Lifetime Alimony Was Never Intended To Be That Way

In Florida, as early as in 1955, there was a court case of KAHN v. KAHN, 78 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1955) where the Florida Supreme Court held that alimony was not supposed to last forever.

In Kahn, it states that:

"Since its original enactment in 1828, our statute has authorized the Chancellor to make such allowance for alimony to the wife "as from the circumstances of the parties and nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just; * * *." Section 65.08, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The wife's need and the husband's ability to pay was at an early date established as the criterion by which to determine what alimony, if any, was to be awarded the wife. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, Fla. 1951, 50 So.2d 169, and cases there cited. Thus, there was no need for alimony on the part of the wife if she had a separate estate "adequate to her comfortable support." Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308, 315, citing Bright, on Husband and Wife, p. 359.

Ordinarily, however, in those days the husband was the "only hope of support" of an "unfortunate wife, who may have been abandoned by a dissolute husband and doomed to drag out a weary existence in married widowhood. * * *" Chaires v. Chaires, supra. And, indeed, until recent years, a divorced wife had little prospect of being able to work and earn a livelihood, and it was essential to a well-ordered society that she be appropriately maintained by her estranged husband so that she would not become a charge on the community.

Times have now changed. The broad, practically unlimited opportunities for women in the business world of today are a matter of common knowledge. Thus, in an era where the opportunities for self-support by the wife are so abundant, the fact that the marriage has been brought to an end because of the fault of the husband does not necessarily entitle the wife to be forever supported by a former husband who has little, if any, more economic advantages than she has.

We do not construe the marriage status, once achieved, as conferring on the former wife of a ship-wrecked marriage the right to live a life of veritable ease with no effort and little incentive on her part to apply such talent as she may possess to making her own way."

Justice Farmer, of the Idaho Supreme Court, carried this theme forward back in 1976, in the case of OLSEN v. OLSEN, 98 Idaho 10 (1976), when, in his dissent, he stated:

"Secondly, I believe that the facts of the instant case emphasize the need for re-examination of the entire concept of alimony and the continuing viability of that concept in contemporary society. Put in different words, the question facing the Court is whether a judicially imposed system of involuntary servitude is to be continued wherein one human being is placed in bondage to another for what is effectively the remainder of his natural life." [Emphasis added]

[Both entire case citations can be found by clicking here.]

---------------------------------

Learn how you can change your alimony payments by clicking here.

###

Where is the "Need" Established in Alimony?

First, ask yourself, why does the court have to establish a "Need" by your spouse in order to award them alimony?

Consider this: When you went to get your marriage license, did the state demand that you produce a financial affidavit and proof of being able to support your spouse during the course of your marriage before you were issued a license? Why wasn't it important to them then when you wanted to get married?

When you get divorced, the state then looks to your ability to pay and your to your spouse's NEEDS at that time. Again the question arises: "Why would they be interested in determining any need now?" What is the difference between entering or exiting marriage as far as the state is concerned? If you are any reasonable type of individual, you would reply NONE.

However, if you consider the fact that if the state, lawyers and the rest of the legal industry can interject themselves into a facet of your life with any degree of legality, then they stand to make a tidy sum of money from both parties and thereby create a transfer of wealth from your family to theirs. Neat isn't it. Just follow the money trail to find the culprits.

What your ex contributed to the marriage, and thereby allowed the asset base of the family to grow in proportion to the efforts of both of you, is a matter that is addressed in the final dissolution. At that time, the court divides up the marital estate in an equitable distribution or splitting up of community property.

Some spouses request compensation for lost opportunities while married. If you really look at the reality, that spouse is requesting to be compensated for making a bad decision in entering the marriage contract for a business that has gone bad. And that's what a marriage is....a contract. The same as any other contract you would enter in the business world.

When one spouse enters the marriage contract, they do so knowing they will be giving up future opportunities because they feel the benefits they will derive [with their efforts contributed to the marriage] from this union will outweigh the possibility of any lost opportunities. That is a choice they determined of their own free will and not as a result of coercion. They knew it going in.

If the marriage goes bad or if the spouse determines that there are enough financial incentives to terminate the marriage, then there will be a splitting of the marital estate and the spouse will be able to extract their share [and maybe a part of their spouse's share] as a reward for exiting the marriage.

If you will notice in most conversation about someone not getting their alimony and being shortchanged by some "deadbeat dad," they will never mention anything about what they got in the divorce settlement that compensated them for their part in the marriage.

They concentrate on what they feel is an entitlement to a lifetime of alimony welfare payments to compensate them for what they think they somehow lost. In what business that you know of that terminates operation, does one of the partners agree to not only split the business assets but in addition support the other partner for the rest of their life????

In my opinion, there is a large element of greed associated with some spouses wanting of lifetime alimony welfare as if they somehow are entitled to it for the "sacrifice" they made in marrying someone. They not only want the share of what represents their contribution of their efforts to the marriage, they now want a lifetime of support to follow so they can live a life of ease without any responsibility to maintain themselves as useful and productive members of society.

Where else can someone have their cake and eat it too? Divorce is one way they can do that. Hence you have a great financial incentive for them to initiate divorce actions.

So where does this need come from? In the case of Hillier v. Iglesias, 901 So.2d 947 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2005), the courts have ruled as follows:

In Florida the purpose for permanent, periodic alimony is to provide a
former spouse with the necessities of life. As the court explained in Canakaris
v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla. 1980)

“Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and
the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been
established by the marriage of the parties. The two primary
elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic
alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability
of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. The criteria to
be used in establishing this need include the parties’ earning
ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the
standard of living enjoyed during its course, and the value of the
parties’ estates."

However, you need to read the FARMER, C.J., concurring specially portion of the ruling starting on page 3 in which NEED is more accurately framed. [Read the whole case cite....]

After receiving their share of the marital estate for their efforts and contributions to the marriage, how are they now in jeopardy of not being able to get the necessities of life or live at bare subsistence levels? They are not entitled to have someone else be obligated to subsidize their extravagances and lack of frugality.

Feminists like to quickly rebut any effort of a man who complains about the burdens of alimony with the saying....."Be a Man."

To me, being a man implies accepting responsibility for oneself, making ones way in the world and being a useful and productive member of society. Then I can only say to those women who demand equality for both sexes and yet who demand alimony welfare...."Be a Man!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find out how assets can be hidden or how you can find them: A Spouse's Guide To Hiding Assets.

-30-

Question: When is a Debt Not a Debt?

Answer: When it is an obligation to society!

Look up "debt" in a dictionary and find the definition. You will see it can be considered an obligation. Therefore, an "obligation" can be a "debt."

Somehow in their infinite wisdom, the judges have found a way to redefine the meanings of words as understood by the common person, in such a way so as to justify being able to circumvent the law in order to incarcerate you in the outlawed and abolished "DEBTOR'S PRISON" in defiance of your constitutional rights.

The framers of the Constitution declared that it be written in a language understood by the common person and not embellished and subverted in the obfuscation of legalese.

You can read how the judges perpetrate this deception in the following case cite that shows their perverted logic.

GIBSON v. BENNETT, 561 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1990)

Starting on page 570

"Gibson next argues that enforcement of a judgment for support by contempt violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt found in article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitution.

Initially, we note that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the obligation to pay support may be enforced by imprisonment for contempt without violating a constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575, 21 S.Ct. 735, 45 L.Ed. 1009 (1901) (quoting Barclay v. Barclay, 184 Ill. 375, 56 N.E. 636 (1900)); Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390 (1904).

Although both of these cases involved bankruptcy proceedings, the question before the Court in each instance was whether an order for support constituted a debt that could be discharged in bankruptcy. In determining that a support decree was not such a debt, the Court distinguished an obligation to pay support from a debt arising from a business transaction or a contractual obligation stating:

[A] decree awarding alimony to the wife or children, or both, is not a debt which has been put into the form of a judgment, but is rather a legal means of enforcing the obligation of the husband and father to support and maintain his wife and children. He owes this duty, not because of any contractual obligation, or as a debt due to the wife, but because of the policy of the law which imposes the obligation upon the husband. The law interferes when the husband neglects or refuses to discharge this duty, and enforces it against him by means of legal proceedings. Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. at 74, 25 S.Ct. at 174.

In Florida, imprisonment for debt is specifically prohibited by the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 11, Fla. Const. However, it is well settled that the obligation to pay spousal or child support does not constitute a debt within the meaning of article I, section 11. State ex rel. Krueger v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498, 188 So. 575 (1939). Rather, a support obligation is viewed as a personal duty, not only to a former spouse or child, but to society generally. Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 So. 248(1901). Thus, because the courts are enforcing a duty not a debt, enforcement of spousal or child support by contempt, under both federal and state law, is not a violation of Florida's constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

It must be understood, however, that enforcement of support payments by contempt is not absolute. Contempt for failure to pay support is civil contempt because its purpose is to obtain compliance from the person subject to an order of the court. In Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1278 (Fla. 1985), this Court emphasized that civil contempt is appropriate only upon demonstration that the party in default has the present ability to comply with the purge provisions of the court order and avoid imprisonment. Because the original order or judgment directing a party to pay support is based on a finding that the party has the ability to pay, that order or judgment creates the presumption in subsequent proceedings that the party can pay. Id. The burden rests upon the defaulting party to produce evidence to dispel the presumption of ability to pay due to circumstances beyond his or her control and to prove there was no willful disobedience of the court order. Incarceration for civil contempt for nonpayment of a support obligation cannot be imposed absent a separate, affirmative finding by the trial court appearing on the record that the defaulting
Page 571
party has the ability to comply with the purge conditions of the contempt order.[fn3] Id. at 1279. Thus, an individual's ability to pay from some available asset[fn4] is the "key to his cell." Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1977). A nonpaying party who has the financial ability to pay can discharge the sentence imposed by doing what he or she has previously refused to do."
----------------------------------------

Why do they do this? Again, if you will follow the money, you will find the answer. The legal industry makes money from adversarial relationships. They create ways to extort money from the adversarial spouses in a divorce proceeding. Essentially, they have found a way to transfer wealth from the spouse's wallets into their coffers by redefining the plain meaning of words to suit their nefarious purposes.

Find out how to modify your alimony payments by clicking here.

-30-