Divorce ruling revised. Judge reverses decision faulted as example of flaws in new matrimonial law

tango646 · 2012-04-04T18:01:09+00:00

Wow, he is lucky they revised it and not just throw him in jail.

Bartab · 2012-04-04T16:53:53+00:00

So a guy went from oweing more per month than he has ever earned in a month to only two-thirds of what his income was before being laid off.

Even though his wife earns over 100k per year, and thus earns more than the man because he's currently laid off.

Peter_Principle_ · 2012-04-04T18:01:43+00:00

The idea that she is entitled to any of his income is disgusting. 100K a year, and she still wants more! If she wants more money she should get up off her lazy ass and make it herself instead of parasitizing someone else.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-04-04T19:09:53+00:00

Ms. Goldberg vowed to appeal the ruling, criticizing a new provision that makes her responsible for 100% of the couple's household costs, including mortgage payments and utilities

And who is living in that house at the moment?

While these may be reasonable considerations, fairness is "really not the function of the statute," said matrimonial attorney Lee Rosenberg, whose firm originally represented Ms. Goldberg.

Fuck everything about this.

celibacy4life · 2012-04-04T19:59:31+00:00

It's stories like this that keep me celibate. I don't hate myself enough to even risk a situation like this. How long till he gets put in jail for falling behind on payments? 6 months? Who's going to hire him after that?

TerriChris · 2012-04-04T16:38:13+00:00

In March 2011, Judge Norman Janowitz ordered Jeffrey Goldberg to pay his wife Jill Goldberg more than $17,000 a month, though his monthly take-home pay as an investment banker was only $12,775, according to court documents. His wife, Jill, is employed as a guidance counselor, earning $103,000 a year. Mr. Goldberg was laid off in August.

Common in every state. Even at $700 support monthly, guy was earning $2,600 monthly are terminated in a recession or down turn, so cannot afford to pay on top of monthly rent ($600-$1000), food ($200-$400), gas/tolls ($200-$500), car and health insurance ($400-$700) car payment ($300-500) and student loan(s) ($300-$700).

GodHatesUs · 2012-04-05T05:32:43+00:00

Hopefully the appellate court will uphold it. New York courts are famous for working around terribly drafted laws and the appellate courts are famous for upholding them

gt_peter · 2012-04-05T01:01:08+00:00

So the revised values don't seem too out of line to me.

If his post tax take home is $12750/mo And we assume a 30% total tax burden his annual income is $215k vs. hers at $103k. At $112k/yr difference a "fair" alimony. Divide. The difference by 2 (they split the difference)and then by 12 (monthly) you get $4800. The article reports a revised payment of $5k so the new number is reasonable. They have 3 kids and in their income group $700/kid/mo isn't crazy either depending on age and custody.

That said, she sounds nuts thinking that she is owed more and that on top of this he should still cover half the mortgage. If they are splitting assets evenly she should be paying him out half the equity in the house since she's keeping it.

Issues around fairness in custody aren't covered in the article so we can't assess them. We also know nothing about the circumstances of the divorce and for the financial part we shouldn't care under no-fault divorce.

That said the issues of change to income (lay off, job change, etc.) and length of alimony term remain.

Title	Divorce ruling revised. Judge reverses decision faulted as example of flaws in new matrimonial law
Author	TerriChris
Upvotes	17
Comments	16
Date	April 4, 2012 4:35 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rt34r/divorce_ruling_revised_judge_reverses_decision/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/divorce-ruling-revised-judge-reverses-decision.1024693 https://theredarchive.com/post/1024693

Comments