It's Christmas Eve so I will keep this short, as there is still much to do to get ready for the big day tomorrow. First, my Christmas wish.
Dear Santa: please help us pass alimony reform this year in Oregon and help all our friends around the country pass reform in their states as well.
Second: my New Year's resolution: remember to take the high road in this debate. Some may feel I have been occasionally too harsh with my words when discussing this issue. It's a very hard situation to be in and at times I have been known to lose my cool. I am a passionate person at heart and sometimes the filter between my brain and my mouth (or my fingers, as I type) malfunctions. I am working on that.
Here is to engaging in a calm and reasoned debate on a critical issue in 2013!
Monday, December 24, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
We are still here!
Watch this space for an update later today or tomorrow on the alimony reform effort in Oregon. Please email me your story or that of your loved ones who are suffering under this antiquated regime that punishes (almost always) men for supporting their families and rewards (almost always) women who refuse to support themselves post-divorce.
New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Oregon: these are just a few of the states that are making alimony reform happen, modeling efforts after those of Steve Hintner in Massachusettes. We will prevail.
New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Oregon: these are just a few of the states that are making alimony reform happen, modeling efforts after those of Steve Hintner in Massachusettes. We will prevail.
Friday, September 21, 2012
It Is On
Dear Oregon Alimony Reform fans (and lurkers):
We used to have a saying when I was in grade school, based upon a popular video game:
"It's on, like Donkey Kong."
Meaning, I suppose:
"I am ready to do battle, much as the fearless ape/monkey/chimp (I can never keep those straight) portrayed in the fun and popular video game entitled 'Donkey Kong.' The aforementioned simian exerts himself mightily to defeat his foes, as I too plan to do at this very moment and into the immediate future."
And so my friends, I am happy to report to you today that It is On like Donkey Kong. "It" being alimony reform in Oregon.
We have received the draft legislation that the house counsel's office was kind enough to put together for us. If you email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com I will provide you with a copy.
How Can I Help?
What can you do to help? Lots of little things. First, please officially follow this blog and ask others to do the same, so I can reach more people who are interested in reform.
Email me (robindescamp@yahoo.com) and tell me your situation. If you'd rather talk by phone, we can do that too. We need stories from people who are either struggling with alimony payments, second partners/wives, or those who are married and terrified to get a divorce because of the potential alimony. Do you have a friend who is battling to get a modification in this horrible economy? Tell us about him, and tell him about us!
You don't even need to suffer under this insane and antiquated system to help. Write your legislators and express your support for the reform bill. A few months ago, someone I know who was BRILLIANT enough to marry with a prenuptial agreement asked me "why should I care about alimony reform in Oregon? I'm never going to have to pay."
Kudos for you, I told him, but this is a civil rights issue. You don't need to be gay to support equal marriage rights (although based upon current law penalizing one spouse for working and rewarding the other for not working, I tell my gay friends to be careful what they wish for!). You don't need to be a woman to support equal pay for equal work.
History shows us that the majority often works with the minority to further civil rights when an egregious wrong has been written into our laws. So please, PLEASE help us get the word out about the reform movement and that this bill will be coming up for a vote in 2013. Now is the time to call and write the politicians in Salem and tell them why you think alimony reform is needed.
Texas, a state that I don't consider exactly ahead of the times, enacted alimony reform a long time ago, and there have been no studies I am aware of that indicate the reform resulted in financial inequities or an increase in poverty. In fact, people who had previously not chosen to work because they were supported by someone else were motivated by necessity to put on their big girl pants and get into the workforce. Either that, or find a rich husband, which is a nice alternative for some if that is your mindset. You know the type.
That is all for today. Please contact me and join the movement.
We used to have a saying when I was in grade school, based upon a popular video game:
"It's on, like Donkey Kong."
Meaning, I suppose:
"I am ready to do battle, much as the fearless ape/monkey/chimp (I can never keep those straight) portrayed in the fun and popular video game entitled 'Donkey Kong.' The aforementioned simian exerts himself mightily to defeat his foes, as I too plan to do at this very moment and into the immediate future."
And so my friends, I am happy to report to you today that It is On like Donkey Kong. "It" being alimony reform in Oregon.
We have received the draft legislation that the house counsel's office was kind enough to put together for us. If you email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com I will provide you with a copy.
How Can I Help?
What can you do to help? Lots of little things. First, please officially follow this blog and ask others to do the same, so I can reach more people who are interested in reform.
Email me (robindescamp@yahoo.com) and tell me your situation. If you'd rather talk by phone, we can do that too. We need stories from people who are either struggling with alimony payments, second partners/wives, or those who are married and terrified to get a divorce because of the potential alimony. Do you have a friend who is battling to get a modification in this horrible economy? Tell us about him, and tell him about us!
You don't even need to suffer under this insane and antiquated system to help. Write your legislators and express your support for the reform bill. A few months ago, someone I know who was BRILLIANT enough to marry with a prenuptial agreement asked me "why should I care about alimony reform in Oregon? I'm never going to have to pay."
Kudos for you, I told him, but this is a civil rights issue. You don't need to be gay to support equal marriage rights (although based upon current law penalizing one spouse for working and rewarding the other for not working, I tell my gay friends to be careful what they wish for!). You don't need to be a woman to support equal pay for equal work.
History shows us that the majority often works with the minority to further civil rights when an egregious wrong has been written into our laws. So please, PLEASE help us get the word out about the reform movement and that this bill will be coming up for a vote in 2013. Now is the time to call and write the politicians in Salem and tell them why you think alimony reform is needed.
Texas, a state that I don't consider exactly ahead of the times, enacted alimony reform a long time ago, and there have been no studies I am aware of that indicate the reform resulted in financial inequities or an increase in poverty. In fact, people who had previously not chosen to work because they were supported by someone else were motivated by necessity to put on their big girl pants and get into the workforce. Either that, or find a rich husband, which is a nice alternative for some if that is your mindset. You know the type.
That is all for today. Please contact me and join the movement.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Hearing yesterday in Salem
This is a recap of the alimony reform presentation I gave yesterday, and it's lengthy. If you are not interested in this issue, please go play words with friends or take a jog or something.
It was 3 against 1 yesterday in what I can only describe as a somewhat surreal experience. Tom and I traveled to Salem and met Jennifer
It was 3 against 1 yesterday in what I can only describe as a somewhat surreal experience. Tom and I traveled to Salem and met Jennifer
Kennedy Lexa, Nicole Mattar and Andrew Guyler at the capitol. We had been invited to present our proposed changes to Oregon alimony law. On the other side was a family law judge and two divorce lawyers (divorce lawyers who make a very good living off the long, unpredictable and drawn-out nature of current divorce law).
I went first, but because the previous session had gone over by 35 minutes, I had to basically scrap most of my presentation and fly by the seat of my pants. Well, a really cute black dress, actually (thank you, Journey Gym! Size 6!)
While I would not describe myself as the world's most competent public speaker, I think my portion of the hearing went very well. I had them laughing, and I had them engaged. Many furrowed their brow when I spoke of the arbitrary and very difficult to modify nature of alimony awards. They especially liked it when I used my IRS letter example ("Hello, this is the IRS, we notice you make 1/10th you did last year, but we have become accustomed to taxing you at your former income so we will continue that process. If you cannot pay, you go to jail") that I posted on facebook a couple of months ago.
I wish I had more time, but I made my main points, which you will can see in the slide presentation should you choose to email me and request a copy. Then the other side had their turn. As I mentioned, there were three of them.
One speaker in particular was very notable. Personally, I assumed that despite the fact none of us were put under oath, we would all be honest and straightforward. One gentleman made a point of specifically misrepresenting the entire platform upon which OAR is based. He flipped the script - immediately after I said "X" he got up and said that I said "Y." How?
One of the very first points I made was that OAR believes that while judicial discretion is not the best way to solve every single contested divorce case (this is how things stand currently), judicial discretion should be preserved for those cases that warrant it: specifically those with unusual or especially compelling circumstances that demand a judge go outside the guidelines we are proposing.
I also made the point right off the bat that we understand the reasoning behind the concept of alimony, and we are not seeking to eliminate it. Rather, we are seeking to limit it by time (a cap of ten years) and amount (30% of income differential).
And yet, despite the fact this lawyer (seasoned all of three years yet somehow was part of this panel) had just sat through my presentation, had a copy of my materials, and saw them projected on two giant screens, he proceeded to testify that "every change they are proposing will completely eliminate all judicial discretion in every case and tie the judge's hands."
He said this at least 5 times in the five minutes he spoke. He also implied that our law would eliminate alimony altogether. This was an obvious and deliberate attempt to change our entire message. Happily for OAR, we watched the faces of the judiciary committee and afterward we all agreed that they were having none of it. These are some wicked smart peeps, yo!
Another speaker trotted out the sad and tired tale we have all heard a million times before: doctor marries wife, she gives up her career to put him through medical school and raise their four children. After 25 years of marriage, doctor throws over wife for a new, younger woman. It was interesting that at this point the speaker said "she was an attorney, actually, but not this attorney" which seemed to be referring to me. I may be imaging things, but it was just a really weird thing to say.
He said that case "haunts him to this day," despite the fact he got her a really spectacular lifetime alimony award. See the pattern here? We are in a NO-FAULT state, so it isn't supposed to matter if one person is a monumental asshole and the other is a saint. The division of property and allocation of alimony is a process that is supposed to be immune to finger-pointing and accusations of infidelity, excessive snoring, or an unhealthy addiction to Voodoo donuts and a resulting expanding girth.
It is almost always the men in the alimony argument who get painted as the evil and faithless scoundrel who leaves their poor wife in her middle age and after she "gave up" a career to raise children. You can just picture it: he strides by his former wife and children as they beg for money in the streets, arm and arm with his new young tart, both decked out in Prada, and she brushes imaginary lint off her ample and brand new bosom while he lights a Cuban cigar with a 100 dollar bill.
Maybe his wife wasn't all that great. Maybe she abused the children. Maybe she refused to be intimate with him. Maybe she was an unrelenting drug addict. Maybe she promised him when they got married that she wanted to have a career once the children were in school, but then refused to ever go back to work. Maybe she had a profligate spending problem, on top of her refusal to work. Worst of all, maybe she was boring. Maybe it was a combination of all these things and many others, along with the fact that the doctor was an insensitive jackass.
What annoys me is that the other side attempts to shift all blame in divorces on men who are enriched at their wives' expense and hot to chase new young tail. Sorry, but that just isn't the typical case. It's a cynical but foolish PR move that won't work.
Another tactic used by the other side is the continuous merging of the terms "alimony" and "child support" in a deliberate attempt to join two issues which are utterly separate and should not be viewed through the same lens. I lost count at how many times each of them spoke about child support and inferred that a standardization of alimony laws would negatively impact children.
One last thing: each of the anti-reform speakers wholeheartedly supports the current law in Oregon which says if your former spouse remarries that does NOT mean alimony ends, and if your former spouse remarries and you manage to cut off the gravy train, she can get it restarted if she gets divorced from Sucker #2 within ten years. Because after ten years, of course, that woman becomes another man's "responsibility."
Let that sink in. You pay and pay and one day, you hear your ex is getting remarried. After you finish dancing your happy dance (take your time, we know you must be thrilled!) you still have to sue her to end the alimony and go through a lengthy and very expensive court proceeding. And even if you win, and the alimony is reduced or eliminated, if she pulls the plug on marriage number two within 9 years and 355 days, you go right back on the hook.
If that doesn't sound fair to you and you want to get involved, and no I am not asking for donations, please email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com. There is much we can all do to try to get this legislation passed in the 2013 session. Please help. This could be you some day.
I went first, but because the previous session had gone over by 35 minutes, I had to basically scrap most of my presentation and fly by the seat of my pants. Well, a really cute black dress, actually (thank you, Journey Gym! Size 6!)
While I would not describe myself as the world's most competent public speaker, I think my portion of the hearing went very well. I had them laughing, and I had them engaged. Many furrowed their brow when I spoke of the arbitrary and very difficult to modify nature of alimony awards. They especially liked it when I used my IRS letter example ("Hello, this is the IRS, we notice you make 1/10th you did last year, but we have become accustomed to taxing you at your former income so we will continue that process. If you cannot pay, you go to jail") that I posted on facebook a couple of months ago.
I wish I had more time, but I made my main points, which you will can see in the slide presentation should you choose to email me and request a copy. Then the other side had their turn. As I mentioned, there were three of them.
One speaker in particular was very notable. Personally, I assumed that despite the fact none of us were put under oath, we would all be honest and straightforward. One gentleman made a point of specifically misrepresenting the entire platform upon which OAR is based. He flipped the script - immediately after I said "X" he got up and said that I said "Y." How?
One of the very first points I made was that OAR believes that while judicial discretion is not the best way to solve every single contested divorce case (this is how things stand currently), judicial discretion should be preserved for those cases that warrant it: specifically those with unusual or especially compelling circumstances that demand a judge go outside the guidelines we are proposing.
I also made the point right off the bat that we understand the reasoning behind the concept of alimony, and we are not seeking to eliminate it. Rather, we are seeking to limit it by time (a cap of ten years) and amount (30% of income differential).
And yet, despite the fact this lawyer (seasoned all of three years yet somehow was part of this panel) had just sat through my presentation, had a copy of my materials, and saw them projected on two giant screens, he proceeded to testify that "every change they are proposing will completely eliminate all judicial discretion in every case and tie the judge's hands."
He said this at least 5 times in the five minutes he spoke. He also implied that our law would eliminate alimony altogether. This was an obvious and deliberate attempt to change our entire message. Happily for OAR, we watched the faces of the judiciary committee and afterward we all agreed that they were having none of it. These are some wicked smart peeps, yo!
Another speaker trotted out the sad and tired tale we have all heard a million times before: doctor marries wife, she gives up her career to put him through medical school and raise their four children. After 25 years of marriage, doctor throws over wife for a new, younger woman. It was interesting that at this point the speaker said "she was an attorney, actually, but not this attorney" which seemed to be referring to me. I may be imaging things, but it was just a really weird thing to say.
He said that case "haunts him to this day," despite the fact he got her a really spectacular lifetime alimony award. See the pattern here? We are in a NO-FAULT state, so it isn't supposed to matter if one person is a monumental asshole and the other is a saint. The division of property and allocation of alimony is a process that is supposed to be immune to finger-pointing and accusations of infidelity, excessive snoring, or an unhealthy addiction to Voodoo donuts and a resulting expanding girth.
It is almost always the men in the alimony argument who get painted as the evil and faithless scoundrel who leaves their poor wife in her middle age and after she "gave up" a career to raise children. You can just picture it: he strides by his former wife and children as they beg for money in the streets, arm and arm with his new young tart, both decked out in Prada, and she brushes imaginary lint off her ample and brand new bosom while he lights a Cuban cigar with a 100 dollar bill.
Maybe his wife wasn't all that great. Maybe she abused the children. Maybe she refused to be intimate with him. Maybe she was an unrelenting drug addict. Maybe she promised him when they got married that she wanted to have a career once the children were in school, but then refused to ever go back to work. Maybe she had a profligate spending problem, on top of her refusal to work. Worst of all, maybe she was boring. Maybe it was a combination of all these things and many others, along with the fact that the doctor was an insensitive jackass.
What annoys me is that the other side attempts to shift all blame in divorces on men who are enriched at their wives' expense and hot to chase new young tail. Sorry, but that just isn't the typical case. It's a cynical but foolish PR move that won't work.
Another tactic used by the other side is the continuous merging of the terms "alimony" and "child support" in a deliberate attempt to join two issues which are utterly separate and should not be viewed through the same lens. I lost count at how many times each of them spoke about child support and inferred that a standardization of alimony laws would negatively impact children.
One last thing: each of the anti-reform speakers wholeheartedly supports the current law in Oregon which says if your former spouse remarries that does NOT mean alimony ends, and if your former spouse remarries and you manage to cut off the gravy train, she can get it restarted if she gets divorced from Sucker #2 within ten years. Because after ten years, of course, that woman becomes another man's "responsibility."
Let that sink in. You pay and pay and one day, you hear your ex is getting remarried. After you finish dancing your happy dance (take your time, we know you must be thrilled!) you still have to sue her to end the alimony and go through a lengthy and very expensive court proceeding. And even if you win, and the alimony is reduced or eliminated, if she pulls the plug on marriage number two within 9 years and 355 days, you go right back on the hook.
If that doesn't sound fair to you and you want to get involved, and no I am not asking for donations, please email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com. There is much we can all do to try to get this legislation passed in the 2013 session. Please help. This could be you some day.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
UPDATE!
OAR received a call today from the judiciary committee coordinator for the Oregon house and senate. We have been invited to give a presentation to both judiciary committees simultaneously next month. Watch this space and our website Oregon Alimony Reform for details.
This is incredibly exciting and positive news. While we had hoped to present to both judiciary committees in the coming months, we had expected to get those meetings only after knocking on doors and ringing bells repeatedly. The fact that they contacted us and asked us to present demonstrates that the word is out and people are talking about reform.
PLEASE continue to send us your horror stories. Also, if you have not done so yet, please join our mailing list. It's free, and very easy! Just text 42828 on your cell phone with the message OAR. That will prompt you for your email address and voila, you are on our mailing list!
Now if you will excuse me, I must do my happy dance, and then it's back to the grindstone.
This is incredibly exciting and positive news. While we had hoped to present to both judiciary committees in the coming months, we had expected to get those meetings only after knocking on doors and ringing bells repeatedly. The fact that they contacted us and asked us to present demonstrates that the word is out and people are talking about reform.
PLEASE continue to send us your horror stories. Also, if you have not done so yet, please join our mailing list. It's free, and very easy! Just text 42828 on your cell phone with the message OAR. That will prompt you for your email address and voila, you are on our mailing list!
Now if you will excuse me, I must do my happy dance, and then it's back to the grindstone.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Things are really cooking!
Here at OAR, we have been making much progress in our endeavors to modernize alimony laws in our state. We have had several meetings and divvied up responsibilities, and I am confident that we will have a reform bill submitted to the Oregon Legislature in the next session.
I've had pretty well-known and respected lobbyist caution me against broadcasting our movement to the opposing team (almost every divorce lawyer in the state) but I think it is important to get the word out there and continue to generate our momentum, while simultaneously seeking some common ground between our goals and the Family Bar.
When friends ask me what our number one goal is in our reform movement, I usually narrow it down to five. That is how inequitable the current system is - just changing one thing about it doesn't even scratch the surface. However, if I had to pick the top three issues, they would be:
1. Establishing guidelines to set alimony as is done in child support cases;
2. Enabling payers with an income decrease to achieve a modification swiftly; and
3. Eliminating the concept of "indefinite" alimony and replacing it with a defined term not to exceed ten years.
4. SEE? I cannot possibly stop at 3! Lastly, a payer should be able to retire and have an automatic cessation of alimony payments.
Along those lines, here is another case for you all to ponder:
Steve and Jane are married for 25 years, during which time Jane has decided that she does not want to pursue a career (in contrast with her assuring Steve she would work once the kids enrolled in school). Steve has a very demanding and stressful job, but still manages to be there for the family whenever they need him and to provide them with a beautiful standard of living.
Jane files for divorce from Steve, and during the divorce proceeding she is awarded one-half the marital property and one-half of Steve's retirement. She is also awarded an exorbitant amount of alimony with an indefinite period.
Steve wants to retire at age 65 and enjoy what is rest of his life with his friends and family. However, he has no guarantee that the alimony will be eliminated when he retires, or even reduced. How can Steve plan for retirement if he does not know what his monthly expenses will be? And if Steve cannot plan for retirement, he really can't retire, can he?
Here is where it gets truly unfair: Steve and Jane split the assets and the retirement fund. Steve has continued to earn money but due to a dismal economy over 60% of it goes to Jane. Steve must borrow against his savings most months to pay Jane, while Jane has a large nest egg in the bank from the divorce and a recent inheritance.
If both begin to draw on the retirement fund (after all, it's only Steve who really retires, as you need to stop making a living in order to retire), they will have the same monthly payout.
Let's say the retirement fund pays Steve and Jane each $4,000/month (Steve worked hard and invested well, didn't he?). Steve's current alimony payment is almost $7,000/month. If he cannot get a modification, he will be $3,000/month IN THE HOLE, while Jane will have an $11,000/month income.
Remember now, they split the assets upon divorce 50/50. Is this fair? Is this equitable?
Even if Steve gets a reduction down to $2,000/month which can only happen after a long and expensive modification proceeding, he still only has $2,000/month of income. Jane, sitting pretty and still not lifting a finger to earn any income of her own, has $6,000.
This happens. This is happening. Get involved. Marriage is the only institution in this country that guarantees if you fail in your endeavor (divorce), so long as you earned less income than your spouse during the marriage, you will be provided for indefinitely. Even unemployment benefits in Oregon end at some point, regardless of how hard you look for a job or seek to improve your skills.
Usually I try to make this blog humorous, but contemplating numbers and retirement today I just can't make any jokes. It's all so outrageous that it would be funny if it were not so destructive to so many families. It's time to make a change.
I've had pretty well-known and respected lobbyist caution me against broadcasting our movement to the opposing team (almost every divorce lawyer in the state) but I think it is important to get the word out there and continue to generate our momentum, while simultaneously seeking some common ground between our goals and the Family Bar.
When friends ask me what our number one goal is in our reform movement, I usually narrow it down to five. That is how inequitable the current system is - just changing one thing about it doesn't even scratch the surface. However, if I had to pick the top three issues, they would be:
1. Establishing guidelines to set alimony as is done in child support cases;
2. Enabling payers with an income decrease to achieve a modification swiftly; and
3. Eliminating the concept of "indefinite" alimony and replacing it with a defined term not to exceed ten years.
4. SEE? I cannot possibly stop at 3! Lastly, a payer should be able to retire and have an automatic cessation of alimony payments.
Along those lines, here is another case for you all to ponder:
Steve and Jane are married for 25 years, during which time Jane has decided that she does not want to pursue a career (in contrast with her assuring Steve she would work once the kids enrolled in school). Steve has a very demanding and stressful job, but still manages to be there for the family whenever they need him and to provide them with a beautiful standard of living.
Jane files for divorce from Steve, and during the divorce proceeding she is awarded one-half the marital property and one-half of Steve's retirement. She is also awarded an exorbitant amount of alimony with an indefinite period.
Steve wants to retire at age 65 and enjoy what is rest of his life with his friends and family. However, he has no guarantee that the alimony will be eliminated when he retires, or even reduced. How can Steve plan for retirement if he does not know what his monthly expenses will be? And if Steve cannot plan for retirement, he really can't retire, can he?
Here is where it gets truly unfair: Steve and Jane split the assets and the retirement fund. Steve has continued to earn money but due to a dismal economy over 60% of it goes to Jane. Steve must borrow against his savings most months to pay Jane, while Jane has a large nest egg in the bank from the divorce and a recent inheritance.
If both begin to draw on the retirement fund (after all, it's only Steve who really retires, as you need to stop making a living in order to retire), they will have the same monthly payout.
Let's say the retirement fund pays Steve and Jane each $4,000/month (Steve worked hard and invested well, didn't he?). Steve's current alimony payment is almost $7,000/month. If he cannot get a modification, he will be $3,000/month IN THE HOLE, while Jane will have an $11,000/month income.
Remember now, they split the assets upon divorce 50/50. Is this fair? Is this equitable?
Even if Steve gets a reduction down to $2,000/month which can only happen after a long and expensive modification proceeding, he still only has $2,000/month of income. Jane, sitting pretty and still not lifting a finger to earn any income of her own, has $6,000.
This happens. This is happening. Get involved. Marriage is the only institution in this country that guarantees if you fail in your endeavor (divorce), so long as you earned less income than your spouse during the marriage, you will be provided for indefinitely. Even unemployment benefits in Oregon end at some point, regardless of how hard you look for a job or seek to improve your skills.
Usually I try to make this blog humorous, but contemplating numbers and retirement today I just can't make any jokes. It's all so outrageous that it would be funny if it were not so destructive to so many families. It's time to make a change.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Contracts and Cocktails
We have all heard the following phrase a million times: marriage is a contract. But is it? A quick perusal of the internet gives you a fairly standard definition of the word "contract," which tends to be the same from state to state in this fine country of ours:
contract 1) n. an agreement with specific
terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do
something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the
law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the
three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve
variations on circumstances and complexities.
The existence of a contract
requires finding the following factual elements:
a) an offer;
b) an acceptance
of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds;
c) a promise to perform;
d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form);
e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments);
f) terms
and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises;
g) performance.
Contracts
can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove
and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter.
Marriage does not meet any of these conditions. In addition, if you buy a car in Oregon, there are many requirements pertaining to providing the purchaser with all the relevant information so they are not taken advantage of by the seller. In other words, the state seeks to protect its citizenry by ensuring they enter into a contract with full knowledge and with eyes wide open.
On the other hand, you can go to a county office anywhere in the state and apply for a marriage license, but nobody there will explain to you what your rights and responsibilities are once you tie the knot (the knot that may someday feel like a noose if you are hit with alimony payments).
Because I am working today and because I promised my son we would go see The Hunger Games, this post will be brief. I plan to go much further in depth in terms of analyzing why a marriage is not a contract in a future post. But I would point out today that marriage is the only contract I am aware of in which a party has no idea what they are promising, no written terms to review, no real consideration, and if the other party breaches the contract, the non-breaching party can pay unlimited damages until the day they die. The court doesn't care who breached and who did not, they only consider how hard one party worked to earn income, and then they punish you for it.
I will be hosting a cocktail party so we can all get to know each other better and strategize for the hearings coming up this summer. Please email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com and let me know if you can attend on April 28 and how many people you will be bringing. Anyone interested in reforming this broken and sexist system is welcome to attend!
Monday, March 19, 2012
Why Alimony Reform in Oregon?
As our OAR group spreads the word about the reform movement, we are often asked, "Why does Oregon need alimony reform?" This question comes from people who have had no experience with the issue either personally or within their group of friends and family (lucky people, they are!). When we enlighten these folks as to the current state of alimony law in Oregon, we have found that each one of them is shocked that in 2012, the laws are as they are.
Did you know:
If you agree to an alimony amount during a divorce settlement or have one ordered against you by a judge should you go to trial, modification in the event of income loss is prohibitively expensive to seek and very difficult to obtain?
Case in point: Andy is married for 25 years. At the time of divorce, he is earning $13,000 per month and paying his ex-wife, who works full-time, $2,500 per month in alimony. In the economic collapse, Andy loses his job. In the meantime, his former spouse moves her boyfriend into her home and continues working full time. Andy seeks a modification, and uses up most of his savings to finally get in front of a judge. For his efforts, he is rewarded with a reduction of $500 per month. Andy is now earning $1,800 per month in unemployment, while $2,000 goes to his working former spouse. Andy therefore has a deficit of $200 per month with no money for his own expenses.
Did you know:
It is complete irrelevant whether the earning spouse wanted the non-earning spouse to work during the marriage?
Case in point: Charles married Sally when they were both fresh out of college (he graduated, she did not). They decided together to have children, with the understanding that Sally would complete her college degree and seek employment once the children were enrolled in school. Charles paid for Sally to obtain her degree, and then spent the next 15 years asking her to go back to work, as per their agreement. Sally refused. Sally filed for divorce years later, and is awarded 50% of the assets and 50% of Charles' retirement account. She is also awarded "indefinite" (read: permanent) alimony, and Charles now pays over 56% of his income to her. Sally now works, but has chosen a commission-based profession in which she had no experience during a time when that industry was at an all-time low.
Did you know:
It is irrelevant what led to the breakdown of the marriage when alimony is being determined?
Case in point: Ted and Cathy are married for 20 years. Cathy is an attorney and Ted is a stay-at-home parent. Ted reconnects with his high school girlfriend through Facebook, and falls in love with her. He leaves Cathy and the kids for his new/old love, and is awarded indefinite spousal support in return. The divorce coincides with a big year for Cathy at work, but since she is a partner in a law firm, her income varies wildly from year to year. As a result, while the original alimony award to Ted was 35% of her income, it is now 60%. She would like to seek a modification but all her money must go to running the home and supporting the children.
What does OAR hope to accomplish?
Fundamentally, OAR believes that an alimony payer should not have a permanent or indefinite duty to maintain a former spouse’s chosen standard of living, but rather that each former spouse should be entitled to a fair and equitable standard of living for a reasonable but limited period of time post divorce.
Oregon is one of fourteen States that has recently seen the collective formation of alimony advocacy groups and legislators are listening. In 2011, Massachusetts implemented sweeping alimony reforms, Florida’s House Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approved the drafting of a new alimony bill and New Jersey’s Judiciary Committee voted in favor of a bill dealing with alimony reform.
We are working towards the holistic amendment of alimony laws in Oregon. Our agenda for alimony reform includes:
- limiting the duration of alimony payments to a reasonable period of time;
- establishment of a set of guidelines, similar to those used in child support calculations, to provide predictability and consistency in alimony judgments;
- a rebuttable presumption that the standard of living post-divorce will be lower than that enjoyed during the marriage;
- excluding the income of a payer’s romantic partners and future spouses in determining alimony amounts;
- the end of alimony payments on remarriage or cohabitation of recipient;
- limits on the maximum amounts of alimony payable;
- automatic termination of alimony payments upon good-faith retirement; and
- a streamlined process for modifications when the payer suffers a decline in income.
OAR is working tirelessly to ensure that arbitrary and indefinite alimony awards become a legacy of the past. We have been approached by numerous alimony payers who struggle simply to make ends meet, while their previous spouses enjoy the fruits of their labor indefinitely. Many alimony payers are legally forced into a lifetime of servitude, working solely to benefit adults capable of exercising some responsibility for their own lives.
With over 40% of marriages ending in divorce, the negative economic impact of this current situation on payers and their subsequent families is enormous. We invite alimony payers to join their voices to ours and encourage them to contact us and share their stories in any of the following ways:
- OAR Facebook page (www.facebook.com/oregon.alimony.reform),
- OAR email (or.alimony.reform@gmail.com),
- OAR website: http://sites.google.com/site/oregonalimonyreform), or
- OAR phone: 503-303-8422
- Text 42828 with the subject "OAR" to be placed on our mailing list
Thank you for your support of Oregon Alimony Reform.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Reform is a freight train - get on board or get out of the way!
Dear readers:
I am thrilled to report that we have made much progress in the past few weeks, and there is a momentum building that is long-overdue yet much appreciated by OAR (Oregon Alimony Reform). While we work tirelessly (well, that's not really true, we are pretty tired) to reform the broken, unfair and antiquated alimony system here in Oregon, we are also working with our brothers and sisters in Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina and elsewhere throughout the US to form a unified nationwide movement.
I am also happy to report that the forces who will likely oppose reform (the Oregon divorce lawyers) are aware of our progress. This means we have already achieved one of our major objectives: getting the word out. We are willing to engage in a conversation with the other side and hopefully some middle ground can be identified.
A special thanks goes out today to Jennifer and Nicole, my fellow 2nd Wives/new Girlfriends members. Women are really a driving force of the reform movement, and I appreciate all they do. These are strong, independent and proud professionals, who know that the alimony system is an insult to women in general. The insidious nature of low expectations as illustrated by alimony can only harm women, not help them. Or any recipient, be they male or female (though research shows over 96% of payers are men).
My day is swamped today with work so I will keep this short. Thank you for reading.
I am thrilled to report that we have made much progress in the past few weeks, and there is a momentum building that is long-overdue yet much appreciated by OAR (Oregon Alimony Reform). While we work tirelessly (well, that's not really true, we are pretty tired) to reform the broken, unfair and antiquated alimony system here in Oregon, we are also working with our brothers and sisters in Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina and elsewhere throughout the US to form a unified nationwide movement.
I am also happy to report that the forces who will likely oppose reform (the Oregon divorce lawyers) are aware of our progress. This means we have already achieved one of our major objectives: getting the word out. We are willing to engage in a conversation with the other side and hopefully some middle ground can be identified.
A special thanks goes out today to Jennifer and Nicole, my fellow 2nd Wives/new Girlfriends members. Women are really a driving force of the reform movement, and I appreciate all they do. These are strong, independent and proud professionals, who know that the alimony system is an insult to women in general. The insidious nature of low expectations as illustrated by alimony can only harm women, not help them. Or any recipient, be they male or female (though research shows over 96% of payers are men).
My day is swamped today with work so I will keep this short. Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Let's get this party started!
Tom and I finally found people focused on this issue enough that they have established a grassroots organization: OAR, which stands for Oregon Alimony Reform. We have a Facebook page www.facebook.com/oregon.alimony.reform as well as a website: sites.google.com/site/oregonalimonyreform
We have met with several legislators and are finalizing our goals that will be put into proposed legislation. Major points include:
- Alimony terminates upon retirement of payor
- Alimony will be limited by amount based on percentage of income differential (we are aiming for 30%)
- Alimony to be limited by time (10 years maximum)
- Compensatory alimony is modifiable
- If payor loses his or her job, they can get an emergency hearing for alimony suspension
- If payor remarries, new spouse's income cannot be considered in alimony proceedings.
It turns out Senator de la Portilla is law partners with the main lobbyist for the Florida Bar Association, which is waging an all-out war against alimony reform. Why would the Florida Bar Association fight reform?
Simply put, the uncertainty surrounding current alimony laws in many states, including Oregon, is a financial windfall for divorce practitioners. Since there are no support guidelines such as those used when determining child support, and since judge's rulings are highly arbitrary and vary wildly from case to case, the subject of alimony is heavily litigated. Obviously, the more the parties battle over alimony, the more the divorce lawyer earns, thereby depleting the funds of the family and leaving many people in ruin.
Here in Oregon, we are organizing a grassroots movement to reform alimony laws and level the playing field. The times have long since passed that women are unable to compete in the workplace and raise a family at the same time. I know, because I do it. If a husband and wife want to have a marriage in which the wife agrees she will stay at home forever and never have a career, I encourage those couples to have a contractual agreement that provides for alimony should the parties divorce. But the state should not be involved.
Karl Marx famously said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Alimony is the perfect illustration of Marxism in action. In this economy, only those who pay suffer financial downfalls. Alimony recipients, many of whom are college educated, working, and have large sums of money in the bank, suffer no such decline. If the parties were still married, they would incur the financial losses together. Now, only one party experiences the discomfort of a loss of income.
If you have found this blog and have a horror story to share, please email it to alimony.reform.oregon@gmail.com. Watch this space, things are happening!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)