Group Tries to Reform Alimony in Massachusetts
Here's a piece about alimony in Massachusetts (Boston Magazine). Apparently, alimony law there is substantially worse than in other states. The basics are that in the Bay State, almost all alimony payors are men and almost all recipients are women. Almost all alimony orders are of indefinite duration, ending only when some unpredictable event occurs, like remarriage, death or receipt by the recipient of a sizeable inheritance. Every possible source of income is imputed to the obligor, including the earnings of his new spouse in the event of remarriage.
By contrast, none of the ex-spouse's income is considered in figuring the amount ordered. And the goal of alimony is not to simply ensure that the ex-spouse survives the marital breakup, but to continue the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed. A final indignity comes when there's a pension or some other retirement plan as part of the marital estate. Of course the wife gets half of that, but, whatever income the husband receives from his half is considered fair game in calculating his alimony obligation. It is, in short, a double dip.
Most states consider alimony as strictly a transitional payment that allows the ex-spouse to get back on his/her feet following divorce. But not Massachusetts. There it's a lifelong payment plan, and as such, it discourages recipients from taking responsibility for themselves. After all, why work for a living, why contribute to the economy when your meal ticket's punched all the way to the grave? The Massachusetts law discourages remarriage too by providing a monetary inducement to stay single. Again, why cut off the flow of free money?
The article in Boston Magazine is about Steve Hitner who has seen his business destroyed by the recession, but who can't get his payments reduced by the court. The reasoning seems to be that, since he owns the business, he could make it make more money somehow. As one woman who receives $75,000 in alimony archly comments, "unfortunately, the economy turned and that's not my fault." True, but it's not her ex-husband's fault either, but he's the only one to suffer. She gets paid or he goes to jail. What we all know is that the recession has hit pretty much everyone fairly hard. Her theory that she and others like her should be the only ones untouched by a worldwide economic downturn is unrealistic and selfish in the extreme.
Meanwhile, Hitner has started a group, Massachusetts Alimony Reform, to lobby the state legislature to change alimony laws in Massachusetts. Meritorious as his reform bill is, it faces one major hurdle - the chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee which the bill must pass before being voted on, is an attorney whose specialty is - can anyone guess? - alimony law. If she wants to keep the bill from coming to a vote, she can.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Alimony is an artifact of a different time, in which women were not expected to earn as much as men. Now they are, and they have equal opportunities to do so. As the Boston Magazine article says,
That makes the state's alimony system one that not only punishes some men, but also takes a dim view of the women it's supposed to help, enshrining biases that treat them as if it's the 1950s and women are uneducated, unemployable traditional mother/homemakers who shouldn't be stripped of the lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed.
Therefore, alimony should be reserved for very exceptional cases. If a spouse is disabled and unable to earn, or very old and can't realistically be expected to learn a trade or find a job, I'm all for alimony. The other spouse shouldn't be able to just walk away and leave the ex high and dry. But short of that, women and men both need to take financial responsibility for themselves and if their marriage fails, go their separate ways.
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
