In the September 2008 ABA Journal, there was an article entitled 'Til Death Do Us Pay? As retired boomers head to the golf course, courts look at limits on alimony by Wendy N. Davis. Discussed in that article is alimony after long marriages when the parties are nearing retirement age. This article got me thinking of a scenario we see in New Jersey frequently enough to make it worthy of discussion. Picture a 30+ year marriage where one party was the major breadwinner and the other did not work outside of the home (or if he or she did, there was a substantial disparity in incomes). The knee jerk reaction is to say that this is a permanent alimony case, without question. Now picture that there are substantial assets, including substantial retirement assets, that are going to be equally divided. Does that change the assessment? Maybe. Now picture that each party is 62 years old. Does that change the assessment? Maybe it should. Presumably, the parties had discussed and considered retirement. Even if they did not discuss it, retirement at 62 or 65 or 67 or some other reasonably anticipated age is not a far fetched concept. In this case, one would expect that the alimony award entered could possibly equalize the parties' net incomes. Even if it did not, the parties would likely be reasonably close in net income. They will also have the same amount of assets. Will the paying spouse be able to acquire substantially more assets in t ...
Anytime
