In recent years, a form of alimony reform movement has developed across the country, and today many consider “life support” a thing of the past – a relic of a time when very few wives worked outside the home. In fact, most states have already revised their child support laws, limiting the duration and amount of payments.
But do these maintenance reforms go too far?
In many cases I think they do. Unfortunately, it appears that stay-at-home moms and other women with little or no income of their own have lost their voice in largely male-controlled state legislatures.
To me, the arguments for alimony are simple. If a woman is in a long-term marriage and has either been unemployed for decades or has an income that is significantly less than her husband’s, then I believe that to do so, I believe she needs alimony – and deserves – to maintain a post-divorce lifestyle that is at least that somewhat comparable to the lifestyle she enjoyed during the marriage.
(Of course, the same is true for a man getting divorced under similar circumstances [he stayed out of the work force, has less income]. But even now it is still typically the woman who needs maintenance.)
Also, let me point out that alimony payments are almost always determined by both the payer’s ability to pay and the payee’s neediness, and that I generally agree that the length of alimony should be directly related to the length of the marriage.
But laws that go beyond these reasonable parameters often go too far, in my view, and represent a major step backwards for women.
To illustrate my point, let’s take a look at what’s happening in Boston, where lawmakers are currently considering the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, a bill that would dramatically change the way child support payments are determined in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
As it stands now, Massachusetts judges cannot limit the duration of alimony payments. This means that a spouse can become dependent indefinitely.
If passed, the MA Alimony Reform Act of 2011 would change all that by capping the length of alimony payments based on the length of marriage. For example, if a couple was married between 10 and 15 years, the maximum length of spousal support would be 70 percent of the time the couple was married. If a marriage has lasted five years or less, the alimony payments “can’t be more than half the months of the marriage”.
In addition, the draft law provides for three new categories of maintenance payments:
- general term maintenancewhich provides periodic payments to the beneficially dependent ex-spouse
- rehabilitating alimony paymentsgranted to a spouse who is expected to eventually become financially independent
- alimony reimbursementpaid to a spouse in a short-term marriage who helped a spouse complete college
According to the Massachusetts Reform Alimony website, there are 10 top reasons to support this new alimony reform bill. I agree with many of these reasons, including:
- Termination of maintenance upon remarriage of the maintenance recipient
- the limitation on the extension of maintenance and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence
- Reduction of alimony for health insurance and/or life insurance payments
- without secondary employment or overtime income from the maintenance adjustment
However, I also believe that some of the proposed reforms are simply wrong.
For example me disagree with how the MA Alimony Reform Act of 2011 wants:
- Suspension, reduction or termination of cohabitation support. That’s a bad idea. Living together does not necessarily mean that the person you live with supports you. Besides, what if the relationship turns out to be short-lived? Why should women risk the permanent loss of alimony because they want to live together?
- Limit alimony. In my view, maintenance should be based on the ability of the payer to pay and the need of the payee. The goal, in most cases, is to enable the payee to maintain a post-divorce lifestyle that is at least somewhat comparable to the lifestyle he enjoyed during the marriage.
- End alimony payments when the payer reaches retirement age or when he or she is eligible for retirement benefits under the United States Old-Age, Disability, and Survivors Insurance Act, 42 USC 416. (And note: according to the proposed reforms, the payer’s ability to work beyond that age must not be a reason to extend the alimony.) Obviously, this “reform” is terrible news for women, especially those who happen to be are married to older men. If the husband still earns a substantial income and is solvent—and if the recipient still needs child support payments—why should reaching retirement age matter for receiving Social Security benefits at all? Based on this provision, women in Massachusetts should carefully calculate the timing of divorce. Or maybe they should only marry younger men!
- Allow modification of existing child support payments. The bill actually states that existing alimony payments can now be changed if this bill is passed. What a disaster for women who have negotiated in good faith – and perhaps given up property or other rights as part of that negotiation – thinking they could count on a certain amount of money for a certain amount of time. Your ex-husbands will be laughing to the bank!
Right now, Massachusetts is one of the few states that still allow lifelong child support payments. If the proposed law is passed (as expected), the Commonwealth will join several other states that I believe are now putting women at increased risk of an unstable financial future. In Texas, for example, alimony (or spousal support, as it’s called there) is severely restricted. Payments may not exceed three years unless the payee has a disability that prevents them from supporting themselves. In addition, there is a maintenance cap of either $2500 per month or 20 percent of the payer’s gross monthly income, whichever is less. (Here is a list of state child support laws.)
Interestingly, this summer the Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could also change lifelong child support in that state.
My law firm represents women exclusively and as I watch the alimony landscape continue to evolve I have become increasingly convinced that an upfront lump sum rather than alimony is the preferred option in the vast majority of cases where there are sufficient assets to do so.
————————————————– ——————————-
Jeffrey A. Landers, CDFA™ is the Divorce Financial Strategist™ and Founder of Bedrock Divorce Advisors, LLC (http://www.BedrockDivorce.com), a divorce financial strategy firm that works exclusively with women who are or may be going through a financial crisis complicated divorce. He also advises women entrepreneurs on what steps they can take now to make their business ‘divorce-proof’ in the event of a future divorce. He can be reached at Landers@BedrockDivorce.com.
All articles/blog posts are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, who is not a lawyer.
Follow Jeffrey A. Landers on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Bedrock_Divorce
Comments are closed.