardboy]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Baked
Don't marry, problem solved. Live together until you get sick of each other, then separate w/o all the divorce BS.

In a lot of places, most IIRC, you still become common law after a period of time and your "spouse" can still come after you.

KT

Varies from state to state, in Texas you have to "hold yourself out as married"...pretty high threshold to cross. As the TX Sup Ct said, cohabitation and a sexual relationship does not a marriage make.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Before they seized my passport I'd cash out everything I had and settle down in some far away land where they could never get me.

This.

 

[magreen]

How many states in the US are like this?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: silverpig
Before they seized my passport I'd cash out everything I had and settle down in some far away land where they could never get me.

This.

I don't really know why you said "this". You'll never have to worry about getting divorced, let along married...

 

[91TTZ]

Laws like this are destroying marriage. This is why I won't get married (yet I'll date the same woman for 11 years).

 

[imported_Champ]

:music:It would have been cheaper
to keep her around
It would have been better to let her keep you down
Living with a crazy wife beats an empty bank account
It would have been cheaper to keep her around
:music:

 

[NoShangriLa]

I been there women aren't cheap, and they get even more expensive when you breakup.

Ps. I aslo found out that women can quit their job, and claim alimony support due to stress and un able to work (no kids involed). Women could also wait till you make more money at your job then they go to court to get larger alimony support and it is retro to the day of separation.

<--- walked away from everything becasue women lies and the law is on their side.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

How can a woman go from loving a man to willfully destroying his life?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
How can a woman go from loving a man to willfully destroying his life?

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"...

Seeing their old loves suffer seems to be a favorite pastime of the fairer sex.

Sometimes the exes deserve it, but sometimes they don't. Either way, I think that alimony payments should only be used to get someone back on their feet, not to be a form of welfare.

What's especially bizarre is that if a man is paying alimony and loses his job, the payment requirement does not change, and yet if there is a raise, the alimony requirement increases. If the stated purpose is to maintain the standard of living, then why the discrepancy? If the couple had remained together, their combined salary would have tracked both events; when one partner loses a job, they both have to make sacrifices, and when one partner gets a raise, both benefit. You can't pick and choose whichever situation most benefits one of the people...that's not justice.

And I really don't understand how someone can get remarried and still collect alimony.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
How can a woman go from loving a man to willfully destroying his life?

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"...

Seeing their old loves suffer seems to be a favorite pastime of the fairer sex.

Sometimes the exes deserve it, but sometimes they don't. Either way, I think that alimony payments should only be used to get someone back on their feet, not to be a form of welfare.

What's especially bizarre is that if a man is paying alimony and loses his job, the payment requirement does not change, and yet if there is a raise, the alimony requirement increases. If the stated purpose is to maintain the standard of living, then why the discrepancy? If the couple had remained together, their combined salary would have tracked both events; when one partner loses a job, they both have to make sacrifices, and when one partner gets a raise, both benefit. You can't pick and choose whichever situation most benefits one of the people...that's not justice.

And I really don't understand how someone can get remarried and still collect alimony.

There were a hot 26-27 year old chick that I met at a bbq this past summer (she was looking for a man). She has 2 kids, each with a different man, and she ended up getting a house from each of the ex (found out from my buddy, and avoided her the rest of the night). The beoch was looking to get a third house at the party. And, she told me that she is independly wealthy, doesn't have to work and, and own 2 houses.

 

[Doggiedog]

Damn, I thought I got fked with my divorce. My ex can make more than I can yet chooses to work less than full time but I still have to pay her 20% of my net take home in alimony (on top of child support). Unreal!

 

[JTsyo]

What doesn't make sense to me is that the law says they are used to the lifestyle so he has to pay to maintain it but I doubt it requires her to go over and wash his clothes and prepare food. Why is only the financial factors considered?

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
What doesn't make sense to me is that the law says they are used to the lifestyle so he has to pay to maintain it but I doubt it requires her to go over and wash his clothes and prepare food. Why is only the financial factors considered?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but do you honestly believe, after reading that article, that she did any of those things while they were married? Not bloody likely.

KT

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
What doesn't make sense to me is that the law says they are used to the lifestyle so he has to pay to maintain it but I doubt it requires her to go over and wash his clothes and prepare food. Why is only the financial factors considered?

It looks like law-makers decided, in their infinite wisdom, to re-write the laws and create a formula for alimony instead of leaving things up to the discretion of a court. Of course, it looks like this case, the court also fucked up big time.

 

[SunnyD]

Alimony should only total whatever is required for the disgruntled spouse to make minimum wage, with respect to their current salary. Likewise, if an alimony payment would cause the paying spouse to fall under minimum wage income, then no payment should be required.

Hence - woman sues man. Man makes 90k, she gets minimum wage. If she works and makes > minimum wage, she gets nothing. If she doesn't work, she gets minimum wage from man. If she works and makes < minimum wage, man pays alimony = to different wife's wage - minimum wage.

Contrary, man makes 5k a year, or < minimum wage. Woman gets nothing.

Also, if deemed or has shown capability to earn at least minimum wage, man owes woman nothing in alimony.

Child support is another story, however I feel that if one individual contributes > 50% of support for a child, they should have custody of the child unless absolutely proven that it would harm the child to be with that parent in some way. Also, child support should be in the form of a court appointed trust for the child, allowing oversight for improper usage.

But again, that all makes WAY too much sense and hence will never happen with current legal systems.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Alimony should only total whatever is required for the disgruntled spouse to make minimum wage, with respect to their current salary. Likewise, if an alimony payment would cause the paying spouse to fall under minimum wage income, then no payment should be required.

Hence - woman sues man. Man makes 90k, she gets minimum wage. If she works and makes > minimum wage, she gets nothing. If she doesn't work, she gets minimum wage from man. If she works and makes < minimum wage, man pays alimony = to different wife's wage - minimum wage.

Contrary, man makes 5k a year, or < minimum wage. Woman gets nothing.

Also, if deemed or has shown capability to earn at least minimum wage, man owes woman nothing in alimony.

Child support is another story, however I feel that if one individual contributes > 50% of support for a child, they should have custody of the child unless absolutely proven that it would harm the child to be with that parent in some way. Also, child support should be in the form of a court appointed trust for the child, allowing oversight for improper usage.

But again, that all makes WAY too much sense and hence will never happen with current legal systems.

WTF is a spouse required for another's livlihood (discounting your view that it's always man supporting woman). The way this works now is many times the alimonied spouse elects to play this system...many work under the table or enter relationships without disclosing. We have had a few mortgages with two people that have openly stated they are lovers but never intend to married or claim they are anything but business partners/roomies due to fat alimony checks coming in.