Second Wives of South Carolina Meet

Friday, December 12th, The Second Wives Club met to discuss the coming legislative session. We came to a consensus on the following:

1. End permanent alimony. We share the common goal of ending permanent alimony in the state in favor of rehabilitative (temporary) alimony to be paid to the lesser earning spouse over a period of time appropriate to the length of the marriage, if indeed there is a large income disparity between the divorcing parties. This will allow both parties to plan for their financial well-being accordingly. This will make it possible for parents to pay for college tuition for their children, rather than support a fully-grown ex-spouse, since paying for both is impossible. This will allow everyone to retire upon reaching retirement age. And it encourages the individuals to get on with their lives in a healthy way.
2. Guidelines. Alimony should be determined according to a clear set of guidelines, rather than the cumbersome and lengthy list of factors currently left up to the discretion of the judge, which has led to inconsistent rulings. 
3. Purpose of alimony. It is a well-known myth that both parties can maintain the same standard of living upon divorce, since two households have been established. Why then is this language still used to describe the purpose of alimony and how much the lesser earning spouse should receive? Instead, we would like to see language that reflects the desire of the divorcing parties to be treated fairly, which might include rehabilitative alimony for the lesser earning spouse. The purpose of alimony should be to enable the lesser earning spouse to move towards financial independence through rehabilitative alimony for a length of time appropriate for the length of the marriage. This also means that alimony can never be raised above its original amount, as this would make the payor more responsible for the payee than at the time of divorce, which is not the purpose of alimony.
4. Ability to pay. This is an unfair standard sometimes used to justify making the payor tap into retirement funds or take out costly loans to pay alimony he or she cannot afford, even after losing a job or experiencing a decline in income. Often, payors must go to these extremes or face going to jail. In this economy, imputing income (a judge saying how much an individual should be able to generate) is an unfair practice. 
5. Seeking adjustments/reductions in alimony. It must be possible to seek adjustments in alimony when circumstances change. This means that the income and assets of the payee (the ex-spouse receiving alimony) should also be taken into consideration.
6. Co-habitation. Current rulings on co-habitation are unsatisfactory. For example, if a boyfriend or girlfriend leaves the home for a weekend, the 90 day co-habitation period may begin again. This clearly is not the intent of the law, which seeks to ensure that an individual paying alimony is not supporting an ex-spouse and his or her new partner.
7. Earnings and Assets of the Second Wife. The second wife's income and assets should never be taken into consideration when determining alimony. Making a couple financially responsible for a first wife in no way speaks to the purpose of alimony, nor does it reflect the reality of most women who work outside the home and perhaps also raise children. Good law encourages the independence of divorcing parties in an economy where both men and women work. Second wives have worked to achieve their own financial independence and should never have to contribute to the alimony of the first wife.

~The Second Wives Club of South Carolina

What I Learned at the Family Law Reform Conference

In Sweden only 2% of divorce cases end up in court. How can that be, when in the United States so many people end up in long, drawn out legal battles with an ex-partner who becomes the enemy?  Instead, mediation is the norm in Sweden, where 98% of divorce cases are handled by mediators who negotiate fair settlements for everyone involved. And yet in America, authors pen books which laud a "take-no-prisoners guide to divorce."

Last weekend, people from all parts of the country from all different walks of life came together in Alexandria, Virginia to talk about Family Law Reform. The conference was organized by a man named Joseph Sorge, who has written a book and produced a film, both entitled Divorce Corp. It is both frustrating and reassuring to learn that the family law system in the United States was not originally intended to be adversarial. And yet, here we are, stuck in a process that drags on and encourages separating spouses to go at each other for money, property, and custody.

I am encouraged because so many people bothered to travel distances small and large to attend. It is healing to hear people say--it doesn't have to be this way! It is even more energizing to then rally around plans to move forward and create real change.

Groups in other states have been successful in changing laws, and many more have bills on the table. A large part of the work that is being done is about educating the public about just how antiquated the laws have become. Unless you have been through it yourself, it is hard to imagine that you might be ordered to pay more than half of your income to your ex-spouse, even though he or she has a good job and a college education. It is hard to imagine that you can be married to someone for as few as 7 or 8 years and be expected to pay him or her alimony for the rest of your life. It is hard to believe that while your ex's income increases and yours decreases, you cannot get your alimony payments lowered. It is hard to understand why the law says you have no legal or financial obligation to your children after they turn eighteen, but that you are financially responsible for a fully-grown ex-spouse until you or he or she dies. And it is impossible to understand how our state makes retirement impossible for those who pay alimony, because alimony does not end when your income is drastically reduced in retirement. And this is just the alimony side of family law reform!

Most people would agree that everyone should have the right to retire. Most people would agree that having a permanent financial responsibility to an ex-spouse to whom you were married less than a decade is treating that spouse like a child. The purpose of family law reform is to create laws which serve the vast majority well. For example, most people agree that alimony is just but permanent alimony is not. But the process to change the process doesn't have to be adversarial either. That's what I took away from the Family Law Reform Conference. The way to change an adversarial process is through educating the public.

30 Somethings Give Me Hope

So I was in Charlotte recently and received more questions about my "Stop Permanent Alimony" bumper sticker in North Carolina than I have ever gotten here in SC. People were simply curious. What I found so heartening was that most of the questions came from individuals in their thirties, who really didn't understand the concept of alimony, especially permanent alimony. One guy was quite confused to see me, a female, approach my car, since he assumed a man would be driving a car with an anti-alimony (permanent alimony) sticker on it. I explained that I, too, was paying the alimony. He asked if this was different than child-support, and I replied that not only is it different, it's permanent. This type of alimony does not end when your children turn eighteen.

His questions was, "But why?" I could only smile. "That's a very good question," I answered. He couldn't imagine why you would continue to pay for an ex-spouse, an adult, as if they are a child, indefinitely. I don't know what divorce laws are like in NC, but I explained that in SC, depending upon the situation and especially if there is a difference in income and earning power at the time of the divorce, you can get stuck with permanent alimony. I explained that my husband was married for eight years and had paid alimony and child-support for eight years to the tune of close to a half a million dollars. He was shocked. We acknowledged that sometimes, but less often, women pay alimony to ex-husbands and that some women do not get the alimony awards they deserve.

The reactions from both men and women, all in their early thirties, give me hope, because they suggest that Millennials take for granted that they are responsible for themselves and that marriage and subsequent divorce should not free you from the need or desire to take care of yourself. These reactions also suggest that such assumptions will eventually lead to changes in divorce law and the way alimony is awarded.

Before parting ways, I made it clear that I think alimony has its place, but that permanent alimony is a crushing burden. He really got it. He thanked me for my explanation and walked away shaking his head, but not before pointing out that some of the wealthiest women in the world happen to be divorcees with whopping alimonies.

Alimony Blues

So yesterday the pest control guy saw my "Stop Permanent Alimony" bumper sticker and put me onto a Led Zeppelin song "Livin', Lovin' Maid":

Alimony, alimony, payin' your bills

livin', lovin', she is just a woman

I've never been a Led Zeppelin fan, but the image of a groupie "with a purple umbrella and a fifty cent hat" who followed the band around because someone else was paying her bills rings true. 

Of course, what could be better to convey the hopeless misery one feels when paying your ex so much of your earnings that his or her lifestyle is better and freer than yours than the blues? Eddie Cleanhead Vinson sings,

Alimony alimony I thought I bought steak and it was all baloney

My heart and back are both about to break from paying' for my mistake yeah.

If country music is more your speed, you can yodel along with Joe Manuel's "Alimony Blues." Manuel reminds us that "we all have trouble sometimes" but that his two wives are just too much. Mel Tillis and the Old Dogs have their own version. Listen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9701YPoAcbM

Even Weird Al Yankovic spoofed Billy Idol's "Mony Mony" with his song "Even Worse--Alimony." Hard to listen to, but straight to the point.

When sifting through all the various alimony songs, whether rock, blues, country, or pop, you will find that they all ask the same question one song explicitly queries," Judge, where is your justice?"

In a recent motion to reconsider, the judge refused to take into account proof of my husband's monthly earnings, but chose instead to continue to impute $7,000 a month (which he is not making). Even if he were earning that much, the alimony would still be 24% of his monthly income (this is alimony only, not child support, which is additional). As it stands, he is paying something like $49% of what he works for each month.

I have an uncle who paid 80% of his income to his ex-wife for some years. He barely eked out an existence. The difference is, his alimony in Pennsylvania ended when his children turned 18. No such luck in our case. The alimony is permanent. Judge, where is your justice?

The Many Faces of Permanent Alimony

Permanent alimony creates hardships not only for the person who got divorced and is making the payment, but for new spouses, teenagers aspiring to attend college, and even grandparents helping adult children who have been stripped of financial independence because of high alimony payments. Finally, many people can't even retire, because the alimony they are supposed to pay until their death or their spouse's is just that high. This blog was created to bring the wide range of people negatively affected by permanent alimony to light. You might be 67 or you might be 17. Permanent alimony is ruining your right to go to college, retire, or to simply bear the fruits of your own labor.

First of all, let's be clear. Alimony Reform in South Carolina is about ending permanent alimony, not  about doing away with short-term or what is sometimes called rehabilitative alimony. Most people agree that if at the time of a divorce one spouse earns significantly more than the other, then the lesser earning spouse deserves financial support from the higher earner for a period of time until he or she is able to adjust to the new circumstances. Divorce is hard enough, and the financial transition can be very difficult for everyone involved.

That said, the financial support should not go on indefinitely. Permanent alimony is a remnant of a bygone era, when women gave up their rights and their property to their husbands upon getting married and when there were very few professions open to women. Even well into the 20th century, it was next to impossible for a woman to support herself financially after a divorce. With more women getting college educations in the United States today than men, those days are long gone. Permanent alimony has become economic servitude, and cases of hardship abound.

For example, sometimes the ex-wife will intentionally take a lesser earning job, because she can more or less live off of her ex-husband, who then can't retire because he can't live off his retirement and pay her alimony.

Or an ex-wife might indebt herself by purchasing a second home and claim financial need for continued permanent alimony as a result; the court might even ignore the financial downturn the husband has experienced and order him to continue with exorbitant payments that don't reflect the fact that over the years, the earning power of the ex-wife has become almost equal to that of her ex-husband.

While technically the second wife is not supposed to pay the alimony of the first, if your husband is about to be thrown into jail for contempt because the court will not give him relief, the second wife might be left with little choice.

Again, the horror stories abound. You probably have one yourself.

So if you find yourself paying your ex as you are staring in the face of tuition costs for your college freshman, or if you have worked for decades and now simply want to retire, a right you have earned, or if your finances have been impacted because your spouse's ex won't stand on his or her own two feet, join us in ending permanent alimony in the State of South Carolina. And tell us your story.

Share Your Story!

Are you a second wife or partner? Most of us have stumbled across stories of women (usually women, but sometimes men) who are either making their spouse's alimony payment or choosing not to marry their partner because they know their finances will then become linked to their new spouses's and alimony will become their burden. I remember thinking--how awful! How outrageous! How can the laws be so inequitable? Really? And then one day, I woke up and found that I was that second wife! I am paying my husband's ex-wife's alimony and barely making ends meet. To be honest, the ends are not meeting, and we have three teenagers headed toward college.

Share your story with an audience who understands! Are you working and your husband's ex-wife is not? Have you decided not to marry the person you love, so that your finances don't become entangled with his or her alimony payments? There are worse stories out there than mine.

We want to hear your voice! In other states like Massachusetts, the Second Wives Club created a significant push to bring reform to egregious, antiquated alimony laws. We can do the same! Let's get the conversation rolling. . .