What is the purpose of paying maintainence

Kunjufu · (#1 (**permalink**))

I read in the tabliod media over the weekend that yet another high profile sport star is being sued for divorce...Joe Calzaghe (a white middleweight boxer), is being sued not just for half his existing fortune.. but also half his future earnings too.. just like in the Ray Palour (white footballer now playing for Middlebourgh)..

So my point taking it away from the colour of the people in involved, is this what should be oris the purpose of maintainence? whilst i agree that it is fair for a long term partner who has contributed to the family fortune to compensated.. I'm struggling to see how it is fair or just that a partner can then claim HALF of someone's future earnings based on the fact that they were once married.. This to me seems to taking the ideal of maintenance and completely *******ising it..

I'm I wrong to feel this way, is it right that someone can put in essence a patent on the support and help they gave during a relationship and then expect to collect off that person until kingdom come..?

Discuss!!

Happiness · (#2 (**permalink**))

yes, you are wrong Kunjufu.

marriage is marriage - whether its for 1 year or 10 years. The committment was just as equal and with the same force at year 0 in both scenarios.

This ruling further confirms the importance and relevance of marriage and it is a heads up to all not to enter into such unions blindly.

also K, marriage is not about the earning power of one of the parties aone- it is about the intangibles...the emotional and physical support that people give to each other whilst in the union. Its about family, parenting, duty, obligations, responsibility.

it is about not leaving someone out in the cold, just because you no longer choose to be married to them

Jay Jay · (#3 (**permalink**))

So if the split up is amicable on both sides, does one partner deserve half of all the others future earnings, despite getting half of the past earnings and the house?

What happens when that person meets someone else, they'll be getting money left/right and centre.

That can't be right.

Kunjufu · (#4 (**permalink**))

Happiness wrote:

Quote:

yes, you are wrong Kunjufu.

marriage is marriage - whether its for 1 year or 10 years. The commitment was just as equal and with the same force at year 0 in both scenarios.

This ruling further confirms the importance and relevance of marriage and it is a heads up to all not to enter into such unions blindly.

also K, marriage is not about the earning power of one of the parties aone- it is about the intangibles...the emotional and physical support that people give to each other whilst in the union. Its about family, parenting, duty, obligations, responsibility.

it is about not leaving someone out in the cold, just because you no longer choose to be married to them

[line]

Happiness, point taken entirely and I agree with what you have said..HOWEVER my concern relates specifically to this trend whereby owning half of what was build during the relationship appears no longer to be enough.. NOW in the UK at least we are see a trend where one partner wants to also claim HALF of future predicted earnings..

This for me is where I Think its verges on the vindictive and outrageous, so in the scenario I were married to you Happiness for 10 years.. we amassed a family fortune of say 10 million.. I agree that this shouldbe halved, what I'm struggling with is thepremise that even after this settlement someone should then be entitled to half of what is amassed in the future.. That for me doesn't make sense..

Happiness · (#5 (**permalink**))

Jay Jay wrote:

Quote:

So if the split up is amicable on both sides, does one partner deserve half of all the others future earnings, despite getting half of the past earnings and the house?

What happens when that person meets someone else, they'll be getting money left/right and centre.

That can't be right.

[line]

how often are divorces "amicable"? No, really.

The answer to your question is an unreserved YES, thespouse who was not the main income earner (and that could be the husband) deserves some of the future earnings of thespose that was the main income earner.

when the supported spouse meets some one else and MARRIES that some one sles then all bets are off. Til then, you support that person that you said you would be with til death do you part.

my take.

Happiness · (#6 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Happiness, point taken entirely and I agree with what you have said..HOWEVER my concern relates specifically to this trend whereby owning half of what was build during the relationship appears no longer to be enough.. NOW in the UK at least we are see a trend where one partner wants to also claim HALF of future predicted earnings..

This for me is where I Think its verges on the vindictive and outrageous, so in the scenario I were married to you Happiness for 10 years.. we amassed a family fortune of say 10 million.. I agree that this shouldbe halved, what I'm struggling with is thepremise that even after this settlement someone should then be entitled to half of what is amassed in the future.. That for me doesn't make sense..

[line]

@ K - if you worked harddigging in the trenches to excavate land to build the foundation of your dream house while your partner went to work.....and then you and your partner split waysand all you have to show for your work is the unsexy stones of the foundation. Meanwhile, your partner has acquired money and status at the job he was going to each day

.....and nowyour contruction partner then takes that foundation that you have built and he is able to build on it amansion that is worth 20 times the value of the foundation alone.

you hard workto buildthat foundation which was such an intricate part of the building of the mansion. Should not half of that manion be yours that was built of your sweat and tears??

Isnt that the argument of reparations? so why is that good for a community but not for a marriage??

THis is a no brainer for me.

Happiness · (#7 (**permalink**))

Black_power wrote:

Quote:

hencethe advantages of a prenup
[line]

hence the advantage of understanding the FULL extent of the committment of marriage. If you cant so it then dont get married

Kunjufu · (#8 (**permalink**))

Happiness: damn good response, however maybe I'm not making myself entirely clear.. I'm not saying that if two people built the foundations to a family asset, that this asset should not be split equally clearly in my opinion it is fair, right and a duty to split this in half at the point of divorce..

I'm also not saying that even after this point a man or woman should not have responsiblity to their children's needs financially because clearly this responsiblity to needs to be shared..

What I'm questioning is the arguement that says even after this aspect of the divorce has been settled, that then argues that a man or woman should in addition be entitled to any future earnings that is established AFTER the Marriage has clearly ended.. That the bit I'm struggling with..

Pele · (#9 (**permalink**))

50% should go to the wife, of all the fortune recieved during the marriage.

Anything else, she shouldn't sniff it.

Happiness · (#10 (**permalink**))

Kunjufu wrote:

Quote:

Happiness: damn good response, however maybe I'm not making myself entirely clear.. I'm not saying that if two people built the foundations to a family asset, that this asset should not be split equally clearly in my opinion it is fair, right and a duty to split this in half at the point of divorce..

I'm also not saying that even after this point a man or woman should not have responsiblity to their children's needs financially because clearly this responsiblity to needs to be shared..

What I'm questioning is the arguement that says even after this aspect of the divorce has been settled, that then argues that a man or woman should in addition be entitled to any future earnings that is established AFTER the Marriage has clearly ended.. That the bit I'm struggling with..
[line]

Quote:

@ K - I understand completely what you are struggling with...but what I am struggling with is how you seperate one's ability to earn in the future with what was done for you in the past.And in addition what was theopportunity cost of that person who did what was done toassist you in the past.

Quote:

for example - there is a case here of a male nurse earning about $90,000 per year, very good money by anyones' standard. Anyway, he met and married a female doctor who at tat time was still completing her residency. Now as a resident, the wife was only earning about 40,000/yr. However, once her residency was over her salary quickly went up to $140,000....then the couple had kids and decided that someone should stay home. Hubby stayed home because he was earning less than wife (he was at about 120,00/yr by now) and wife was on the verge of another career milestone that would catapult her earning power to 240,000/yr.

Quote:

hubby stayed home with kids and worked part -time since nurses schedule are flexible and he wanted to maintain his licence. His earning dropped down to $60,000 - while wifey was at $240,000/yr and growing

Quote:

forget all the social commentary that is quite evident in this story.....

Quote:

and answer this.....what should happen to hubby if wifey, who is now on the board of directors of a major hospital and schmoozes with the powerful people in the medical field, decides that hubby is not what she wants anymore?

Quote:

he has spent9 years of his life and his career's life staying at home, taking care of the family. In addition, he has not taken opportunities in his field that would conflict with that goal that he and his wife had decided on.

Quote:

so now wifey leaves him to marry sexy high earning, fellow board of director doctor who makes $1,000,000/yr from his practice. What doeswifey owe her ex?

Quote:

my answer? everything.

Quote:

but for the sacrifice and contributions of her hubby she would not be where she is.

Quote:

In addition, hubby's earning power is 60,000 until he works up the experience again to earn $120,000. but he will never earn the $300,000 his wife is earning.....and he has lived in a house and lived the lifestyle of his wifes income.

Quote:

he should get 1/2 of her future earnings. for how long?

Quote:

2 times the number of years married.

Quote:

MINIMUM.

Quote:

anything less than that.... she has used him.

Quote:

marriage should not be taken lightly.

Quote:

Happiness · (#11 (**permalink**))

Bele wrote:

Quote:

50% should go to the wife, of all the fortune recieved during the marriage.

Anything else, she shouldn't sniff it.
[line]

Quote:

A spouse is not an employee that you can just fire at will and say"here, thanks for a job well done but I no longer need your services. here's your last 2 weeks wages and 3 months severance. Bye"

Quote:

that is taking the piss.

Quote:

damn - even in England you cant easily fire some one like that.People get 1 year if not more, of their future earnings for unfair dismisal.....why would you offer less to wronged spouse?

Quote:

why do you all value wives/mothers so little? and then you are all bleating about the demise of the black family.

Quote: