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.