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

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

Mon, May 2nd 2011 10:04pm — Mike Masnick

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%.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: alimony, blog posts

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

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

Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2011 @ 11:22pm

alimony shouldn't exist anymore, want to be equal??? go get a job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 2 May 2011 @ 11:27pm

only 70% he must have loads of cash she should pay him!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NotMyRealName (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 2:19am
  
  Re:
  no. he should have to pay child support. completely different concept.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    God forbid someone discuss an aspect of the article that you don't approve of.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Erin B., 3 May 2011 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What? Citation needed.
    
    Also, most men are not childless. Men don't give birth to children, and aren't typically saddled with societal expectations for their primary care. Big difference, dude.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2011 @ 1:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet no citation requested for the opposite assertion?
      
      Anyway, here's one article. I'm sure you can find others.
      
      http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/19/the-truth-about-the-pay-gap
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
maclizard (profile), 3 May 2011 @ 6:07am

70% reduction!?
My hat is off to you. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 4 May 2011 @ 10:37am

Alimony
Why just 70%? Sounds like she doesn't need anything, living that lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huph, 4 May 2011 @ 3:42pm

Two words...
Two words: Pre. Nup.

'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]