PDA

View Full Version : Here we go..... put yourself in this guy's shoes.



Sitarro
07-24-2007, 10:54 AM
How easy would it be to sign this check each month? I wonder if he is even allowed to see his kids.


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5504350


Woman in Same-Sex Partnership Gets Ex-Husband's Alimony
In Registered Domestic Partnership With Another Woman

By Eileen Frere

SANTA ANA, July 23, 2007 (KABC-TV) - Should a local man still be required to pay alimony to an ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership? A judge rules in a case at the center of the same-sex marriage debate. It's a local case being watched by same-sex marriage advocates nationwide.


A judge ruled domestic partnership is merely cohabitation -- not marriage -- and an ex-husband must pay alimony.

Ron Garber says he knew his ex-wife was living with another woman and he was OK with that. What he says he was not OK was when he learned they had registered as domestic partners. He says he felt that meant marriage and he should not have to pay spousal support.

Ron Garber says he didn't mind signing an agreement to pay $1,250 a month in spousal support for five years, until he learned what his ex-wife Melinda and her new partner had done. They had registered with the state as domestic partners.

"Their union is absolutely the same as a marriage," says Garber.

Under California law, alimony ends when the former spouse remarries, unless it's specified in an agreement. Garber took it to court, saying he should no longer have to pay spousal report to his former wife of 18 years. After two years in court, a judge ruled registered partnership is not marriage, but cohabitation.

"That became very, very upsetting because I felt like I was behind the eight-ball," says Garber.

The case shows loopholes between the legal status of domestic partners and married couples. The California Supreme Court is looking at the issue as it decides whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

Garber's ex-wife and mother of his two teenage children, Melinda Kirkwood, would not go on camera, but she says Garber knew she was living with her partner before they reached a settlement.

"We signed a settlement agreement and waived our right to disclosure, so I wasn't required to tell him, just as he wasn't required to tell me about his remarriage."

Kirkwood says the agreement was binding, whether she was in a domestic partnership or married to a man. Garber says this is not about being gay or lesbian. It's about fairness.

"Couples that have this kind of a domestic-partnership union, they are married and they need to be dealt with in terms of the rights and responsibilities need to be the same," says Garber.

And Ron Garber says he plans to appeal the case.

Hagbard Celine
07-24-2007, 11:06 AM
I think it's marriage too. If the state would put it on the books as being legally-binding marriage, these gray-area cases wouldn't occur because the law would be clear. It's only a matter of time. This guy shouldn't have to pay alimony to his ex-wife if she's remarried, lesbian or not.

Mr. P
07-24-2007, 11:07 AM
How easy would it be to sign this check each month?....A judge ruled domestic partnership is merely cohabitation -- not marriage -- and an ex-husband must pay alimony.

As hard for him as any..Hetros use this loophole everyday while living with the new guy. Don't "marry" and alimony keeps a comin. SUX!

darin
07-24-2007, 11:54 AM
In a system set-up AGAINST men, this doesn't surprise me.

avatar4321
07-24-2007, 05:59 PM
In a system set-up AGAINST men, this doesn't surprise me.

I agree. we should really fix that. If people cohabitate they shouldnt get alimony.

glockmail
07-24-2007, 07:36 PM
In a system set-up AGAINST men, this doesn't surprise me.
No shit. Would never happen if the guy turned gay and had a butt buddy.

5stringJeff
07-25-2007, 05:22 PM
Do you really think the judge should have ruled the other way, and say that gay cohabitation/domestic partnerships are marriage?

Yurt
07-25-2007, 07:43 PM
Do you really think the judge should have ruled the other way, and say that gay cohabitation/domestic partnerships are marriage?

only in terms of comparing them to hetros who live together and purposefully don't marry just to get alimony. that is not what the system was set up for and it is 99% men who are getting the shaft in the divorce while their ex wives get the gold mine. a ruling could make it analogous, but NOT marriage. I do though see your point Jeff, in that it would probably be a slippery slope.

most people with good lawyers will have the alimony capped at a certain time period of if funds/assets available offset payments for a lump payout.

Abbey Marie
07-25-2007, 07:45 PM
Perhaps marriage and/or cohabitation shouldn't be determinent. Instead, if there is evidence that the ex and the new partner are supporting each other financially, alimony should cease.

manu1959
07-25-2007, 07:48 PM
Do you really think the judge should have ruled the other way, and say that gay cohabitation/domestic partnerships are marriage?

i think living together and not marrying is a loophole that should be closed....

that said.....if they could marry...they would....and so they should not get any money......

Yurt
07-25-2007, 07:50 PM
Perhaps marriage and/or cohabitation shouldn't be determinent. Instead, if there is evidence that the ex and the new partner are supporting each other financially, alimony should cease.

A great idea. I don't think it will work though because I am not sure the judge has the jurisdiction to look into the private records of the live in partner.

Abbey Marie
07-25-2007, 08:00 PM
A great idea. I don't think it will work though because I am not sure the judge has the jurisdiction to look into the private records of the live in partner.

But he could look into what goes into and out of the ex's acounts, and there is always the testimony of witnesses. ???

Trigg
07-25-2007, 08:04 PM
I live in a no alimony state, everything just gets split 50/50 right down the middle.

So much more fair IMO than paying spousal support. Even if you consider one spouse having never worked, they would still get half the assets.

Yurt
07-25-2007, 08:15 PM
But he could look into what goes into and out of the ex's acounts, and there is always the testimony of witnesses. ???

I agree. But, I believe jurisdiction goes to the husbands accounts, not the wifes. The issue is not her account, rather if and only if she marries. This is why the law if inherently flawed. And as Manu pointed out, creates a big loophole.

Abbey Marie
07-25-2007, 11:32 PM
I agree. But, I believe jurisdiction goes to the husbands accounts, not the wifes. The issue is not her account, rather if and only if she marries. This is why the law if inherently flawed. And as Manu pointed out, creates a big loophole.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part?

A divorce attorney could tell us much more, but I think when a party claims a change in financial circumstances, most anything relevant is up for review.

As to the other point, yes, I know that the law often considers marital status an important factor. That is why I was proposing a fundamental change.

waterrescuedude2000
07-25-2007, 11:42 PM
MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND DENOUNCE YOUR CITIZENSHIP... They couldnt do anything about it if you arent a citizen of the US can they????? I'd be moving to Cape Town asap if I had to pay that much. I already am pissed about paying 500 a month but fuck paying that much id be out. :pee: