Ex-wife paying spousal support does not want her lottery-winning exhusband back or his money

[laughing dog]

Here's an interesting story I ran across

Murray, the ex-wife of the unemployed New Jersey man, Mike Weirsky, who just won the hefty Mega Millions jackpot, told the New York Post that she has zero plans to return to her husband, to whom she was married to for 15 years before their divorce last October.

“He’s not appealing to me all of a sudden because he has this money,” she told the outlet.

Want daily pop culture news delivered to your inbox? for Yahoo’s newsletter.

Murray told the Post that she was the one bringing home the bacon in the relationship, and she paid — and currently continues to pay — spousal support. She served as a cost analyst for a utilities company while Weirsky remained unemployed.

And while her former husband expects to collect $162.5 million after taxes, she won’t be going after him for what, some would argue, she deserves.

“I’m not going after anything. I have morals. I know what I’ve worked for and it’s everything that I have,” she said.

(https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-wife-273-million-lottery-winner-not-want-back-morals-191620847.html)

I realize this is just one case, but it does indicate that the usual frothing at the mouth about how divorce law is biased against men and how ex-wives have it easy is not based on reality.

 

[Derec]

I realize this is just one case, but it does indicate that the usual frothing at the mouth about how divorce law is biased against men and how ex-wives have it easy is not based on reality.

As you said, it's only one case. The courts are still incredibly biased in favor of ex-wives. 97% of those paying alimony are men. Women like this are a tiny minority.

 

[RavenSky]

No matter what certain people around here think, divorce laws are gender-neutral, as they are supposed to be.

I had to pay my ex 1/2 the value of my house when we divorced, even though I bought the house alone long before I met or married him. I also had to give him 1/2 of my investments. He, on the other hand, did not have to give me any portion of an inheritance he had just received. It wasn't because the judge liked him better. She didn't. It's just that the laws in my state are specific but gender-neutral, and I was on the losing side.

ETA: As I said... no matter what certain people around here think...

 

[Derec]

No matter what certain people around here think, divorce laws are gender-neutral, as they are supposed to be.

If that were truly the case, 97% of alimony recipients would not be women. Judges think that if a man makes substantially more than the woman, he should support her even after the divorce, but if a woman makes substantially more than the man, judges usually do not condemn her to support him for the rest of her life.

I had to pay my ex 1/2 the value of my house when we divorced, even though I bought the house alone long before I met or married him. I also had to give him 1/2 of my investments. He, on the other hand, did not have to give me any portion of an inheritance he had just received. It wasn't because the judge liked him better. She didn't. It's just that the laws in my state are specific but gender-neutral, and I was on the losing side.

Note that you are not paying him alimony. That is different than just asset division, as it can go on forever.

 

[southernhybrid]

Alimony is fairly rare these days unless one person is working and the other never worked. My sister chose to be a stay at home mother with the full approval of her ex husband. He started up a company that was very successful for at least twenty years. They split the assets when they divorced, and he was ordered to pay alimony, but because he kept fighting it, she finally gave in and settled for an extra 100K of his assets. That was far lower than what she would have received in alimony, assuming she lived at least another 10 years. Alimony isn't very common these days, other than for the wealthy class. She raised the children with very little help from him, other than financially, so I think it was pretty fair for him to help her out after they parted.

There's a stay at home dad in my neighborhood. The wife is a physician. I'm sure if they were ever to end the marriage, she would be the one paying him. When one person gives up a career for the other one, it makes sense to me that the one who worked should help the other one survive. Sometimes alimony is only for a few years too, so the other person can have time to return to school or start a new career.

Most women I know that got divorced were also working. There was no alimony involved, and in fact, since joint custody is very common these days in Georgia, there is often no child support payments. The kids are shuttled back and forth between the two parents. I'm not sure that's good for the kids, but it's not uncommon. I never received or asked for alimony from my first husband. I didn't need it, but he balked so much at paying a pittance of child support, that I told him he could stop paying it. Luckily, my current husband was happy to help me support his step son, who is now a happily married adult.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Marriage is generally a contract where you are agreeing to fidelity and spousal relationship for your entire lives. Breach of contract or ending the contract does not remove the financial obligations because the opportunities to have married someone else while younger are generally gone. So alimony is the continued financial piece of the contract that would be true if the marriage continued. While it doesn't always seem fair, everyone entering into a marriage is aware that it works this way and is further aware that they can change their marriage contract around with a prenuptial agreement so as to avoid the possibility of alimony payments. So these situations are avoidable.

Another avoidable situation: couples make the decision or not that he will work and she will stay at home or that she will work in the world less and at home more; and therefore she will earn less financially. This is a real thing and I've seen it all over the anti-feminist threads stating that women earn less because of "life choices" that actually the couples make. So naturally when a divorce happens she will be earning less and receive alimony from him, more often than not. If the husband wishes to avoid this situation, then he can stay at home more than work in the world, while the wife can work more in the world. Then, if they divorce, he will get alimony because the system of alimony is gender-neutral and only based on financial earnings.

So you can see it turns out that the men in these situations were in complete control of their own destinies and could easily avoid paying alimony in more than one way: (1) prenup and (2) simply earning less than the wife. The problem with these choices isn't so much that they are not viable choices but instead that men are afraid to ask for a prenup and to be stay-at-home dads. Men are not generally thinking with their brains.

 

[RVonse]

So you can see it turns out that the men in these situations were in complete control of their own destinies and could easily avoid paying alimony in more than one way: (1) prenup

Certainly better than nothing but not foolproof. A prenuptial is no better than the judge who considers whether it is valid.

Make less than his wife

So a man should quit his job so that he can feel secure his future wife will not divorce rape him? Doesnt sound very practical, does it?

Men are not generally thinking with their brains

Definately agree with that. Any man with brains would NEVER get married. There is nothing at all in it for a man.

 

[RVonse]

Here's an interesting story I ran across

Murray, the ex-wife of the unemployed New Jersey man, Mike Weirsky, who just won the hefty Mega Millions jackpot, told the New York Post that she has zero plans to return to her husband, to whom she was married to for 15 years before their divorce last October.

“He’s not appealing to me all of a sudden because he has this money,” she told the outlet.

Want daily pop culture news delivered to your inbox? for Yahoo’s newsletter.

Murray told the Post that she was the one bringing home the bacon in the relationship, and she paid — and currently continues to pay — spousal support. She served as a cost analyst for a utilities company while Weirsky remained unemployed.

And while her former husband expects to collect $162.5 million after taxes, she won’t be going after him for what, some would argue, she deserves.

“I’m not going after anything. I have morals. I know what I’ve worked for and it’s everything that I have,” she said.

(https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-wife-273-million-lottery-winner-not-want-back-morals-191620847.html)

I realize this is just one case, but it does indicate that the usual frothing at the mouth about how divorce law is biased against men and how ex-wives have it easy is not based on reality.

Its supposed to be an example of how women have integrity? Sorry, Im not buying it. Right in the article it says "I hope he will do the right thing". Like she is somehow expecting to be part of the lottery winnings.

And that is definitely how a woman's brain thinks. She sure as hell doesnt want any part of this guy, so at least she is honest about that part. But she sure as hell wouldnt mind sharing his money now that he got lucky.

A womans brain is all about the money. And a guys brain is all about the pussy.

 

[RVonse]

The kids are shuttled back and forth between the two parents. I'm not sure that's good for the kids, but it's not uncommon. .

That's the smartest thing Ive ever heard. Absolutely nothing better than a child being raised in a non conflict environment by both biological parents. Less chance of a child molested too.

It sounds like Georgia is light years ahead of California and a whole lot of other backward states that want kids to be raised by single moms. Those will be the kids who end up in jail or committing suicide later in life. At least thats what statistics say on average.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize this is just one case, but it does indicate that the usual frothing at the mouth about how divorce law is biased against men and how ex-wives have it easy is not based on reality.

As you said, it's only one case. The courts are still incredibly biased in favor of ex-wives.

Sorry, your word is not good enough.

97% of those paying alimony are men.

I would like to see data on this. Because I wonder if such a raw proportion takes into account when the alimony award was made and if the woman was employed at the time.

Women like this are a tiny minority.

Again, you word is not sufficient.


What I found interesting is not only is this woman paying spousal support, but that she does not want any of her ex's winnings.

 

[laughing dog]

Its supposed to be an example of how women have integrity? Sorry, Im not buying it. Right in the article it says "I hope he will do the right thing". Like she is somehow expecting to be part of the lottery winnings.

In his case, doing the right thing might be simply repaying the spousal support he received after he won the lottery.

And that is definitely how a woman's brain thinks. She sure as hell doesnt want any part of this guy, so at least she is honest about that part. But she sure as hell wouldnt mind sharing his money now that he got lucky.

I pity any woman who has to deal with anyone who feels like you do.

A womans brain is all about the money. And a guys brain is all about the pussy.

Wow.

- - - Updated - - -

Any man with brains would NEVER get married. There is nothing at all in it for a man.

Somehow I doubt that you know more than millions of happily married men.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I realize this is just one case, but it does indicate that the usual frothing at the mouth about how divorce law is biased against men and how ex-wives have it easy is not based on reality.

About as much as small Chihuahuas indicate that dogs are as small as cats.

 

[Toni]

Here's this:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...t/2012/april_2012/current_trends_alimony_law/

I'll just add that I've never yet seen a divorce case where there were children where either party felt they were treated fairly. Each parent seems convinced that they are getting screwed, that any support isn't being used to support the child because the child had outgrown his clothes in 3 months! (btw: kids outgrow their clothes pretty regularly and 3 months is pretty common after about age 6 until the teen years hit in which case: yikes! for some kids who go through tremendous growth spurts) and the other one took a vacation! The nerve! While the one parent was struggling to pay for a reno or a new vehicle! Don't even get me started on parents who won't pick up their kids on time or won't make it possible to pick up or deliver the kids on time and don't even get me started on those who need to have special third party provisions for all communications between parents for things like texts and emails.....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Certainly better than nothing but not foolproof. A prenuptial is no better than the judge who considers whether it is valid.

That's the same for all of law, then, but of course, one can appeal judicial decisions, in this case a divorce decree. So, if one judge is not good to either the wife or the husband and makes bad decisions, then one can do something about it.

So a man should quit his job so that he can feel secure his future wife will not divorce rape him? Doesnt sound very practical, does it?

If he wants her to work in the home, then this is the price he pays. This is a decision couples make together. He has just as much control as she does.

Men are not generally thinking with their brains

Definately agree with that. Any man with brains would NEVER get married. There is nothing at all in it for a man.

Any man with a brain would ask for a prenup if it makes sense in his situation and work from home if it makes sense in his situation.

 

[ronburgundy]

No matter what certain people around here think, divorce laws are gender-neutral, as they are supposed to be.

If that were truly the case, 97% of alimony recipients would not be women. .

That conclusion does not follow at all. That conclusion rests upon the clearly false assumption that wives and husbands are equally likely to work outside the home, raise the kids, and spend the same amount of time, effort, and the family's resources developing their career.

The % of alimony cases where the recipient is the wife is directly determined by the % of marriages where the wife earned less, usually b/c they spent more of their time and effort maintaining the household, childcare, etc..

The courts favor the lower earner in determining alimony, and women are lower earners.

Now, it's plausible that many judges are biased against awarding alimony to men, even when they are the lower earner. In fact, the same cultural biases responsible for women usually being the homemaker/child-rearer would be expected to apply to the ideological biases of judges as well, who would view men that violate this gender expectation negatively as just "lazy" or something. The irony is that it would mostly politically conservative judges with this bias against giving men alimony b/c they are the one's who most except and endorse the gender norms that these men would be violating.

However, even though the of gender norms that keep women at home predict bias against men who stay at home, the empirical reality of this judicial bias and its extent requires evidence you don't have. You would need to show that men who are the lower earners get less alimony than women who are less earners, even after controlling for the size of the earning disparities.

OTOH, neither the OP nor the Ravensky's cases provide any evidence against this hypothesis. They are anecdotes that merely show it is possible for men to get alimony, not that men don't generally get less than women in the same circumstances.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

 

[laughing dog]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony....

It is possible the courts are biased against men in divorce cases. It is possible that courts were biased against men in court cases until some time ago but are no longer. And it is possible that courts were never biased against men.
Moreover, it is quite possible for courts to make errors that are not due to bias.

My point is that the vitriolic frothing of claimants of court bias against men and their unthinking white-knighters have not presented real evidence to support their case - as you have pointed out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony:

Please read my above reply to Derec, then come back and read the rest of this post.

I suspect that most of you accept the reality that the reason most women are the lower earners and home makers in marriages (and thus rightly due alimony) is b/c of cultural gender norms that pressure women to fill this role and pressure men to be the outside-the-home worker and major earner.

If those gender norms exists, then wouldn't many judges be susceptible to holding these same gender norms? And if judges are human beings, then wouldn't these cultural norms bias them against the men who violate accepted norms? This would likely make them view lesser earning men negatively as "lazy", plus view them as more able to go out an earn after a divorce b/c they are men and that is what men do.

This would have to lead to a bias that, on average, lowered the alimony payments to men relative to what women in the same situation get.

I am curious how you reconcile the reality of gender norms and that judges are socialized with these norms with your assumption that men who violate the norms by being lesser earners in a marriage are never treated negatively by judges.

It is possible to accept that woman are the one's mostly due alimony, and are the one's mostly screwed in marriage and society generally by gender bias and norms, while also acknowledging that when it comes to alimony, the norms and bias works against those minority of men who are the lower earner, homemaker, etc..

Don't forget my point, too. Individual men are also beholden to societal stereotypes. So, they don't want to break the stereotype, look like a sissy or lazy by staying at home or look less confident by asking for a prenup.

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?ur...alimony as begging" via @forbes @johnsonemma

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-are-now-paying-alimony-and-child-support-2018-05-17-1882442

A recent American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) survey found that more than four in 10 lawyers (45%) had seen an increase over the past three years in women being on the hook for alimony, aka spousal support or maintenance. Meanwhile, 54% said they’d seen a rise in mothers paying child support.

Decades ago, AAML president Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich told Moneyish, “it was almost traditionally the man who paid support, and the man who was earning a higher income -- and it was the woman in either a lesser-income job or she would be a stay-at-home mom,” typically meaning she would receive alimony when the couple divorced.

But women now occupy more higher-paying positions and make more money than they used to, Marzano-Lesnevich pointed out. “Now when they’re faced with divorce, if they’ve had a history in their marriage of their being the breadwinner … or the husband being the child care provider, these women are going to be faced with paying support. And many of them are very surprised when they learn that.”


Indeed, today’s mothers are the primary breadwinners in four out of 10 U.S. families, according to Pew Research. And though only 3% of the roughly 400,000 alimony recipients in 2010 were male, per Census data, the trend of spousal support awards from women to men is “definitely on the rise” as women’s earnings continue to increase, New York divorce lawyer James Sexton told Moneyish.

Women have been responsible for paying spousal support since 1979, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that alimony should be gender-neutral. Many states over the years have shifted away from permanent spousal support -- lifelong payments until death or the spouse’s remarriage -- to alleviate the payer’s burden and catch up with the modern marriage.

“The concept behind maintenance has evolved,” Dilpreet Rai, a partner at the New York-based firm Hennessey and Bienstock LLP, told Moneyish. “Spousal support for a long duration is not as common as it (once was) … It goes to the idea that it’s about rehabilitation and getting someone back into the workforce, and making sure that they have time to get sufficient skills and training.”

So, more women are paying alimony and child support. Alimony is often only given for a few years. Women don't usually like paying alimony anymore than men do. It's all about the things like who had the biggest income, who did the childcare etc. Alimony has been ruled as gender neutral since 1979, but it's taken many decades for women's earning potential to begin to keep up or surpass men's incomes.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is to LD, Ravensky, and others who doubt that the courts are biased against men seeking alimony....

It is possible the courts are biased against men in divorce cases. It is possible that courts were biased against men in court cases until some time ago but are no longer. And it is possible that courts were never biased against men.
Moreover, it is quite possible for courts to make errors that are not due to bias.

My point is that the vitriolic frothing of claimants of court bias against men and their unthinking white-knighters have not presented real evidence to support their case - as you have pointed out.

Almost everything is possible, but most things are not probable and all things are either more or less probable than other things.

Correct, there is no direct evidence that speaks either way to the probability of this bias.
However, there are an infinite number of things you think are true (or very likely true) for which you have no direct evidence. That is the nature of being a human being. We all do and must infer what is more probable based on applying logic to the facts or assumptions for which we do have evidence. So, simply claiming no direct evidence to support a claim is disingenuous way to avoid dealing with the claim that you started the thread claiming is untrue (aka "not based in reality").

You presented a meaningless anecdote as evidence that there is no general bias against men regarding alimony. It isn't evidence against that at all. It has no relevance to the hypothesis, b/c the hypothesis does not predict that no men ever receive any amount of alimony.

The only evidence we have is indirect and it strongly favors there being a probable bias to some degree against men seeking alimony.

The conclusion that men are probably being biased against for alimony is logically supported by these 3 premises: 1 ) gender norms for men to be the earner exists, and 2) people tend to punish norm violators, and 3) judges are people. So, if you don't find that conclusion probable than you are either rejecting logic or you reject one of the 3 premises. Which is it and what argument do you have for that rejection?