Ha! Check this out:
A Walworth County woman will have to pay her ex-husband $2,000 a month for the next 10 years, even though he earns $85,000 a year, so that he can continue living the opulent lifestyle the couple shared when they were married, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled.
I think I've heard it all now! ;-)
What's wrong with that? The wife was the high income earner.
Posted by: PatatrooperJJ | May 30, 2008 at 09:52 AM
JJ --
You just don't see it happening that way that often!
Posted by: FMF | May 30, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Child support is one thing, but this whole "right to keep living the lifestyle I'm accustomed to" is a load of shit. When else does this ever come into play in life? Get a better job, then you can keep living your prefered lifestyle.
Posted by: David | May 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Wow, so the double standard may be going away. Sweet!
Posted by: Lazy Man and Money | May 30, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Women everywhere should celebrate- they are now one step closer to equality. Next step, fighting on the front lines!
Posted by: dwr | May 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Aw man I should have done that to my ex!
Posted by: BigBoy | May 30, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The "right to a lifestyle" thing does have it's place. If you have a family, where one spouse works, and the other is completely dependent (often times because they are a stay-at-home-parent), when divorce strikes, it is -extremely- difficult for the non-working spouse to get back into the work force. I personally believe that there should be some equality.
However, ten years is total crap. You can start and complete two bachelors, and a masters degree in that time. Get a job.
Posted by: George | May 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Y'know, I might have said that "110,000 is significantly different than 85,000"... until you said "Wisconsin".
Posted by: K | May 30, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Solution...don't get married or have kids. Sorry ladies...
Posted by: DaMan | May 30, 2008 at 02:48 PM
The "right to assume the previous lifestyle" is in the Wisconsin statutes. What should really happen to resolve these issues is for Wisconsin to no longer be a marital property state, set reasonable child support orders (that can't be used to pay your legal bills) and have everyone getting married understand the full legal ramifications of being married. All these rulings do is slam marriage. As a payer of child support (which will be for 17.5 years for one child), I think it's funny to listen to women complain when they have to pay.
As the gentleman above states...listen up men...Don't get married and don't have kids. Child support has become the modern alimony. Prenuptial agreements are mandatory in todays society (in Wisconsin and all other states). Remember...in Wisconsin...Marriage is a legal contract between you, your lady and the state of Wisconsin. This gives the state the right to dig deeply into your pocket book or retirement and pull out the money. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
To the ladies...if you can't find a gentleman who will commit (get married) think about it. Why is this? Men are getting smart about marriage and kids.
Posted by: | May 30, 2008 at 03:20 PM
The "right to assume the previous lifestyle" is in the Wisconsin statutes. What should really happen to resolve these issues is for Wisconsin to no longer be a marital property state, set reasonable child support orders (that can't be used to pay your legal bills) and have everyone getting married understand the full legal ramifications of being married. All these rulings do is slam marriage. As a payer of child support (which will be for 17.5 years for one child), I think it's funny to listen to women complain when they have to pay.
As the gentleman above states...listen up men...Don't get married and don't have kids. Child support has become the modern alimony. Prenuptial agreements are mandatory in todays society (in Wisconsin and all other states). Remember...in Wisconsin...Marriage is a legal contract between you, your lady and the state of Wisconsin. This gives the state the right to dig deeply into your pocket book or retirement and pull out the money. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
To the ladies...if you can't find a gentleman who will commit (get married) think about it. Why is this? Men are getting smart about marriage and kids.
Posted by: DLLawman | May 30, 2008 at 03:21 PM
I totally support spousal alimony for men and women. Even with no kids in the picture, I can understand if one spouse makes significantly less than the other (no matter which) that he/she should be entitled to some equality after a divorce.
Both partners get used to a JOINT income in marriage. It doesn't matter who makes more. A man might feel comfortable taking a non-profit job he loves because his attorney wife brings home a big paycheck already. A wife might volunteer full time because her business owner husband makes plenty.
Interesting, I didn't realize courts cared about making it THAT even though; their incomes seem pretty comparable. I've never heard of a woman being awarded exactly HALF her ex-husband's income in alimony (child support not included).
Posted by: Meg | May 30, 2008 at 03:56 PM
The phrase "cheese brokerage" made me laugh. The the hurf-durf-women-can-make-money-now? stuff not so much.
Posted by: guinness416 | May 30, 2008 at 04:14 PM
I can understand spousal's support for a small time frame if one spouse was a stay at home spouse, so that they have time to find a job or learn work skills needed to find a job, but I don't understand it when both worked during the marriage. I guess I am just too damn self sufficient, which by the way, my husband loves about me. But then again, we have become a greedy and less responsible society.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 30, 2008 at 04:18 PM
As a woman who earns significantly more than her other half, I LOVE IT. I think it's a sign of equality and progress, we can't pick and choose when we want to be equal and when we don't. In my circle of friends most of the women out earn their spouses, it's a direct result of women going to college in greater numbers than men now. This is something we're going to see a lot more of. That being said, alimony when both partners worked throughout the marriage makes me a bit uneasy. There are the cases where one partner sacrifices career for marriage, and hence needs support to rejoin the career path. My parents are currently divorcing after 33 years together, my mom worked throughout that time but my dad is going to have to pay her loads of alimony FOR LIFE. Neither are going to have a lifestyle similar to when they were married, two households are more expensive than one. Plus my mom moved from low cost of living virginia to Los Angeles, 100% of his money wouldn't give her the same lifestyle here. I definitely feel for my dad, being saddled with a $2k a month debt that will never go away.
Posted by: Melissa | May 30, 2008 at 04:44 PM
I think it is ridiculous regardless of who earns more money. I agree with George that the "lifestyle" support makes sense if one spouse is a stay-at-home mom/dad. OK, maybe if one person is a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and another is a part-time secretary, there may be some discussion. But not in cases like this one.
The amount seems to be unfair to her. Part of the reason for their lifestyle was two incomes and shared expenses. She cannot maintain the same lifestyle after the divorce either. $2000 a month is almost half of the extra 55K she earns, considerably more than half if you consider taxes. So she does a job that requires higher level of skills, maybe more stressful job than he does, yet ends up with less money than than he does. A CEO of a Fortune 500 company isn't usually required to give an ex-spouse more than half of the extra money (after taxes) he earns. How is this amount fair?
I think that the judges in this case really wanted to stick it to a woman. Even if it is a law in Wisconsin, the amount of money has to make sense.
As one lawyer on TV told "in this age if you marry without an iron-clad prenuptual agreement you don't need a lawyer, you need a psychiatrist". The agreement has to spell out everything - every item, everything they buy together, spousal support, credit cards taken in individual names. Better yet - if a couple doesn't plan on having kids, it seems easier to just live together with a simple "cohabitation agreement" and no shared accounts.
Posted by: kitty | May 31, 2008 at 07:02 PM
I don't know anything about marital laws etc of Wisconsin.
I just feel that this guy is not a "gentleman!"
Posted by: fathersez | June 01, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Sure, the wife's income was higher, but it doesn't sound like that guy is hurting! Plus, they have no kids. I would understand if she had to do that for the first year or two if he was in a bad financial situation, but TEN YEARS? That is so ridiculous.
Posted by: Emily @ Taking Charge | June 02, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Just a clarification: Alimony is taxed to the person who is receiving the alimony, not the person paying the alimony. So, it actually reduces the ex-wife's income and increases the ex-husband's income in this case.
Child support is taxed to the person paying it, not the person receiving it. Just another case of why you need competent divorce attorneys that are knowledgeable in tax law when you get a divorce.
Posted by: Kimberly DeCarrera | June 03, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Just a clarification: Alimony is taxed to the person who is receiving the alimony, not the person paying the alimony. So, it actually reduces the ex-wife's income and increases the ex-husband's income in this case.
Child support is taxed to the person paying it, not the person receiving it. Just another case of why you need competent divorce attorneys that are knowledgeable in tax law when you get a divorce.
Posted by: Kimberly DeCarrera | June 03, 2008 at 01:10 PM