Too Much Free Time

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
alimony, blog posts



Blog Posts About Crusing Around The Caribbean On New Boyfriend's Sailboat Leads To Alimony Reduction

from the careful-what-you-blog-about dept

There are a growing number of lawsuits involving stuff people put online via social networks, blogs, Twitter, etc. which later gets them into trouble on legal issues. Evan Brown has the details on a case involving a woman who was receiving alimony from her ex-husband. This took place in Connecticut, where the law says alimony can be reduced if the ex-spouse starts living with an unrelated member of the appropriate sex. The court then used a bunch of blog posts about her sailing around the Caribbean for months on her new boyfriend's sailboat (along with the fact that she had rented out her own condo) to conclude that she was, in fact, cohabitating with someone new, and reduced her alimony by 70%.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    MunkiLord (profile), 2 May 2011 @ 10:40pm

    Good.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    david, 2 May 2011 @ 10:44pm

    Originally alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of husband. Ending alimony on divorce would have permitted a guilty husband to profit from his own misconduct. In contrast, if the wife committed the misconduct, she was considered to have forfeited any claim to ongoing support.

    in the land of no fault divorces this tired and outdated concept should be retired. especially when considered that women are the primary recipients of alimony (men getting around 5%) and women are statistically the partner who files for divorce the most. only 12 -15 percent in one study for abuse 30% for cheating and the majority for irreconcilable differences.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 2 May 2011 @ 11:05pm

      Re:

      Is it not a fact that it also depends on where you are? Namely, the eastern states follow the more traditional practices (case in point, this alimony battle) while western states don't really have alimony (I wouldn't know, since I've never been married but I would venture to guess California and Nevada are two apt examples)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2011 @ 11:22pm

    alimony shouldn't exist anymore, want to be equal??? go get a job

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mike allen (profile), 2 May 2011 @ 11:27pm

    only 70% he must have loads of cash she should pay him!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Casey Bouch (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 1:53am

    Even lower

    The math is a bit off. According to the article his alimony payment went from $250 a week to $75 per month. Her alimony wasn't reduced by 70% but by about 92.5% (assuming $1000 a month).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greg G (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 6:20am

      Re: Even lower

      You're pretty much right on.

      $250/wk = $13000/yr
      $75/mo = $900/yr

      $13000 - $900 = $12,100 reduction, which is 93%, not 70%

      That's huge, and serves the ho right. Braggarts always get busted sooner or later.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Evan Brown (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 7:50am

        Re: Re: Even lower

        Greg my numbers in the original post were wrong - it was reduced from 250/week to 75/week, not 75/month. Sorry for the confusion . I've fixed it in the original post.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Evan Brown (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 7:50am

        Re: Re: Even lower

        Greg my numbers in the original post were wrong - it was reduced from 250/week to 75/week, not 75/month. Sorry for the confusion . I've fixed it in the original post.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Evan Brown (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 7:48am

      Re: Even lower

      Casey my numbers were wrong in the original post -- the original award was $250 per *week* and it was reduced to $250 per *week*. Thank you for noticing the anomaly - I've fixed it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    STJ, 3 May 2011 @ 2:01am

    I think it also should depend on who takes the kids. My sister in law has 4 children who she raises. Her X has 2 full time jobs as a PA, so he is raking in the money. Should he have to pay alimony, I think so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      NotMyRealName (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 2:19am

      Re:

      no. he should have to pay child support. completely different concept.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Get Real, 3 May 2011 @ 6:32am

      Re: so he is raking in the money. Should he have to pay alimony, I think so

      There in it self is the issue. Tie the father up in court battles, lawyers, and anything else you can do to ensure the father doesn't have quality time with his children. So what if he has 2 jobs. If he is paying child support, its the only way he can build a solid life for himself as well as his children. When does he see the kids. That should be the top proirity for the X as well as the courts. Most good fathers would freely do anything for their children, its when the X's get in the mind set of i'm entitled to your $$$ and you don't deserve to have anything, that is why things are the way they are...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mojo, 3 May 2011 @ 2:22am

    Ah, once again the narcisism of blogging and tweeting your life to a world that generally doesn't care bites someone in the ass.

    It's fun to watch everyone from A-list celebs to the greedy divorcee down the street get their ass handed to them for failing to think before they tweet.

    How many people have we seen loose their job because they think being the first to blurt out an opinion on some hot topic is somehow important?

    For all the good Twitter CAN do in the world, it's still 99% the noise of self-absorbed schmedricks who actually think anyone cares what they had for lunch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 5:01am

      Re:

      For the record: This is the ONLY comment which addresses the context of the original post... the impact of the rampant, mindless use of social media, not divorce law! Congrats, Mojo... gold star for you, fail for everyone else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 6:37am

      Re:

      And another gold star for the use of the word "schmedricks", which - as of today - is my new favorite word.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Eileen (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 4:10am

    Everyone missed the big alimony loophole: women should clearly start cohabitating with rich lesbians to avoid alimony reductions!!

    David,

    While I agree alimony is an outdated concept and should be phased out, I think our society is not 100% there yet. There is still a huge pay gap for women doing the same jobs as men - this is documented - and many women are still encouraged by their families to essentially go straight into being a wife/mother with little or no experience in the job world. If their husband does later divorce them, then that woman is at a significant disadvantage.

    But rather than pay her money for nothing the rest of her life (here I can sympathise with guys a lot)... it seems like paying for a shorter time-frame (long enough to get some job training, perhaps) would be better in this situation. Hell I would say that it should go the other way as well if a working woman divorces her "stay at home dad" husband who has been raising the kids.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pamela, 3 May 2011 @ 4:32am

      Re:

      your example works for certain women with no real world experience, but the fact is that they are not the only ones who are receiving alimony. Women with the credentials to get very good paying jobs are fighting for and receiving alimony. Example my ex roomate who have a higher degree than that of her now divorced husband.

      My belief is that alimony should also be conditional where the receiving party must prove that they are actively seeking employment and/or training in order to become self sufficient.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 5:18am

      Re:

      " There is still a huge pay gap for women doing the same jobs as men"

      When are men and women doing the exact same jobs? And there's quite a number of reasons that the pay can differ since men are more likely to negotiate price.

      And I hate to say it but another "risk" for a company is to have a woman trained in a certain industry but then she leaves for maternal care, not to return.

      The few women that I can think of as career women are Carly Fiona, Tina Fey, or Zoe Lofgren. How should they be paid when compared to others?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 9:00am

        Re: Re:

        And I hate to say it but another "risk" for a company is to have a woman trained in a certain industry but then she leaves for maternal care, not to return.

        Who else is gonna do it? Have the babies, I mean. Babies, kids, they're debt generators, man! It might be more likely that a new mom would almost *have* to go back to work to maintain those costs.

        Men leave jobs all the time too, career choices, medical issues, lifestyle changes.

        That 'maternal leaving never to be seen again' thing is corporate avoidance and ass-covering, termination/do-not-hire smoke blowing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 6:41am

      Re:

      Well, I don't know about everywhere, but in many places in the US alimony isn't forever. It's for a set time period. In Michigan it's either 18 months or 3 years - can't remember which, but it's definitely time limited. And it can be further cut short if the spouse getting alimony gets remarried.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Sean, 3 May 2011 @ 7:25am

      Re:

      Quite a few years ago Joan Lunden (she was an anchor on one of the morning network news programs) divorced her husband. He was a stay at home dad raising their children. He sued for palimony and won big time. It was the first real big case of its kind.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 8:51am

      Re:

      There is still a huge pay gap for women doing the same jobs as men

      Not if you account for all factors, iirc. If you look at women who are career-oriented and childless (i.e. like most men), you find that women make more for the same job.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 4:32am

    where are not there yet


    is an excuse people use to not have real discussion about changing the status quot

    documented pay gaps, sure, did those same self serving surveys also document experience? since most jobs pay scale up based on on knowledge and years doing it

    that tends to close you pay gap argument some

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    abc gum, 3 May 2011 @ 4:51am

    "self serving surveys"

    Not sure what you are saying here. The census? The IRS? To what do you refer? Data is hardly ever completely free of bias, deal with it.

    Your other point seems rather silly. Women can and have easily obtained knowledge and experience in any particular field of their choice. Why do you assume this is not the case?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michial Thompson, 3 May 2011 @ 5:26am

    No excuse for Alimoni

    Women use any excuse they can to find reasons to be a financial drain on men even after they CHOOSE to file for divorce.

    WHY should ANY man EVER pay to support a woman after she has left? The BS that women can't make as much money is crap, millions of women NEVER marry and are still making it, should some random guy be forced to supplement their income too?

    Take it or leave it, if you want the guys money, then stay in the damn marriage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Spyder, 3 May 2011 @ 5:44am

      Re: No excuse for Alimoni

      There are some times when it makes sense. For instance, if a young couple were to get married straight out of high school and the man went to college while the woman worked to get him through it, it would make sense. Also, if a woman became pregnant and they decided she should quit her career to focus on raising the kid(s). She has put herself at a disadvantage in her career permanently, giving her less experience and possibly making her start as an entry level employee at 40 or 50.

      Now, obviously alimony does not make sense in all circumstances. It also doesn't make sense many times it is awarded. But there are times when it would make sense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 2:28pm

      Re: No excuse for Alimoni

      Women use any excuse they can to find reasons to be a financial drain on men even after they CHOOSE to file for divorce.

      How not surprising, one of our favorite trolls is a misogynist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    maclizard (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 6:07am

    70% reduction!?

    My hat is off to you. Bravo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    NullOp, 3 May 2011 @ 6:10am

    Yes!

    OBL eliminated and some money-hungry tramp done in by her own bragging! Wow, what a week! Good to learn at least one state in the U.S. has some sense about it's alimony laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 4 May 2011 @ 10:37am

    Alimony

    Why just 70%? Sounds like she doesn't need anything, living that lifestyle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Huph, 4 May 2011 @ 3:42pm

    Two words...

    Two words: Pre. Nup.

    'Nuff said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    cabarete, 2 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm

    This is first time i am visiting on this site and this site is very nice.Thanks for sharing this site with us..
    cabarete

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.