Paying "maintenance" - fair or not fair?

LighterGuy · 17-07-2011 01:23AM #1

Scenario is two people get married. Never have kids. Get divorced.

Is it fair that one party should pay maintenance?
That one party should "support" the other knowing the marriage has ended. No kids involved.

admiralofthefleet · 17-07-2011 01:26AM

not fair at all. over 18's should be able to support themselves regardless of their maritial status

*i think i may have clicked the wrong answer in the poll by mistake

starbelgrade · 17-07-2011 01:26AM

It depends entirely on the circumstances.

starviewadams · 17-07-2011 01:27AM

Atari Jaguar.

Kojak · 17-07-2011 01:27AM

No way should it be paid - only when kids are involved should it be entertained.

hondasam · 17-07-2011 01:27AM

my husband didn't support me when he was married to me.

I don't think he will be paying me maintenance.

JONJO THE MISER · 17-07-2011 01:27AM

Well it depends, if a woman had to pay me maintenance

if i had to pay maintenance:(

Mickeroo · 17-07-2011 01:28AM

no way. I didn't even realise people ever had to pay maintenance if there wasn't children involved?

Men and women are well able to look after themselves.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 17-07-2011 01:30AM

Was someone instrumental to your success and perhaps deprived their own success to nurture your own? In such cases then yes, it can be justified.
If you had a relationship where everything was split down the middle, then your 'split' should reflect that also.
As said, it depends entirely on the circumstances

chucken1 · 17-07-2011 01:32AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

Scenario is two people get married. Never have kids. Get divorced.

Is it fair that one party should pay maintenance?
That one party should "support" the other knowing the marriage has ended. No kids involved.

All the shoulds in the world cant make anyone pay in a family situation.

Are we in America? The party get Alimony there I believe?

In Ireland?? I laugh at the family law system.

LighterGuy · 17-07-2011 01:33AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

no way. I didn't even realise people ever had to pay maintenance if there wasn't children involved?

Men and women are well able to look after themselves.

I know what you mean man, until tonight, I always assumed maintenance / alimony etc was where there was a kid involved. It aint.
So lets say you get married next year. Spend 5 years married. No kids. It ends. One party (and lets be honest usually is the woman) can do you for maintenance.

mikemac · 17-07-2011 01:35AM

If there are no children and you are over 18, well it's for you to make your own way in the world when you split

I voted not fair

Mickeroo · 17-07-2011 01:37AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

I know what you mean man, until tonight, I always assumed maintenance / alimony etc was where there was a kid involved. It aint.
So lets say you get married next year. Spend 5 years married. No kids. It ends. One party (and lets be honest usually is the woman) can do you for maintenance.

Makes absolutely no sense. If there wasn't kids involved then both parties should be working. If one was supporting the other then the one who was supported should pay the money back that the other wasted on them if anything. If they both owned a house together or something then decide who gets it in court and have one party buy the other out, done and dusted. There seems to be no logic behind this at all.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 17-07-2011 01:37AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

I know what you mean man, until tonight, I always assumed maintenance / alimony etc was where there was a kid involved. It aint.
So lets say you get married next year. Spend 5 years married. No kids. It ends. One party (and lets be honest usually is the woman) can do you for maintenance.

No offence man, but while family law in Ireland really does need to develop and be recorded upon and reported more, that is a pretty bland statement that doesn't reflect realities or complexities.
A lot of people over 40 in this country are still part of the old family unit of him workin and her staying at home and as such maintenance is common. But this reflects realities.
And kids complicate things immeasurably.
Without kids or difference in income there is a principle in Irish law called "equal misery" whcih is a harsh reality by name alone but is what happens on a level playing field

chucken1 · 17-07-2011 01:39AM

LighterGuy wrote: »

I know what you mean man, until tonight, I always assumed maintenance / alimony etc was where there was a kid involved. It aint.
So lets say you get married next year. Spend 5 years married. No kids. It ends. One party (and lets be honest usually is the woman) can do you for maintenance.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html
Maintenance following separation, divorce and dissolution

Under Irish law, there is no clean break from the obligation to support one's spouse and children, or for civil partners to support each other. A clause in a separation agreement stating that a spouse/civil partner will not seek maintenance in the future or seek increased maintenance is unenforceable. The spouse/civil partner can apply for a maintenance order and a court will consider this application, particularly if the circumstances of the parties have changed or the spouse/civil partner who executed the agreement did not have legal advice at the time.
A divorced spouse can also apply to a court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the divorce decree has been granted. Similarly, a former civil partner can apply to the court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the dissolution decree has been granted. The only bar to an application is the remarriage or entering into a new civil partnership of the spouse/civil partner applying for the order.

Kojak · 17-07-2011 01:40AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Well it depends, if a woman had to pay me maintenance if i had to pay maintenance:(

But if each party pays maintenance to the other half, what's the point of that? Would it not cancel the other side out, as long as they were paying the same amount.

Mickeroo · 17-07-2011 01:48AM

Kojak wrote: »

But if each party pays maintenance to the other half, what's the point of that? Would it not cancel the other side out, as long as they were paying the same amount.

Indeed it would, which is why nobody has suggested that would or could happen :pac:

donutface · 17-07-2011 06:38AM

I've been listening to US radio a lot and divorce cases come up regularly. One story was told recently of a boxer who got divorced from his wife and had to give up half of his belts which is just absolutely ridiculous.

With half of all marriages failing, and the higher earner generally getting screwed out of it, why do people still choose to get married when there's such a high risk and high cost of failure?

kowloon · 17-07-2011 08:04AM

donutface wrote: »

With half of all marriages failing, and the higher earner generally getting screwed out of it, why do people still choose to get married when there's such a high risk and high cost of failure?

I suppose avoiding marriage would be admitting you have no faith in the relationship. Admitting defeat maybe.

stovelid · 17-07-2011 08:52AM

Never, unless kids are involved.

Magic Beans · 17-07-2011 09:01AM

As a woman I would feel demeaned having to have another adult support me.

pickarooney · 17-07-2011 09:07AM

donutface wrote: »

I've been listening to US radio a lot and divorce cases come up regularly. One story was told recently of a boxer who got divorced from his wife and had to give up half of his belts which is just absolutely ridiculous.

What, she inherited the titles?? That seems like a bit of a poisoned chalice!

Flincher · 17-07-2011 09:42AM

There are a million different circumstances where there are no kids and its completely reasonable for maintenance to be paid.

In most households, one spouse earns more than the other. Naturally, the other spouse benefits. If the bigger earner goes off and rides all around them, why should the other suffer a drop in the standard of living? You also have cases where one spouse gave up a career and would be unemployable after 10 years out of the workforce. Should maintenance not be paid then?

Kevin Duffy · 17-07-2011 09:59AM

donutface wrote: »

I've been listening to US radio a lot and divorce cases come up regularly. One story was told recently of a boxer who got divorced from his wife and had to give up half of his belts which is just absolutely ridiculous.

She should be told that as the holder of the belts, she has to fight the mandatory challengers. That should soften her cough.

Kevin Duffy · 17-07-2011 10:01AM

Flincher wrote: »

In most households, one spouse earns more than the other. Naturally, the other spouse benefits. If the bigger earner goes off and rides all around them, why should the other suffer a drop in the standard of living? You also have cases where one spouse gave up a career and would be unemployable after 10 years out of the workforce. Should maintenance not be paid then?

No kids in the given scenario, what was this partner doing? Sitting at home?

Richard Hillman · 17-07-2011 10:12AM

One must wonder why men without a deep religious affiliation get married. For a woman they have financial security and get their big day. Whilst for the man there are zero benefits from going from being in a solid relationship to a marriage.

orourkeda · 17-07-2011 10:13AM

dont get married

Mary28 · 17-07-2011 10:19AM

If I gave up my job in order to do something for my husband then it would be nice if I could be "maintained" until I get something else. But if I have no kids and I am working then why should I be maintained?

I know 2 instances of where a long term girlfriend got money from their exs after threatening to take them to court. Both were in the relationship 10yrs or so, in one case the girl got 10K, in another it was around 30K. No kids, no marriage, man owned the house. In one instance the girl had been made redundant and her boyfriend paid for her to upskill, she made no contributions to anything financially (food, mortgage etc) and ran up his credit card. He had to get a loan to pay off the credit card & put the 10K onto his mortgage to buy her off. His solicitor advised him to bargain down from her original amount and get her to sign something rather than going to court where he could end up having to pay her X amount plus all the legal bills if he lost.
Bit nuts if you ask me. I know girls who can't get 200 a month off their child's dad and some girls are getting thousands just for being an ex!

Flincher · 17-07-2011 10:19AM

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

No kids in the given scenario, what was this partner doing? Sitting at home?

Possibly. If the other spouses income is sufficient for both to live on then what is the problem with that? There is no obligation on anybody to work. Or maybe the couple loved donkeys and as one earned 200k a year, the other set up a not for profit donkey reserve. If the couple felt the best option was for one to stay at home, well then that spouse shouldnt be left penniless, especially if the break up was the fault of the working spouse.

The Courts do have a bit more cop on then they are given credit for, and if one spouse gave up work against the wishes of the other, then a judge would view that very differently.

Piglet85 · 17-07-2011 11:05AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

It depends entirely on the circumstances.

This.

I know of one couple where the husband worked his ass off to pay for the wife to return to college in her late 30s. She spent the four years living the student life while he spent every spare penny working every hour God sent to fund it, as their understanding was that at the end of it she would be qualified for a job that would have a fantastic income and be the main breadwinner from then on.

Fastforward a few years later, she's landed this amazing job, they're finally financially comfortable, and it comes out that she had two affairs while in uni and is now leaving him to be with someone else. He's put off his own life for years, working in a job that he hated to fund her, and is now broke while she's fcuked off with the huge salary that she is earning purely because he supported her (both financially and otherwise) during the time it took to qualify.

So basically, while in theory I'm against maintenance being paid when there's no kids involved, in practice life's not always that black & white.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 17-07-2011 11:16AM

Prenup- http://www.prenuptialagreements.ie/faqs2.html#323

Rup murdoch paid 1 billion in his divorce

tallaghtmick · 17-07-2011 11:18AM

I answered fair before i read the thread thinking it was about kids maintenance:o

twinQuins · 17-07-2011 11:29AM

Flincher wrote: »

There are a million different circumstances where there are no kids and its completely reasonable for maintenance to be paid.

In most households, one spouse earns more than the other. Naturally, the other spouse benefits. If the bigger earner goes off and rides all around them, why should the other suffer a drop in the standard of living?[...]

Presumably because they don't have a right to that standard of living.

qwerty13 · 17-07-2011 11:30AM

Flincher wrote: »

There are a million different circumstances where there are no kids and its completely reasonable for maintenance to be paid.

In most households, one spouse earns more than the other. Naturally, the other spouse benefits. If the bigger earner goes off and rides all around them, why should the other suffer a drop in the standard of living? You also have cases where one spouse gave up a career and would be unemployable after 10 years out of the workforce. Should maintenance not be paid then?

I wouldn't support the idea that a spouse should get compo for someone riding all around them; they've brought their own ability to support themselves to the relationship, and, if they didn't make any financial contribution to increasing the joint income within the relationship, then that's what they take away from the relationship.

I would however very much support the idea that if one spouse limits their own actual/potential earnings in order for the other spouse to increase theirs, then the spouse who made that sacrifice should be compensated.

tan11ie · 17-07-2011 11:43AM

What!!! pay maintenance when no kids are involved

honestly you would want to be a desperate ****!!!

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2011 11:51AM

It depends who initiated the divorce.
I see no reason someone should be able to marry someone else, and then one day say "I don't want the person anymore but I do want the benefits of being with them."

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2011 11:53AM

Flincher wrote: »

In most households, one spouse earns more than the other. Naturally, the other spouse benefits. If the bigger earner goes off and rides all around them, why should the other suffer a drop in the standard of living?

I thought marriage was meant to be about love, not "standards of living"

Obvious proof that the entire concept of marriage is just to give people material benefits or security - and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually liking someone.

phasers · 17-07-2011 11:58AM

No, divide joint assets equally and everyone be on their merry way

dj jarvis · 17-07-2011 12:45PM

donutface wrote: »

I've been listening to US radio a lot and divorce cases come up regularly. One story was told recently of a boxer who got divorced from his wife and had to give up half of his belts which is just absolutely ridiculous.

With half of all marriages failing, and the higher earner generally getting screwed out of it, why do people still choose to get married when there's such a high risk and high cost of failure?

it really does not matter if you are married or not , the law as it stands make no difference if you wed or not
example : single man with job and house , meets girl , date and six months later she moves in with you , if you are in a relationship for 5 years or more she will be considered you common law wife , so if you break up after that she would be entitled to the same as if you were married

makes no sense - by the by has any one ever heard of a childless couple where the WOMAN has to maintain the man ??
i have not - cant get my head around why a man has to maintain another adult who is capable of looking after themselves ???

Jen Pigs Fly · 17-07-2011 01:21PM

Oh, didn't read 'no kids involved' can I change my answer?

Jen Pigs Fly · 17-07-2011 01:22PM

tallaghtmick wrote: »

I answered fair before i read the thread thinking it was about kids maintenance:o

Same here!

MagicSean · 17-07-2011 01:49PM

What about a case where there were kids but they have grown up and moved on. So you have a person who has spent maybe twenty years raring the kids and looking after the house and their spouse. Then they get deserted. I think people are seriously underappreciating the value of the work done in the home by stay at home spouses.

MagicSean · 17-07-2011 01:51PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

it really does not matter if you are married or not , the law as it stands make no difference if you wed or not
example : single man with job and house , meets girl , date and six months later she moves in with you , if you are in a relationship for 5 years or more she will be considered you common law wife , so if you break up after that she would be entitled to the same as if you were married

makes no sense - by the by has any one ever heard of a childless couple where the WOMAN has to maintain the man ??
i have not - cant get my head around why a man has to maintain another adult who is capable of looking after themselves ???

I have. A man who had to retire early due to a bad industrial accident and could no longer do regular work.

Novella · 17-07-2011 01:54PM

Personally, I'd fucking hate to have my marriage end and still be reliant on the other person for money etc. I would want a total clean break.

At the same time, I kinda get it. I mean, if you've gotten married, made promises of forever, shared everything including finances and become secure in that, it would be a bit of shock to have suddenly taken away.

dj jarvis · 17-07-2011 02:08PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I have. A man who had to retire early due to a bad industrial accident and could no longer do regular work.

yea but that is totally different to someone living with you and then they get board with you , leave and just because you lived with her for a certain amount of time you now have to pay them maintenance

your above example is not what the thread is about

my question was does any one know of a bloke who has left a long term relationship and his ex has to pay maintenance ?

because i know of PLENTY the other way around

wild_cat · 17-07-2011 02:18PM

It all depends on the circumstances like if who chooses to end the relationship etc...

For instance...

Man/woman loves his husband/wife works hard for everything they have. Husband/wife doesn't work.. childless marriage. Husband/Wife has affair... marriage breaks down because of it. He/she shouldn't have to give the cheating party a red cent.

Talk about insult to injury.

wild_cat · 17-07-2011 02:20PM

Wilder Rapping Page wrote: »

Prenup- http://www.prenuptialagreements.ie/faqs2.html#323

Rup murdoch paid 1 billion in his divorce

Prenup's are not recognised in Ireland. Young farmers are having an issue with lands that have been in the family for generations being split up etc.

dj jarvis · 17-07-2011 02:26PM

wild_cat wrote: »

It all depends on the circumstances like if who chooses to end the relationship etc...

For instance...

Man/woman loves his husband/wife works hard for everything they have. Husband/wife doesn't work.. childless marriage. Husband/Wife has affair... marriage breaks down because of it. He/she shouldn't have to give the cheating party a red cent.

Talk about insult to injury.

but that's the problem i think you do have half the " marital " assets , and i dont think it matters that much who was playing away
as far as i know ( please correct me if im not ) but under the new law common law husband/wife has same legal rights as wed man and wife

now i know of cases where it was the "wife" who done the dirt , split the relationship up and still made money of the division of marital assets and have been granted maintenance - with no kids :eek:

again how is this right - she is a adult leaving a relationship of her own accord - why is she due anything from the person she is leaving ??

and sorry if i keep pointing out the female as the bogey man here but i dont know of any cases the other way around

looksee · 17-07-2011 02:30PM

There have been, and probably still are, lots of cases where husband has a prestigious job and wants wife to be his social secretary, hostess, housekeeper etc so she does, is not earning, not saving towards a pension, not paying prsi contributions. He then decides for whatever reason that she is no longer suitable and leaves. How is she supposed to support herself? It could easily work the other way round too.

I do agree that in an equal situation, where both parties have been working they should look after themselves.

How should it work though, if one partner becomes ill or unable to work, and the other one leaves, do they have any responsibility to support the sick one?

deisedave · 17-07-2011 02:32PM

If married for years, I mean decades and one gave up there career so the other one can mind the children then of course maintenance is fair. If married for a few years and no kids involved and no one gave up anything then obviously no maintenance, it really depends from situation to situation.

Honey-ec · 17-07-2011 03:09PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

One must wonder why men without a deep religious affiliation get married. For a woman they have financial security and get their big day. Whilst for the man there are zero benefits from going from being in a solid relationship to a marriage.

Financial security? I clearly married the wrong man. Curses.

And the "big day" is called a wedding. A marriage is something different altogether.

Paying "maintenance" - fair or not fair?

Fair or not fair? 17 votes

Comments