- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
