Why New Jersey Sucks Even More Than I Thought

I've been doing a little research on alimony in other states. Texas, for example, has very reasonable and enlightened rules on the subject:

(a) It is the intent of the legislature in this article to provide spousal maintenance primarily as a temporary rehabilitative measure for a divorced spouse whose ability for self-support is lacking or has deteriorated through the passage of time while the spouse was engaged in homemaking activities and whose capital assets are insufficient to provide support.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature in this article that spousal support should be terminated in the shortest reasonable time, not to exceed three years, in which the former spouse is able to be employed or to acquire the necessary skills to become self-supporting. Only in circumstances in which the former spouse cannot become self-supporting by reason of incapacitating physical or mental disability should maintenance be extended beyond this period.

This is exactly the way alimony should work -- a temporary rehabilitative measure to allow the spouse (the wife, in most cases) to get back on her feet -- nothing more. The amount is limited to the lesser of $2500 per month or 20% of the spouse' average monthly gross income per month.

Compare this to New Jersey's evil, twisted, bizarre construct in which a spouse (the man, usually) may be required to pay inordinate amounts of money to his ex forever.

This, of course, is the situation I find myself in. The alimony award to my ex-wife is permanent, and it's a significant fraction of my income -- not only of the income I now earn, but of the income I could ever hope to earn.

It's a horrible situation from my standpoint, but, as with everything else thrust upon me by this divorce, something to which I'll have to adapt.

Here's a link to information about alimony in Texas.

Alimony

Alimony was the most contentious issue in my divorce. My wife is a well-educated woman with a master's degree in teaching and a paralegal certification. Now she's going for a second master's degree, this one in school counseling. She worked on and off during our marriage. Despite all this education and experience, I am stuck having to pay her permanent alimony.

The way I see it (along with virtually everyone I've spoken to about the issue), alimony should be a temporary assist, a way for the lower-earning spouse to get back on her feet, get back into the workforce, and restart a career. It should not be a permanent subsidy. New Jersey, in fact, allows for this type of alimony, called "rehabilitative" alimony. New Jersey law also allows for permanent alimony in marriages over 10 years in length, but does not require it. My experience over the past year has shown me that, even though it's not required, it is almost a given in situations like mine, in which there was a long-term marriage (24 years) and a large disparity of earning capability between the two spouses. Virtually every lawyer who looked at or got involved in my case immediately considered it to be a permanent alimony case. That includes my lawyer, her lawyer, most of the lawyers I interviewed, the lawyer I went to for a second opinion, and the two lawyers on the Early Settlement Panel we attended last year. One of them said, "There's not a judge in New Jersey who wouldn't look on this as a permanent alimony case." I know I'm not going to be able to change New Jersey law or overturn its long-established legal practices, so I'm stuck with the situation as it is.

I don't know if such a situation pertains in other states, but from people I've spoken to in both New York and Indiana, permanent alimony is not typically awarded in those states, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the exception rather than the rule throughout the country. For any New Jersey man contemplating divorce, though, I'd give this advice: do it sooner rather than later (I waited too long and got hit very hard because of the long-term marriage), and get the hell out of New Jersey!