Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership

[almaty 19]

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.

Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.

The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said.

Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.

"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."

Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.

Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.

"If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Very interesting legal catch 22...

Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

Hmmmm...

[Nancy2015 2]

Wow, poor guy - he's in deep s**t

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Wow, poor guy - he's in deep s**t

agreed! for that amount of money every month, he should at least get to watch them getting busy

[JoeMama 0]

He ought to quit his job and have the support re-evaluated. If he makes less than she does, he doesn't have to pay her. If there's children and he's got them 50% of the time, he's entitled to support from her. That's the way it works in CA.

[Nancy2015 2]

He ought to quit his job and have the support re-evaluated. If he makes less than she does, he doesn't have to pay her. If there's children and he's got them 50% of the time, he's entitled to support from her. That's the way it works in CA.

But quitting his job may not help - losing a job doesn't mean you have to stop paying support. He can probably get a job at fast-food joint and work for minimum wage - that will help him get alimony evaluated all right

I've always thought alimony was unfair

[Heracles 417]

He should move overseas. I would to see her try get alimony from someone overseas.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

She's abusing the system and her ex.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She's abusing the system and her ex.

It's a legal dilemma. If some in this country don't want to recognize domestic partnerships on par with marriage then the Judge decided correctly. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe someone can explain to me what "spousal support" means in this context.

"He must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife"

Why? Do they have children together?

If not, how long is a man expected to support his EX-wife?

Does she not have a job? And if she had a job, would he still have to keep paying her?

Edited: Also, why does he have to keep paying her, and not vice versa? Why isn't she supporting him?

Edited July 24, 2007 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe someone can explain to me what "spousal support" means in this context.

"He must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife"

Why? Do they have children together?

If not, how long is a man expected to support his EX-wife?

Does she not have a job? And if she had a job, would he still have to keep paying her?

From my experience of divorce, it's based on where the two spouses were in terms of career and finances prior to the marriage and then at the end of the marriage. That is an awful lot of money for alimony.

[hmm1 0]

Maybe someone can explain to me what "spousal support" means in this context.

"He must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife"

Why? Do they have children together?

If not, how long is a man expected to support his EX-wife?

Does she not have a job? And if she had a job, would he still have to keep paying her?

From my experience of divorce, it's based on where the two spouses were in terms of career and finances prior to the marriage and then at the end of the marriage. That is an awful lot of money for alimony.

Wow...I thought 300 a month was bad...but 1250, give me a break...spousal support is really unfair and should not exist. Why should I have to pay a woman money, just to get rid of her and her antics...baffles me, but atleast it is tax deductible...

[Jenn! 918]

I believe the idea of alimony is to allow the lower earning spouse to maintain the lifestyle to which they became accustomed during the marriage.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe someone can explain to me what "spousal support" means in this context.

"He must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife"

Why? Do they have children together?

If not, how long is a man expected to support his EX-wife?

Does she not have a job? And if she had a job, would he still have to keep paying her?

From my experience of divorce, it's based on where the two spouses were in terms of career and finances prior to the marriage and then at the end of the marriage. That is an awful lot of money for alimony.

Wow...I thought 300 a month was bad...but 1250, give me a break...spousal support is really unfair and should not exist. Why should I have to pay a woman money, just to get rid of her and her antics...baffles me, but atleast it is tax deductible...

Like child support, it's based on a formula.

[sparkofcreation 0]

He ought to quit his job and have the support re-evaluated. If he makes less than she does, he doesn't have to pay her. If there's children and he's got them 50% of the time, he's entitled to support from her. That's the way it works in CA.

But quitting his job may not help - losing a job doesn't mean you have to stop paying support. He can probably get a job at fast-food joint and work for minimum wage - that will help him get alimony evaluated all right

I've always thought alimony was unfair

If you're voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, the court can impute income to you and make you pay what you'd have to pay if you were earning what you could be earning. You have to prove that you were forced to leave the job and were unable to find a better one.

I don't think alimony is inherently unfair--there are a lot of people who get married very young and one never develops skills and stays at home with the kids and keeps the house clean for decades and has never needed to keep up their professional skills. In some cases, that person has even done it specifically because the other person has a high-power, high-paying job (like if the other person is working 100 hours a week, obviously the 1st person is doing all the child care). So I don't think it's unreasonable to have rehabilitative alimony (which is usually to support the other person for a few years while she goes back to school to get her skills up to par to enter the work force) or, in the case of very long marriages where the person who hasn't worked in 50 years and is of an age where they could retire, even permanent alimony. Or, for example, if there's a disabled child who needs round-the-clock care, I don't think it's wrong for the father to have to pay alimony to the mother so she can take care of the child instead of going back to work.

There are people who abuse it, but I've rarely seen alimony awarded in a case not covered by the above--if two people have both worked and one hasn't put their career on hold for the other or turned down significant career advances for the other, then alimony isn't usually granted. At least not in New Jersey. Not having worked in any other state's family courts, I couldn't tell you what happens there.

BTW NJ's civil union legislation specifically makes entering a civil union grounds for termination of alimony.

Edited July 24, 2007 by sparkofcreation