alimonyman
New
Reged: 03/27/08
Posts: 9
|
|
I'm wondering if there is anyone out there with court ordered lifetime alimony and if so, how are you dealing with it? (FYI - my payment is $14,000 per MONTH for the rest of my/or her life. And to top it off, I am required to maintain a $2,000,000 life insurance policy payable to her, just in case I die first. All of this after being ordered to pay approximately $5,000,000 - not a typo - as the asset division.) I actually did go back to court three years after the divorce since my income had dropped another 30%, ended up paying another $90,000 in legal fees, was ordered to pay her legal fees and was told that a new business entity that I had just invested in (she had nothing to do with this) would "probably" throw off enough money to make up for my further income loss, and therefore, no reduction was granted. This divorce was conveniently instituted by her when my income started dropping, in a no fault state. My only crime was making too much money. BTW - my X is a PhD who has gone back to work, our children are grown, I established trust funds for all of them, so their college/grad school is covered. And the icing on the cake is that the court order states that if for any reason my income increases, she is entitled to take me back to court for MORE alimony. I'm pretty sure this all sounds unbelievable to most people. I just don't know how to get over a problem that never ends. And I'm NOT a CEO of some publicly traded major corporation.
|
HardKnox
Platinum
Reged: 06/13/07
Posts: 2730
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
[quote]FYI - my payment is $14,000 per MONTH for the rest of my/or her life. And to top it off, I am required to maintain a $2,000,000 life insurance policy payable to her, just in case I die first. All of this after being ordered to pay approximately $5,000,000 - not a typo - as the asset division.[/quote]
Holy CRAP.
Is it too late for me to get a sex change operation?
I should have married YOU.
A number of guys (including me) were staring down the barrel of lifetime alimony, but not in anywhere NEAR those amounts that I am aware of. And as far as I know, all of us managed to wiggle off the hook.
JFC.
Congratulations on your success.
Seriously.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
How in God's name was your ex awarded lifetime alimony (not to mention the amount and all the other unconstitutional stipulations) when she has the ability to work? BTW, now that she has gone back to work, maybe you can get a reduction in many of those things, although, I'm sure the court would find some other way to reem you.
And as HK said, congratulations on your level of "success" in life, although, like the McCartney/Mills case, your's shows just how inflammatory and grossly unjust the courts can be when the financial bar is raised to extraordinary levels.
|
alimonyman
New
Reged: 03/27/08
Posts: 9
|
|
Believe me; your not the first person who's asked me (in jest, or maybe not) that question.
Here's one more tidbit. I'm 55 and have been told by my lawyer that if I went back to court and said I want to retire and get a reduction, I'd be told I'm too young. The court would say no problem, just keep paying the 14K/month. So I guess I need to hope for a stroke or heart attack to "get somewhat off the hook." The only other "solution" I've come up with is perhaps to leave the country and hide somewhere for the rest of my life.
Here's another thought. If you've ever heard of or watched the Suzie Orman show, she talks about the importance of clearing up your debt and living debt free. I've thought about e-mailing her and asking her how to do this. I am "debt free" except for my LITTLE alimony problem. If I live to 90 years old, I will have paid another $5,880,000. I'd love to see her tackle this one.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 1007
|
|
===========================================================
I actually did go back to court three years after the divorce since my income had dropped another 30%, ended up paying another $90,000 in legal fees, was ordered to pay her legal fees
===========================================================
I wonder what your state is, so that other men here can be especially wary of residency there. Also, who filed the divorce? I was under the strong impression that it was highly unlikely a man would be ordered to pay her legal fees unless he was the one who filed.
Not to be unkind, but I would venture to guess that you now wish that you had diverted some of the hard work and diligence, which produced your success, from pursuit of that success to learning how to protect yourself from anti-male divorce law, and to implementing this protection!
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
=============================================================
The court would say no problem, just keep paying the 14K/month. So I guess I need to hope for a stroke or heart attack to "get somewhat off the hook."
=============================================================
Yep. Even if you DID have a stroke or heart attack chances are you'd still be on the hook. Hell, based on your original post, even if you DIED, your ex would STILL get paid!
|
alimonyman
New
Reged: 03/27/08
Posts: 9
|
|
I had a fifteen year marraige, but it took three more years to actually get through the court system. So the judge considered this to be an eighteen year marriage. We didn't live together during the separation, since I bought her a 5,000 square foot house, at my lawyer's suggestion, so she wouldn't "suffer" too much while we waited. The judge was a woman, and the subsequent judge when I went for a revision was also a woman. When I went back to court, my wife actually claimed that she was now making $30,000 per year. In the second decision, the judge specifically stated that she considered this extra $30,000 to be such a minimal amount as to be irrelevant. (I suspect my ex is now making considerably more, but if I go back again, I risk an increase, since I am also making more.)
Regarding unconstitutional stipulations, here's another little factoid that this judge stipulated. I had, as I said, created and funded trust funds for all three of my children. I have two sons and one daughter. The judge actually required that I change the trustee of my daughter's trust fund to my ex. wife in direct violation of what I think is federal law, but compared to the rest of the order, this was the least of my problems. I guess she decided that men should handle boy's funds and women should handle girl's funds, or maybe I might raid my daughter's trust fund, but that I wouldn't raid my sons.' Pretty ridiculous, since I was the one who set these funds up in the first place.
|
alimonyman
New
Reged: 03/27/08
Posts: 9
|
|
Actually, I believe McCartney was reported to have about $2 billion dollars. So in relative terms, although his situation is also ridiculous, he only had to turn over about one fortieth of his estate. And the $700,000 a year child support order is only a tiny portion of the interest his billions make him every year. Just keeping things in perspective. Regarding the state I live in, I'd rather not say, since if on the off chance someone who knows me is reading this, I wouldn't want that person to connect me to this discussion and report back to my ex.
I got to this site through google. I was looking for some sort of local men's support group, hoping to find some help dealing with this. It's amazing, women have all kinds of support groups, but men apparently have none. I guess men are too "macho" for that sort of thing.
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
The problem with Family Law, the Family court system, the judges, etc., is that they routinely throw out the U.S. Constitution (along with the Amendments), so having a Family Court judge do something like this isn't surprising at all. They figure if you DO challenge it, you'll have to go through a separate hell, which will ultimately be ruled against you for something assinine (or sent into the "black hole" folder known as rational basis).
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1489
Loc: Texas
|
|
===========================================================
So in relative terms, although his situation is also ridiculous, he only had to turn over about one fortieth of his estate.
===========================================================
The point about the McCartney case is that he made his $2 billion BEFORE the gold digger married him. She essentially made $48M+ and $70,000/yr for 4 years of service. Not a bad "investment". I read one article about the verdict that said essentially what you did - that is, it was miniscule compared to his estate. In reality, she should not have gotten anything over $1M, IMHO, for what she brought into the marriage (and the "work" she did during it - probably meaning she "forced" herself to go shopping for 20 new pairs of shoes each weekend). Oh, but the critics will say she bore him a child! I'm willing to bet it was probably a "mistake" (i.e., something strategized by Mills herself).
=============================================================
It's amazing, women have all kinds of support groups, but men apparently have none. I guess men are too "macho" for that sort of thing.
=============================================================
Yes, western civilized cultures have evolved in the last 30 or so years such that some things are to be maintained (e.g., chivalry) while others have drastically changed in favor of one gender (e.g., VAWA, VAWA II, custody, support).
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
