A friend of mine (yes, a FRIEND, not me) is getting ready to serve her
husband with divorce papers. He knows it's coming, but he doesn't know
when. He's prepared to fight. I've been reading up on California
divorce law and it looks like things are pretty much stacked in her
favor. She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six
months after she files.

But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer
of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of
their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years,
so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear.

Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man,
who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's).
They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll
cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her
spousal support?

Just curious.

> -Calliope- wrote: But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years, so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear. It wouldn't be 'free & clear'.. She'll be responsible for taxes on that money as income. He will be able to deduct that money off his taxes. How long were they married? That definitely makes a difference.

I was going to say you were mistaken, but I was thinking child support,
and the OP said alimony.

In California, under 5 years is a short term marriage and usually none
is awarded. Over 10 years is a long term marriage and it is usually
awarded. Between 5-10 years is the gray area and can go either way.

--
Dave says... Fire Dave Hudgens

> Heisenberg wrote: Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man, who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?

Co-habitation is being increasingly viewed the same as marriage... as
it should be. Once she lives with the other guy, she could lose
alimony permanently, just as if she got married.

--
Dave says... Fire Dave Hudgens

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:47:33 GMT, "The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote:
Heisenberg wrote: Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man, who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?Co-habitation is being increasingly viewed the same as marriage... asit should be. Once she lives with the other guy, she could losealimony permanently, just as if she got married.

She's saying now that she isn't even going to go for alimony. But it
looks like there's going to be an ugly fight over the house -- her
husband thinks he has legal ammunition there, though I'm not so sure
-- and if she can't get the house, she's going for the alimony. But,
yes, I told her that living with her boyfriend may present a minor
problem. She has trouble thinking very far ahead. She's in love,
y'know?

In article <pKbge.911$8g.175@news01.roc.ny>, "The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote:
Co-habitation is being increasingly viewed the same as marriage... asit should be. Once she lives with the other guy, she could losealimony permanently, just as if she got married.

i know someone who has been living with a boy-toy for years and still
collecting alimony here in Calif. Doesn't seem right.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:10:15 -0400, Heisenberg
<Heisenberg@Uncertainty.com> wrote:
She's saying now that she isn't even going to go for alimony. But itlooks like there's going to be an ugly fight over the house -- herhusband thinks he has legal ammunition there, though I'm not so sure-- and if she can't get the house, she's going for the alimony. But,yes, I told her that living with her boyfriend may present a minorproblem. She has trouble thinking very far ahead. She's in love,y'know?


I am no lawyer, but I suspect that her shacking up with another man
will have absolutely no effect on her alimony award. If she was a
housewife for 23 years, her ex-husband will have to pay alimony for
life unless she remarries. If she worked during the marriage, that
may result in some reduction of alimony either in amount or time.

I am assuming that there are no children. If there are children, it
will be even worse.

As to marital property, she will get half the value of the marital
property unless the husband has some special arrangement concerning
the house.


Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

"Heisenberg" <Heisenberg@Uncertainty.com> wrote in message
news:v6g281p35bjcltdabqu3csa06fd0g92osn@4ax.com... A friend of mine (yes, a FRIEND, not me) is getting ready to serve her husband with divorce papers. He knows it's coming, but he doesn't know when. He's prepared to fight. I've been reading up on California divorce law and it looks like things are pretty much stacked in her favor. She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six months after she files. But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years, so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear. Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man, who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?

Possibly:

California Family Code Section:
4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in
writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party
is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a
determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify
or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.
(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person
with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute
cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.
(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying spousal support.
(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification or
termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:50:50 -0700, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:10:15 -0400, Heisenberg<Heisenberg@Uncertainty.com> wrote:She's saying now that she isn't even going to go for alimony. But itlooks like there's going to be an ugly fight over the house -- herhusband thinks he has legal ammunition there, though I'm not so sure-- and if she can't get the house, she's going for the alimony. But,yes, I told her that living with her boyfriend may present a minorproblem. She has trouble thinking very far ahead. She's in love,y'know?I am no lawyer, but I suspect that her shacking up with another manwill have absolutely no effect on her alimony award. If she was ahousewife for 23 years, her ex-husband will have to pay alimony forlife unless she remarries. If she worked during the marriage, thatmay result in some reduction of alimony either in amount or time.I am assuming that there are no children. If there are children, itwill be even worse.As to marital property, she will get half the value of the maritalproperty unless the husband has some special arrangement concerningthe house.Best,BobRobert A. Fink, M. D., PresidentCalifornia Parents United, Inc."The best parent is both parents...."

Interesting that two people so far have suggested that living with her
boyfriend won't affect alimony. I'll pass that on.

There IS a child. Male, age 16. Currently in drug rehab. Yesterday she
was so peevish that she seemed to forget that he existed. Today she
woke up and remembered him. She MAY stay with her husband for the
kid's sake, until he's old enough to move out. The husband says he's
willing to go with that too.

But I don't expect either of them to feel the same way tomorrow. Love
combined with impending divorce is like being manic-depressive: The
mood swings are HUGE.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 22:34:33 -0400, "DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Heisenberg" <Heisenberg@Uncertainty.com> wrote in messagenews:v6g281p35bjcltdabqu3csa06fd0g92osn@4ax .com... A friend of mine (yes, a FRIEND, not me) is getting ready to serve her husband with divorce papers. He knows it's coming, but he doesn't know when. He's prepared to fight. I've been reading up on California divorce law and it looks like things are pretty much stacked in her favor. She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six months after she files. But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years, so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear. Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man, who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?Possibly:California Family Code Section:4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties inwriting, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden ofproof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported partyis cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon adetermination that circumstances have changed, the court may modifyor terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the personwith whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitutecohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse ornonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining ormodifying spousal support.(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification ortermination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.

Thank you. I will DEFINITELY pass that on.

>> She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six months after she files.

Which universe is this california you speak of? The six months is the MINIMUM
time that a divorce would be granted upon filing. If he contests it and drags
it out, or she does, it could go on for years. And if I knew that my slut
ex-wife was going to be living with a man, I'd force the house to be sold and
split the profits.

But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years, so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear.

Lazy? Having a job would put a damper in her oprah watching?
If she were a man, they'd impute the income and reduce the alimony.
Even a mcjob pays a lot because california minimum wage is higher than federal
minimum wage.
Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man

So the S2BX husband should support her so she can move in with another guy?
Lovely.
who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?Possibly:California Family Code Section:4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties inwriting, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden ofproof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported partyis cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon adetermination that circumstances have changed, the court may modifyor terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.

Gotta get that in writing, and not waived.

Now, as to MY circumstances, I was married for > 25 years by the time the
divorce was granted, and my ex was awarded alimony for a total of 7 years, NOT
lifetime, NOT half the duration of the marriage. That's because the judges
are seeing that people can be retrained to work if they're not working, and
giving the alimony so the one person can "get on their feet", so to speak.

Did I mention lately that I only have 7 more payments to go until it's over???

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:59:06 GMT, jstlucas at hotmail dot com
@delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas) wrote:
She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six months after she files.Which universe is this california you speak of? The six months is the MINIMUMtime that a divorce would be granted upon filing. If he contests it and dragsit out, or she does, it could go on for years. And if I knew that my slutex-wife was going to be living with a man, I'd force the house to be sold andsplit the profits.

Gee, do I detect ANGER here? ;)

Good information. I didn't detect this possibility in the dry language
of California statutes, but I'm only just learning. So is she (God
help her).

The husband's plan is to sell the house "back to his parents" and let
them rent it out to him. Then she won't be able to get half of it. If
his parents have equity in the house, I didn't know about it, but it's
thoroughly possible. Much of this couple's life together has been
through the largesse of their parents. (Nobody could raise a kid and
own a house and two cars in Los Angeles on HIS income.)
But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years, so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear.Lazy? Having a job would put a damper in her oprah watching?

Something like that. Okay, it would put a damper on spending three
days a week with the boyfriend, two hours a day of surfing the
Internet, and three hours a day talking to me. It's a full life. ;)

But she's looking into retail. It fits her skills. (I'm REALLY trying
not to let my bitterness come through. ;) )
If she were a man, they'd impute the income and reduce the alimony.Even a mcjob pays a lot because california minimum wage is higher than federalminimum wage.

So are California courts biased against men? Serious question. The
law, at least, seems to be in favor of whichever party files first.
Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another manSo the S2BX husband should support her so she can move in with another guy?Lovely.

Yeah, that's her plan. I have trouble with it too. Yet so far he's
doing it.
who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's). They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her spousal support?Possibly:California Family Code Section:4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties inwriting, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden ofproof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported partyis cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon adetermination that circumstances have changed, the court may modifyor terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.Gotta get that in writing, and not waived.Now, as to MY circumstances, I was married for > 25 years by the time thedivorce was granted, and my ex was awarded alimony for a total of 7 years, NOTlifetime, NOT half the duration of the marriage. That's because the judgesare seeing that people can be retrained to work if they're not working, andgiving the alimony so the one person can "get on their feet", so to speak.

"Get on their feet"? Nice pun.

> notmL wrote: Co-habitation is being increasingly viewed the same as marriage... as it should be. Once she lives with the other guy, she could lose alimony permanently, just as if she got married. i know someone who has been living with a boy-toy for years and still collecting alimony here in Calif. Doesn't seem right.

It's not right. Especially with, as Bill would say, today's attitudes
and morals about marriage.

I don't have a source to conveniently point to, but in many places,
including California, co-habitation is increasingly being viewed the
same as re-marriage. I believe it can be put into the divorce
agreement, something like, "Alimony to be paid for XX years, or until
spouse remarries or co-habitates, whichever comes first.". I was
advised at the time of my divorce to have wording to that effect
included, and was told that it was common enough that most judges would
be reluctant to dispute it or take it out.

--
Until Congress dumps their pension plan, and pays into Social Security
from their own paychecks like the citizens they're supposed to be, I
will not believe one word of their "concern" for the system.

> Heisenberg wrote: The husband's plan is to sell the house "back to his parents" and let them rent it out to him. Then she won't be able to get half of it. If his parents have equity in the house, I didn't know about it, but it's thoroughly possible. Much of this couple's life together has been through the largesse of their parents. (Nobody could raise a kid and own a house and two cars in Los Angeles on HIS income.)

That could backfire on him, I think, if it can be shown that she had a
legitimate interest in the house and/or he sold it for less than market
value simply to avoid splitting the asset on a fair basis.

--
Until Congress dumps their pension plan, and pays into Social Security
from their own paychecks like the citizens they're supposed to be, I
will not believe one word of their "concern" for the system.

Heisenberg wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:59:06 GMT, jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas) wrote:>She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six>months after she files.Which universe is this california you speak of? The six months is the MINIMUMtime that a divorce would be granted upon filing. If he contests it and dragsit out, or she does, it could go on for years. And if I knew that my slutex-wife was going to be living with a man, I'd force the house to be sold andsplit the profits. Gee, do I detect ANGER here? ;)

I think what you miss seeign as you are potentially viewing this from
the sidelines is that if you are actually involved in something like
this, from your original post, there is a great deal to be angry about.
Your cavalier attitude of "40% free and clear alimony" conveys the
message that this is okay, and it is not okay, especially given the
circumstances that she is moving out to move in with somebody else. How
many slaps in the face do you wish to deliver? Good information. I didn't detect this possibility in the dry language of California statutes, but I'm only just learning. So is she (God help her).

Or somebody help her. You've quoted about how she is "in lurve" and it
seems to me that she has a typical "grass-is-greener." I'll give you a
grass is greener story ....

My ex and I were fairly well off, once upon a time. Married 10 years,
she was a SAHM, I made money. She tired of the marriage, decided to end
it. Her presumption boils down to (it's a fairly long and intricate
story) that she thought she could up and leave, cross an international
border, be divorced in a couple of months and, given that the cost of
living to where she went was so low, live liek a queen for the rest of
her life, at an equivalent or better standpoint ... i.e. dump the
paycheck but retain the priviledges.

Fast forward *almost 4 years later*. Divorce still isn't finalized, she
works six days a week, hates me profusely because she has to work, and
has racked up $70K in debt, far as I can tell from the financial statements.

Second grass is greener story. Ex decided that she would come to an
agreement vis the kids so she could leave, have it entered as an order,
leave and promptly ignore the order. Three years later, she's *still*
in court over this, and she is slowly getting dragged back to (if not
past) the position she originally agreed to.

Tell your friend to ditch her rose coloured glasses. She should get
half of the assets of the house, ditch the alimony and get a job.
The husband's plan is to sell the house "back to his parents" and let them rent it out to him. Then she won't be able to get half of it. If his parents have equity in the house, I didn't know about it, but it's thoroughly possible. Much of this couple's life together has been through the largesse of their parents. (Nobody could raise a kid and own a house and two cars in Los Angeles on HIS income.)

And she wants to live like she was living off of his parents largesse.
Good luck.
If she were a man, they'd impute the income and reduce the alimony.Even a mcjob pays a lot because california minimum wage is higher than federalminimum wage. So are California courts biased against men? Serious question. The law, at least, seems to be in favor of whichever party files first.

In which regard? Child custody or spousal support?

Rambler

"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:xehge.937$8g.721@news01.roc.ny... notmL wrote: Co-habitation is being increasingly viewed the same as marriage... as it should be. Once she lives with the other guy, she could lose alimony permanently, just as if she got married. i know someone who has been living with a boy-toy for years and still collecting alimony here in Calif. Doesn't seem right. It's not right. Especially with, as Bill would say, today's attitudes and morals about marriage. I don't have a source to conveniently point to, but in many places, including California, co-habitation is increasingly being viewed the same as re-marriage. I believe it can be put into the divorce agreement, something like, "Alimony to be paid for XX years, or until spouse remarries or co-habitates, whichever comes first.". I was advised at the time of my divorce to have wording to that effect included, and was told that it was common enough that most judges would be reluctant to dispute it or take it out.

It was in mine too.
Proving it seemed to be the proverbial fly in the ointment.

-- Until Congress dumps their pension plan, and pays into Social Security from their own paychecks like the citizens they're supposed to be, I will not believe one word of their "concern" for the system.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 14:24:17 +0800, Rambler
<iamramblerIGNORANCE@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heisenberg wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:59:06 GMT, jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas) wrote:>>She'll get half the property and an automatic divorce six>>months after she files.Which universe is this california you speak of? The six months is the MINIMUMtime that a divorce would be granted upon filing. If he contests it and dragsit out, or she does, it could go on for years. And if I knew that my slutex-wife was going to be living with a man, I'd force the house to be sold andsplit the profits. Gee, do I detect ANGER here? ;)I think what you miss seeign as you are potentially viewing this fromthe sidelines is that if you are actually involved in something likethis, from your original post, there is a great deal to be angry about. Your cavalier attitude of "40% free and clear alimony" conveys themessage that this is okay, and it is not okay, especially given thecircumstances that she is moving out to move in with somebody else. Howmany slaps in the face do you wish to deliver?

Somehow I think you're missing my irony.

You're wrong about how I feel about it. But, as I said elsewhere, I'm
her friend and I'm going to support her, while privately telling her
what I think. As often as not I defend the husband, who I think is
getting a really bad deal.

I don't think she's going to go for the spousal support. Even she
recognizes that it isn't fair. But you never know. People do strange
things in a divorce.

On Wed 11 May 2005 05:21:54a, YooperBoyka wrote:
It was in mine too. Proving it seemed to be the proverbial fly in the ointment.

It was in ours as well, and it had established penalties, if it could be
shown that I was living with someone and hadn't notified my ex within 30
days.
--
Cal~

calliope 123 at gmail dot com

Heisenberg <Heisenberg@uncertainty.com> wrote:

: But I'm curious about spousal support. As I understand it, the poorer
: of the two spouses gets 40% of their spouse's net income, minus 50% of
: their own income. She doesn't have a job and hasn't had one for years,
: so that sounds to me like she's got 40%, free and clear.

: Except for one catch: She's divorcing him to move in with another man,
: who also has an income (though it may be less than the husband's).
: They're not planning to get married any time soon, but they'll
: cohabit. Does his income, or a fraction of it, count against her
: spousal support?

: Just curious.

Spousal Support in California would be the average of their two incomes
divided by two with the one earning the greater amount paying the difference
to the amount earning the lesser amount.

Cohabitation *is* a factor that is taken in to account when calculating
Spousal Support in California.

Sounds like she's a real "pice of work". It's unfortunate that our laws
reward such errant behavior.

b.

> <barry@psyber.com> wrote: Sounds like she's a real "pice of work". It's unfortunate that our laws reward such errant behavior.

Agreed. With a nod to Bill here, I believe that the laws need to
finish their change in that direction and start treating cohabitation
exactly like marriage.

--
Dave says... Fire Dave Hudgens

Robert A. Fink, M. D. <lynxer@comcast.net> wrote:


: I am no lawyer, but I suspect that her shacking up with another man
: will have absolutely no effect on her alimony award. If she was a
: housewife for 23 years, her ex-husband will have to pay alimony for
: life unless she remarries. If she worked during the marriage, that
: may result in some reduction of alimony either in amount or time.

Asked my attorney on the subject. Cohabitation does affect Spousal Sppt.
in Calif.

Section 4323 of California Family Code (google it or go to
www.leginfo.ca.gov

"... decreased need for spousal support if the supported party ic cohabitating.."

b.

Somehow I think you're missing my irony.You're wrong about how I feel about it. But, as I said elsewhere, I'mher friend and I'm going to support her, while privately telling herwhat I think. As often as not I defend the husband, who I think isgetting a really bad deal.I don't think she's going to go for the spousal support. Even sherecognizes that it isn't fair. But you never know. People do strangethings in a divorce.

Why are you such a loyal and supportive friend to someone who is so
selfish and morally flawed?

None of us are perfect, but if you are so loyal and supportive of your
friend in this way, you must share or at least sympathize with what
she is trying to do. This says something about you you too...

Beachcomber

Beachcomber <not_real@xxx.yyy> wrote:


: Why are you such a loyal and supportive friend to someone who is so
: selfish and morally flawed?

: None of us are perfect, but if you are so loyal and supportive of your
: friend in this way, you must share or at least sympathize with what
: she is trying to do. This says something about you you too...

: Beachcomber

You have a very valid point. This woman is an adulterer and taking advantage
of a flawed financial law. She is lacking morals. Supporting someone who
is so coersive and "just plain wrong" validates the errant behavior to an
extent.

b.

Just her living with another , yes it counts against her his income.
They go by family size and he will have to pay her less for alimony
cause her husband to be now or cohabitant makes more money. I don't know
the percentages but i do know that she better hide his income and say he
has no job her new bf that is!





JD

> <barry@psyber.com> wrote: : Why are you such a loyal and supportive friend to someone who is so : selfish and morally flawed? : None of us are perfect, but if you are so loyal and supportive of your : friend in this way, you must share or at least sympathize with what : she is trying to do. This says something about you you too... : Beachcomber You have a very valid point. This woman is an adulterer and taking advantage of a flawed financial law. She is lacking morals. Supporting someone who is so coersive and "just plain wrong" validates the errant behavior to an extent.

I had thought of that, also. I also wondered if he was the soon-to-be
live-in boyfriend, and was helping to plan his own financial future off
someone else's back.

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of leaving someone, then planning to
squeeze as much money out of them as possible, even if allowed legally,
to help support the next boyfriend, is just repugnant.

--
Dave says... Fire Dave Hudgens

Beachcomber wrote:
Why are you such a loyal and supportive friend to someone who is so selfish and morally flawed?

Look at it this way. Let's say this woman (I'll call her Betty so I
don't have to keep writing 'this woman' all of the time) has 10 friends
who know what's going on. Out of those 10 friends, 5 are of the
opinion that what she's doing is wrong and 5 are of the opinion that
it's her life to do with what she wants. If the 5 who think she's
doing wrong totally drop out of her life, refuse to talk to her any-
more about it, 'shun' her because she's doing something they don't
agree with, all that's left is the 5 people who will support her in
any and all of her decisions which will, in the long run, almost
certainly guarantee that Betty will not examine her actions as she
might if her other 5 friends are there saying 'Hey now, you *know*
what you're doing is wrong. Why do you keep doing it?'

I was once in a situation where I was friends with both a husband
and wife. I knew the husband <'D'> and became friends with him be-
fore I met the wife <'A'> but eventually ended up being friends
with them both. At one point, they were having some *major* problems.
D believed that A was having an affair with another man. A maintained
that she was just friends with this man and that D had no right to
tell her what she could and couldn't do. I ended up hearing about
the whole mess from both of them and I could understand both sides
of their positions. At the same time, I *refused* to come down
firmly on either side of the disagreement. When talking to D, I
would point out that just because *he* was happy to stay at home
all the time and the only 'play' time he wanted to have was with
his wife and their child, that didn't mean that he could force A
to go to work, come home and stay home every night and, maybe once
a month, they all go out to dinner or over to someone's house for
a barbecue. When talking to A, I would point out that, even if she
*wasn't* having an affair, her habit of hanging out with the same
guy *all* of the time made it difficult for D to believe anything
different and what was more important to her? Her husband and her
child and keeping her marriage together or the 'right' to hang out
with who she wanted to? I advocated that they work on a compromise.
That D come to realize that A was not happy/content with staying at
home all of the time and to be willing to accept the fact that she
wasn't and not be angry when A wanted to have a girl's night out or
go to a baseball game and drink a few beers with friends. I also
tried to get A to realize that D deserved to have her think about
and accept his preferences just as she deserved to have D think about
and accept *her* preferences. That spouses did not have to be joined
at the hip at all times but, at the same time, if they aren't *ever*
doing anything together, it's a bad thing.

Ultimately, they divorced and had a nasty custody battle and, the
last I heard, their divorce was more acrimonious than their marriage
was.

I guess my point is that you can be supportive of someone and not
actually be supporting their actions at the time.

Tracey

A maintainedthat she was just friends with this man and that D had no right totell her what she could and couldn't do. I ended up hearing aboutthe whole mess from both of them and I could understand both sidesof their positions. At the same time, I *refused* to come downfirmly on either side of the disagreement. When talking to D, Iwould point out that just because *he* was happy to stay at homeall the time and the only 'play' time he wanted to have was withhis wife and their child, that didn't mean that he could force Ato go to work, come home and stay home every night and, maybe oncea month, they all go out to dinner or over to someone's house fora barbecue. When talking to A, I would point out that, even if she*wasn't* having an affair, her habit of hanging out with the sameguy *all* of the time made it difficult for D to believe anythingdifferent and what was more important to her? Her husband and herchild and keeping her marriage together or the 'right' to hang outwith who she wanted to? I advocated that they work on a compromise.That D come to realize that A was not happy/content with staying athome all of the time and to be willing to accept the fact that shewasn't and not be angry when A wanted to have a girl's night out orgo to a baseball game and drink a few beers with friends. I alsotried to get A to realize that D deserved to have her think aboutand accept his preferences just as she deserved to have D think aboutand accept *her* preferences. That spouses did not have to be joinedat the hip at all times but, at the same time, if they aren't *ever*doing anything together, it's a bad thing.


If A valued her marriage, she would not allow "just friends"
relationships with the opposite sex PERIOD, out of respect for her
husbands feelings. The same applies to him. That's one of the
reasons you get married, to make one person special and not threaten
them or attempt to make them insecure with these "just friends"
relationships.

If she wants to continue dating (i.e. girls night out, with other men,
in the presence of her single friends where other single men are
available and could potentially hit on her), she has no business being
married in the first place.

Amazing how some married people just don't get it, isn't it...?

Beachcomber

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:59:06 GMT, jstlucas at hotmail dot com
@delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas) wrote:
Now, as to MY circumstances, I was married for > 25 years by the time thedivorce was granted, and my ex was awarded alimony for a total of 7 years, NOTlifetime, NOT half the duration of the marriage. That's because the judgesare seeing that people can be retrained to work if they're not working, andgiving the alimony so the one person can "get on their feet", so to speak.


Good to hear that. Maybe there is some hope for the future. What
judge and county?


Did I mention lately that I only have 7 more payments to go until it's over???

Congratulations.


Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:32:34 -0400, Heisenberg
<Heisenberg@Uncertainty.com> wrote:
The husband's plan is to sell the house "back to his parents" and letthem rent it out to him. Then she won't be able to get half of it.


But if the husband owns the house, and he has been married to the wife
for the entire time that he owned the house, the wife is entitled to
half the value of the house at the time of the divorce.

Once the divorce is begun, the courts will issue a restraining order
on the sale of any "community property", so the husband will not be
able to "sell" it back to the parents.


Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., President
California Parents United, Inc.

"The best parent is both parents...."

On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:21:27 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber)
wrote:

[snip]
If A valued her marriage, she would not allow "just friends"relationships with the opposite sex PERIOD, out of respect for herhusbands feelings. The same applies to him. That's one of thereasons you get married, to make one person special and not threatenthem or attempt to make them insecure with these "just friends"relationships.

I could not disagree more.

Some of my closest friends are men. If I had a significant other, and
he made giving up these friends a condition of continuing our
relationship, then I'd take that as a very clear signal to end the
relationship. And I'm not talking about my friendships.

Of course, I couldn't imagine forming a relationship with a man who
had this kind of mindset in the first place, so it's not likely to be
an issue for me.

Barb

> Barbara Didrichsen wrote: If A valued her marriage, she would not allow "just friends" relationships with the opposite sex PERIOD, out of respect for her husbands feelings. The same applies to him. That's one of the reasons you get married, to make one person special and not threaten them or attempt to make them insecure with these "just friends" relationships. I could not disagree more. Some of my closest friends are men. If I had a significant other, and he made giving up these friends a condition of continuing our relationship, then I'd take that as a very clear signal to end the relationship. And I'm not talking about my friendships. Of course, I couldn't imagine forming a relationship with a man who had this kind of mindset in the first place, so it's not likely to be an issue for me.

I don't disagree with you, and even feel that opposite sex friendships
can and should be maintained. But, I do feel that some things should
change. Constant one-on-one companionship should be curtailed, for
example.

--
Dave says... Fire Dave Hudgens

Barbara Didrichsen wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:21:27 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber) wrote: [snip]If A valued her marriage, she would not allow "just friends"relationships with the opposite sex PERIOD, out of respect for herhusbands feelings. The same applies to him. That's one of thereasons you get married, to make one person special and not threatenthem or attempt to make them insecure with these "just friends"relationships.

Disagree. D did not object to the other male friends that A had
and D (at least before he became convinced they were having an
affair, which was never proven) didn't object to that particular
male friend. What D objected to was the amount of time that A
spent away from the house, from him and their child, AND some of
the things she was doing while away from the house. In essence,
D didn't object to the opposite sex friend, he objected to the
level of attention that the opposite sex friend got from his wife
compared to the level attention that he got from his wife. And
quite rightly, IMO.
I could not disagree more. Some of my closest friends are men. If I had a significant other, and he made giving up these friends a condition of continuing our relationship, then I'd take that as a very clear signal to end the relationship. And I'm not talking about my friendships.

Well, at the same time, Barb, I don't see you as the type to put
your male friends ahead of your SO, which is what was happening
between A and D (although there were tons of other stuff mixed up
in there, too.)
Of course, I couldn't imagine forming a relationship with a man who had this kind of mindset in the first place, so it's not likely to be an issue for me.

The basic problem between the two of them, IMO, was that they had
different ideas about what should happen once a couple has a child.
Up until her pregnancy, A acted a certain way and D joined in and
went along with her wherever she went and things were fine. After
the baby came, D was ready to put all that single life stuff behind
and be Mr. Dad, while A wanted to continue the way she had before.

Recipe for disaster and, boy, did it strike....

Tracey

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:19:00 GMT, Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote:
I guess my point is that you can be supportive of someone and notactually be supporting their actions at the time.Tracey

Thanks for posting that, Tracey. I absolutely agree. Furthermore, I'm
not throwing over someone who may be my best friend in the world just
because she's morally flawed. I ain't perfect myself.

And, looking back over my messages, I haven't really been fair to my
friend (perhaps because of the anger I still feel over what's
happening). She's really not considering spousal support, except as a
distant backup option in case the husband locks up the house (a plan
he's already backing down from). It was just a subject that came up
briefly the other night and I got curious.

She's a good person who just happens to be capable of massive self
delusion. I point this out to her a lot and it seems to be getting
through. When she says something selfish, she'll stop in midsentence
and say, "I know what you're thinking." And she'll tell me exactly
what I'm thinking.

So she must be listening.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:31:42 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber)
wrote:
Somehow I think you're missing my irony.You're wrong about how I feel about it. But, as I said elsewhere, I'mher friend and I'm going to support her, while privately telling herwhat I think. As often as not I defend the husband, who I think isgetting a really bad deal.I don't think she's going to go for the spousal support. Even sherecognizes that it isn't fair. But you never know. People do strangethings in a divorce.Why are you such a loyal and supportive friend to someone who is soselfish and morally flawed?None of us are perfect, but if you are so loyal and supportive of yourfriend in this way, you must share or at least sympathize with whatshe is trying to do. This says something about you you too...Beachcomber

Guess this is what I get for not being more open about my feelings:
the anger, the frustration, and, yes, the love.

Too late now. I've already said enough that that there are a few
people, should they stumble in here, that will know who I'm talking
about. Gotta go.

In article <ck05819i755n7pe0rdvtvroctco27q22cf@4ax.com>,
Barbara Didrichsen <barberra@yahooremove.com> wrote:On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:21:27 GMT, not_real@xxx.yyy (Beachcomber)wrote:[snip]If A valued her marriage, she would not allow "just friends"relationships with the opposite sex PERIOD, out of respect for herhusbands feelings. The same applies to him. That's one of thereasons you get married, to make one person special and not threatenthem or attempt to make them insecure with these "just friends"relationships.I could not disagree more.Some of my closest friends are men. If I had a significant other, andhe made giving up these friends a condition of continuing ourrelationship, then I'd take that as a very clear signal to end therelationship. And I'm not talking about my friendships.Of course, I couldn't imagine forming a relationship with a man whohad this kind of mindset in the first place, so it's not likely to bean issue for me.

Don't know about the original situation, but Beachcomber's response
is definitely one I can't agree with at all. (I went back and read
the whole thing.) By that response, on marriage all women should cease
having any contact with any humans other than their husband and perhaps
children. They should be sequestered away from all possible situations
where there could conceivably be a single male present (his concern that
she stay away from any situation in which a single male could possibly
'hit on' her).

Nonsense.

A related point is one that my lady and I had talked about early in
our relationship. We've both paid enough attention to the world to
know that no one person can be absolutely everything for any other
person. Their interests differ, sometimes one partner's need is more
than what the other partner can supply (yes, dear, I really do care
that someone was mean to you at work, but right now I'm feeling terrible
myself), sometimes it is just good to do things not together and
thereby have something to talk about that you did apart, etc.

We'd also considered the kind of person we wanted to be with. For
both of us, we'd decided that we wanted to be with people who had circles
of friends, circles they'd maintained for some years. This was partly
for the above reasons. For me, it was also a hedge against the mistake
I'd made in my marriage. Winding up with someone who insisted that I
be everything for her showed me how impossible this is.

If you're going to be with a person who has a circle of friends, and
has maintained that circle for years, then (surprise) they do indeed
spend time with those friends. And they should. Two way street, of course.

My mind boggles at the thought of being with someone so ferociously
inept socially (even my ex wasn't this bad) that they could not possibly
carry social contact with anybody except their partner. I boggle more
at the thought of _wanting_ to be with such a person.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

My husband and I have been married for a little over a year, and it has been hell. We seperated for about 2 weeks, he got his own place. He talked me into moving ou of my place that I was living in for 7 years and moving to his place now he is threatening to kick me out. I am not on his rental agreement but he still wants me to pay l/2 rent. Can he legally do this?

I went through basically the same, Ca does not care about boyfriend, read my post under ravengotu.....GET A LAWYER or else pay..... :confused: