My husband was married for 10 yr. and 11 mo. To his previous wife. He is currently paying 33% of his gross salary in alimony. I am now married to him, and have been for a few years, we have two children together. He never had children with his previous wife, and she receives enough alimony, that she does not have to work while living in Ca. We, on the other hand, had to move out of the state once our first child was born, because we could not afford to live there any longer with his high alimony payments. She claimed depression when he originally filed for divorce, and stated she was unable to work any longer due to that. There is currently no end date on his alimony,(10 year rule I guess) and he was told that he has the option (if he's willing to spend an absorbent amount of money) of fighting it out in court to attempt to have alimony end or be reduced AFTER he has paid for a minimum of half the duration of his marriage. What can he/we expect if we go to court on this issue once he has paid alimony for the minimum amount of time the courts require? Can his ex-wife still claim "depression" and get away with continuing to collect 33% of his gross salary? With him having two small children with me, our living expenses are bound to increase due to the raising of our two children. Will the courts ever hold her accountable to support herself? Lastly, thank you for your time in answering these questions, :) can you recommend a GOOD lawyer who is in Santa Clara County, Ca.

No one can recommend an Attorney by name. Call the Bar Association and ask for a recommendation. You will be given several names.

What do his divorce papers say about the length of time he will pay alimony/spousal support? Is it open ended? I am unfamiliar with a 10 year rule or "half of the duration of the marriage" rule. What is in writing?

If he can prove she is faking illness, working under the table, is able to work, then he can go back to Court and request a modification. The word "PROOF" is the key to success.

The Court is going to tell him that he knew what his responsibility to her was when he had two children - therefore, supporting the children is the Court's secondary concern. I know it's hard to hear, I'm sure you don't like it, but that's how it works.

In the state of Ca. if a marriage is over 10 years, there is NO end date to the length of time alimony is paid. Therefore, my husbands alimony is 'open ended'. I understood that I was asking my question to a Ca. lawyer, so I'm sorry for the mix up. It looks like you are from N.Y.

First, when posting a follow-up question or info, please use the Answer options at the bottom of the page rather than the Comments.

Second, location does not mean that someone doesn't know the law elsewhere. Where did you find out about this 10 year rule? Can you cite a statute that provides for it? My research indicates that CA judges have a very wide latitude in ordering spousal support. You might find this site helpful: Californa Spousal Support (Alimony) Law And Procedure - Spousal Support (Alimony) Attorney (Lawyer) (http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/spousal/spousalsupport.html)

He may be able to get a modification, Shop around for an attorney.

I would say that it would be well worth fighting it, and he errored greatly if he agreed to a open ended agreement, or was this forced on him after years of fighting for an agreement ?

I'm not in California but I know how to do research. That research indicates to me that "The duration of spousal support is closely linked to the length of the marriage. Frequently, practitioners speak of the 'rule of thumb' that spousal support will last for one-half the length of the marriage. The duration of spousal support is left to the sound discretion of the court within certain general equitable principals and guidelines most often set forth in the common law case histories. However, in marriages of less than ten years, the statute provides a presumption that support should be granted for half the length of the marriage."

Note that your husband's marriage was long term, i.e. over 10 years. You seem to believe that there is a law, that it is not at the discretion of the Court.

This is a private site but the info is sound and the explanation is understandable: Spousal Support (http://californiadivorce.info/legal.alimony.spousalsupportoverview.htm)

The California legislature has enacted a statute which indicates that when permanent support is established at the time of trial, it is an abuse of discretion for the court to set a future termination date if the marriage is of lengthy duration. The statute goes on to indicate that any marriage of ten years in duration is considered a lengthy marriage.

My husband had NO choice as to "agreeing" on open ended, because all three lawyers told him that in Ca. the state reserves the right to make final decisions and amend the alimony as need be. In otherwords in Ca. when the marriage was longer than 10 years, the Ca. courts take jurisdiction over the case, and can extend or end alimony based on their judgement. My husband was not allowed to have an "end date", in writing on his divorce papers due to the "long term" marriage. He is allowed to petition the court after paying though for half the length of the marriage. However, we have been told, that at any time, even if the court reduces/eliminates his alimony, she is free to fight again at anytime, for any reason and possibly collect again, providing she has not remarried. It's a real gamble when going to court, because it's very costly, and there are NO guarantees. With all due respect to the original lawyer who answered my question, I based my statement of perhaps you not being able to properly answer my question, because you mentioned how you were unfamiliar with what I referred to in Ca. by the public as "the ten rule long term rule". Many people including my cousin, file for divorce JUST prior to 10 years, in order to save themselves from the on-going alimony, that they may end up paying for MANY years longer than half the length of the marriage. A more sensitive response without attitude would have been more considerate. I'll forget using this sight again.

First, the lawyers appear to be correct in what they told him. As my research indicated, the courts have a very wide latitude in awarding spousal support. So it is up to the court and they probably knew the way the judge hearing the case would rule.

But, what you are referring to as the 10 year "rule" is not a rule but a guideline. It is not codified anywhere as a hard and fast rule that courts are required to adhere to. So courts have the ability to follow the guideline or ignore it. Caselaw appears to favor following it. This is why Judy was unaware of it. We can research the law, but researching caselaw takes much longer and is usually beyond the scope of a forum like this.

Comments on this post
marriage2 does not find this helpful : Answered started with attitude, not very professional.

Please take some time to learn the rules of this site before you misuse it. Giving a negative rating is only to be used when an answer is inaccurate or factually incorrect. Judy's answer was neither. As for attitude, your response to her initial post displayed just as much if not more attitude.

Here is another thought - this is the husband's problem, not the OP's problem. Maybe he should handle it.