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!

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.

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.

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 

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.

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.

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.

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!