Everett Collection
The nature of marriage has changed dramatically over the decades. Women now make up almost half of the American work force. But alimony, a concept enshrined in ancient law, has remained remarkably constant. Now, the idea that a husband should continue to support his wife forever, even after the demise of their marriage—long a bedrock of divorce law—is being called into question. Pressures are mounting to change a practice that some see as outdated and unfair. --Wall Street Journal
The story that unfolds in this article is perfect example of alimony and the use of plain English, and how it gets distorted for reasons unfathomable.
In their 1982 divorce agreement, Paul and Theresa Taylor agreed 'to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.' A Massachusetts judge recently ordered Mr. Taylor, to make payments to his ex-wife. (Wall Street Journal)
Brenda Caggiano, a retired first-grade teacher, pays weekly alimony to her ex-husband. She says she lives pension-check-to-pension-check. (Wall Street Journal)
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."
That is a direct quote from the decree of divorce. Both the husband and the wife agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony." Now hold that thought, because it seems to me that point is direct and to the point. These two parties are signing a divorce decree and agreeing to a distribution of property and they are saying in writing that there will be no future claim for alimony, there will be no claim for alimony based on present circumstances and there'll be no claim for alimony based on the past. Continuing, from the Journal article:
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.
I thought they agreed there would be no claim for alimony based on the past, present or future. They both agreed to that. But Ms. Taylor, who has not done as well as Mr. Taylor, is back, and because she has not done well, she feels that even though he's remarried, he ought to pay her $400 a week, which the court ordered him to do.
The problem with this decision is that it significantly cuts into the money which Mr. Taylor has from his pension to enjoy his new wife and to live their life together.
How can it be that you can enter into a decree of divorce in which you agree that there will be no claim for alimony and come back over a quarter century later and make a claim for alimony?
In their 1982 divorce agreement, Paul and Theresa Taylor agreed 'to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.' A Massachusetts judge recently ordered Mr. Taylor, to make payments to his ex-wife. (Wall Street Journal)
For purposes of disclosure: I am married. Never been divorced, have no bitter ex-wife and no personal ax to grind. It's a matter of fairness and integrity.
I don't understand, in cases like this, why a court simply does not say to these two people --without any whereas and therefore and heretofore and all that hoo-ha-- Mr. and Mrs. Taylor: Let me read you from your decree of divorce granted in 1982, 27 years ago, signed by you both. You agreed that there would be no claim for alimony, past, present or future. Did you sign that decree, Mrs. Taylor?
"Yes, you're Honor."
"Did you sign that decree, Mr. Taylor."
"Yes, you're Honor."
"Then your case, Mrs. Taylor, is without merit. You have signed away your right in this 1982 decree of divorce to make any future claim against your ex-husband. Goodbye."
Why don't we do that?
Maybe one reason is we have too many damned lawyers who can figure out that a comma's in the wrong place, or you didn't say, "Mother, may I," or you didn't sign the document with a blue pen, or stand on your head and spit wooden nickels, etc."
It's as clear as the nose on your face. These two people signed an agreement agreeing that neither would ask the other for alimony ever, end of discussion, and a judge oughtta be able to say to these two, "Your circumstances may have changed, Mrs. Taylor. We're sorry you're in bad straights. Mr. Taylor, we're happy your second marriage is working well. In any event, you have no business with this court because the two of you agreed not to make any claim 27 years ago."
Please tell me, if you're a lawyer, why a judge can't say that to the Mr. and Mrs. Taylors of the world when they come in with a case like this. This matter is not even subject to interpretation. There is no interpretation. I defy any lawyer to give me an interpretation of the line in quotes in this story in the Wall Street Journal that the two parties agreed to "waive any right to past, present or future alimony."
If you're a lawyer or a linguist or an English professor, can you explain to me where the wiggle room is in that statement? The two parties agreed to "waive any right to past, present or future alimony."
How can that mean anything but, "You don't have a case, Mrs. Taylor," and yet the court awarded this woman a $400 a week alimony payment out of this man's pension.
How in Heaven's name can that be seen as justice or fair?
Brenda Caggiano, a retired first-grade teacher, pays weekly alimony to her ex-husband. She says she lives pension-check-to-pension-check. (Wall Street Journal)
If you're going to award her the alimony, you should charge her with perjuring herself when she signed the divorce decree in 1982 because she obviously lied under oath. She couldn't have meant it when she said she'd make no future claim because here she is now making a future.
Somebody is quoted in this article as saying, "If you wanna get married, marry an emotional adult in the right state with a pre-nup, or accept potential liability for the rest of your life."
Is that what has become of a marriage and its dissolution? No matter what agreement we sign, unless we have an iron clad pre-nup we're forever at risk from people who can't keep their word, even by dint of a legal document? Is there even a legal document that can absolutely protect you in a situation like this?
I don't know why we can't clean this nonsense up. Well, yes I do know why: We have too damn many trial lawyers in this country who file suits with no merit or find ways to re-open cases like this when there is no legitimate reason to re-open the case.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Comments
This is precisely the reason that the US new-Marriage Rate has been declining non-stop since 1971. Who in his right mind would want to sign up to this kind of open-ended legal liability?
It's bad enough that you get taken to the cleaners the first time wifey cheats & runs off with Eduardo the Bartender (note: 70% of divorces are now filed by wives). But then to have her come back 27 years after the original divorce for another kick at the can? Priceless.
It's like Nightmare on Elmstreet movies where no matter if you kill Freddy Krueger; he just keeps coming back.
Marriage really is a suckers-deal now.
Bruce you asked the question and your answer that there are too many lawyers is certainly true. Permanent alimony and family law is a national conspiracy created by the legal profession to gain access to the lifelong assets of Americans and to keep them enslaved to the courts until they die so that that access can be maintained. It is nothing less than a criminal enterprise and that is the "big" story that the media should be looking into and the horror that the public, especially young men, need to be educated about. The Family Law Bar is an organization that is completely unregulated by any outside entity. They make up their own rules and destroy the lives of innocent people with impunity and judicial immunity. It is a mafia in every sense of the word.
right on.
Bob - I had an interesting talk with my neighbor about trial lawyers (and he's an attorney). He says I should write about it (I write for the local paper here, too). It almost seems overwhelming. It's not the first time I've heard this business about trial lawyers and what I hear turns my stomach. Matters like this story, the cost of frivolous lawsuits and state bar associations refusing to take a stand for reform. My father-in-law, in medicine, talks about a medical community that always has to watch its back because you never know when that lawsuit is coming, hence, costly insurance, mounds of time-consuming paperwork, and unnecessary medical tests just to protect your livelihood. I don't know if such attorneys are "criminals" as my neighbor suggests, but some of them sure seem to make life more difficult, more frustrating and certainly more expensive than it oughtta be. The law is great; some lawyers, not so much.
The alimony laws are out of date and outrageous. We all need to act so our children can grow up in a world without fear of marriage and "pre-nups". GO TO WWW.MASSALIMONYREFORM.ORG, join and write your state reps to get House Bill 1785 out of committee and up for a vote. We need to stop complaining and do something!
In massachusetts, things are about as bad as can be. AND there is a huge reform movement that has made a lot of progress trying to move things into the 20th century, because they are still in the 19th century.
If you want to see what's going on in MA, please visit the amazing website of the amazing organizaiton, Mass Alimony Reform, www.massalimonyreform.org, and find out how you can help change these dreadful laws. You CAN make a difference!
If you know anyone who lives in Newton, MA, please have them get in touch with their state senator, a practicing divorce attorney, Sen. Cynthia Creem, and ask her to push through genuine reform, not the piece of crap bill she supports, which would add two words to the current 19th century law.
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us Telephone: (617) 722-1639
I currently reside here in Houston area.My husband& I are from MA. My husband pays his x large amt alimony to someone who chose to get out of a 20+yr marriage because she didn't live him anymore-she had a new live interest. She has been living with this man for 4 years and has been engaged to him for over 2 yrs but won't officially get married because she gets alimony. She only thought of him as a paycheck during the marriage and is still allowed to use him as her meal ticket. My husband raised her son as his own and had another child together who are both now grown & married. My husband is supporting 2 healthy working adults when he has had a heartattack 2 years ago and had to have another heart surgery last year. She has 2 brand new expensive vehicles of her own, purchased a new home with her fiancée received 1/2 my husbands 401k,55% of his pension,1/2 retirement
received over 1/2 the proceeds of sale of the house. Alimony needs to stop to end this greed that people are allowed to
Use other people like some use the welfare system. It is morally not right that this woman is collecting alimony engaged to another man but won't officially get married because now that couple collects a third paycheck when my husband worked to EARN that money. We HAVE to count on overtime(which has become scarce) to live on to make sure we can pay our bills and her alimony. If she doesn't love him anymore and wants to go on with her life with another man than she should not be allowed to keep using him as her never ending cash cow! What happened to morals?these archaic laws need to change! Poor Mr Taylor- that is so NOT right he has to pay his x after all these years. We deserve to live our lives together and keep the money WE EARN, if she NEEDS these luxuries let her go work a 2nd job to earn it! I was a single mother of 4 struggling to survive waived my right to alimony-I wouldn't expect my x to support me even though I worked 3 jobs to support him so he could go to school F/T!
The BBA is also thinking about Alimony post-Pierce, and are having a meeting at their HQ next week to discuss it (more info on their website).
Hopefully they don't come up with another two-word token bill recommendation.
Marriage is a sucker's deal for you boys. Tough luck boys - should've read the contract.
ladies are smarter than you and we got all your money. It's what we deserve.
Joyce - That is the problem with marriage: there is no contract! You sign a blank piece of paper (the marriage certificate) and the "laws" behind that certificate keep changing from decade to decade.
There are people who get married under one set of rules (e.g. fault-only divorce) and then get divorced 20 years later under a completely different system (e.g. no-fault divorce where even an adultering spouse can get alimony). These folks never "signed up" for such a deal. The deal was put on top of their old signature decades later.
So your argument "should have read the contract" is plain wrong. There is no contract. Just whimsical ever changing laws legislated from the bench (like Pierce-vs-Pierce, Taylor-vs-Taylor) or by self interested legislators who are often divorce lawyers themselves.
Anybody who is contemplating divorce better get an attorney that has the inside edge or face a lifetime of litigation and frustration. My attorney was not a bad attorney he just didn’t have the inside edge like my ex-wife’s attorney had. Believe me when I tell you some attorneys have the inside edge! There should be an investigation on some of the decisions made by Probate Courts all one must do is look. You will find that the same attorneys that get judgments that are unfair for alimony or for limited alimony the same attorneys always win it’s not because they are great attorneys it they have the inside edge! They are able to make deals with judges and always win no matter what. These attorneys and judges live work and belong to the same organizations Probate Courts in Massachusetts are Corrupt to the core!
It seems the name of the game in MA in regards to alimony and divorce in general, is to keep the laws as vague and open ended as possible, keep divorce as contested as possible, so as to allow divorce lawyers and the MA family courts to drain the divorcing couples assets to the maximum. The higher earning spouse gets punished not matter what, while the other spouse feeds financially off the other. We need HB1785 to stop this corrupt and greedy legal system from their continued destruction of people lives. If the alimony laws are were standardized and alimony was easy calculated (if awarded) via a formula, judges would have little discretion, and divorces cases would be processes much more quickly and efficiently. Divorce would be much less confrontational, lawyers could process more cases (spend less time with client cases), and judges would have less workload and stress.
It seems the name of the game in MA in regards to alimony and divorce in general, is to keep the laws as vague and open ended as possible, keep divorce as contested as possible, so as to allow divorce lawyers and the MA family courts to drain the divorcing couples assets to the maximum. The higher earning spouse gets punished not matter what, while the other spouse feeds financially off the other. We need HB1785 to stop this corrupt and greedy legal system from their continued destruction of people lives. If the alimony laws are were standardized and alimony was easy calculated (if awarded) via a formula, judges would have little discretion, and divorces cases would be processes much more quickly and efficiently. Divorce would be much less confrontational, lawyers could process more cases (spend less time with client cases), and judges would have less workload and stress.
Bruce - Happy 2008!
No I didn't do any time travel this morning. I am referring to the latest US Marriage Rate statistic, this time with 2008 data, released by the National Marriage Project last month.
In one year alone, 2007-->2008, the US marriage rate went down from 39.2 to 37.4. Almost two basis points in only one year! Put this in perspective of the rate back in 1970 of 76.5. The decline was edging along at an average speed of 1 basis-point/year these last four decades. Now it is gathering steam with 2 basis-points/year.
The Marriage Strike has now passed the halfway mark. Half the women who would have otherwise hitched husbands back in 1970 WILL NOT, statistically speaking, find any husbands 2008 onwards. The Marriage Strike is not only alive and well, it is roaring on like the great Niagara Falls !!!!!!
The year by year chart of the ongoing crash can be seen on page 64 of the annual report that can be downloaded from the website of the National Marriage Project.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!