Jacqueline Getty married Gordon Peter Getty Jr., heir to the Getty fortune, in 2000.  TMZ reports that she has filed for divorce in Los Angelas seeking $539,201 per month in alimony to maintain the lifestyle she had while married, which included, among other things:

– $300,000 to $500,000 per year for clothing
– $50,000 for Halloween parties
– expensive jewelry including 5 carat diamond earrings
– $40,000 for birthday parties
– trips to the private Getty compound in Hawaii 3-4 times a year
– trips on the Getty private jet (Boeing 737)
– a one million dollar bed

As for Gordon’s ability to pay, Jacqueline says he would go on several trips a year without a suitcase and buy a whole new wardrobe when he arrived.

• Americans paid $9.4 billion in alimony to former spouses in 2007.  (IRS)
• That’s up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier.  (IRS)
• 97% of alimony-payers were men last year.   (U.S. Census)
• The percentage of women supporting ex-husbands is increasing.  (U.S. Census)
• Women made up 46.7% of the work force last year.  (DOL)
• That’s up from 41.2% in 1978.  (DOL)
• Women, 45 to 54 years old, earn 75% as much as men the same age.

– from “The New Art of Alimony” by Jennifer Levitz for the Wall Street Journal

At ABC News, Alice Gomstyn has an article about women who are angry about having to pay alimony to men.  As a result of more women become primary breadwinners in the family, the number of American men receiving alimony has climbed, from 7,000 in 1998 to 13,000 in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  Now that the economy has gone from boom to bust, some of these high earning women are feeling pinched by their alimony payments.

In Maryland, if only one party wants a divorce, they can get it eventually.  A two year separation is grounds for divorce under Section 7-103(a)(5) of the Family Law Article of the Maryland Code.

That is why I say it takes two people to get married, but only one to get divorced.

Fault, or as the statute says “the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties”, is a factor the court can take into consideration in alimony and property determinations.

So is a divorce always the fault of one person, or are both parties at fault in some way?  This is the question asked at CreateDebate.com where you can register and vote and leave your comments.  Or you can tell us your opinion in the comment section below.

The first image broadcast by network television was a picture of Felix the Cat.  I remember watching Felix on tv when I was a kid.  He had a Magic Bag of Tricks and whenever he got stumped by a problem, he would reach into his bag and pull out some tool or device that would help him solve the problem.

I wish I had a Magic Bag of Tricks in real life.  A lawyer can do a lot of things, but sometimes the tools in my toolbox are limited.  Clients look to their lawyers to solve all sorts of problems.  But first you have to have a problem that the law recognizes as a problem.  For example, I wrote recently that not every marital agreement is recognized by law as an enforceable contract.

The law does not provide a remedy for every wrong.  There is no legal tool that will turn your difficult spouse into a nicer, more reasonable and responsible person.   I can get alimony and child support and property, but I probably cannot recover damages for the hurt you felt during your marriage.  The court can give you a visitation schedule, but it can’t make your child want to visit with you.  I can’t make your spouse settle on your terms and I can’t make opposing counsel return my calls if they don’t want to.

As a mediator said to one of my clients, “I only have a pen, not a magic wand.”

The Viet Nam War was winding down, I just got out of the army, and I was an eager new law student, opening my first law book and reading my first case.  It was for a class in Contracts, yet it turned out to involve a divorce.  With a sense of wonder, I turned the pages, and peeked into the private lives of Mr. and Mrs. Balfour.  I was hooked.

Mr. Balfour, a civil engineer from England, was assigned to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in the early 1900’s.  While on leave in England, Mrs Balfour came down with rheumatic arthritis.  Her doctor said that she should stay in England for her health rather than return to the jungle climate of Ceylon.

Mr. Balfour, before sailing for Ceylon, promised he would send her 30 pounds a month, which he did for awhile.  But later he wrote that it was better for them to stay separated, and he stopped the payments.  Mrs. Balfour obtained a divorce and alimony.  In addition, she sued him for breach of contract for the 30 pounds a month he had promised.

The lower court held that Mr. Balfour had to continue to pay her as agreed.  The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed, finding that there was no agreement enforceable in law.  Although the judges’ reasons differed, the heart of their analysis was that married couples make agreements all the time, to pay an allowance, for example, and those domestic agreements do not rise to the level of a contract enforceable by law.  And a young law student learned that the court does not enforce every agreement.  Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

The Latin word “alimonia” means food, support, nourishment, sustenance.

The Latin word “alere” means to nourish and the Latin suffix “monia” signifies action, state, or condition.

Mr. and Mrs. Woodcock lived in Wicomico County, Maryland, until Mrs. Woodcock left the marital residence and moved to her parent’s home in Baltimore.  She filed for alimony in Baltimore claiming that Mr. Woodcock had forced her to move out.

Upon being served with the complaint, Mr. Woodcock filed his complaint for divorce based on desertion in Wicomico County and a motion to dismiss his wife’s suit in Baltimore for lack of jurisdiction.

The Baltimore judge said that the general rule in the statute is that a suit must be filed in the county where the defendant resides.  An exception to the general rule is a suit for divorce which may be brought in the county where either party resides.  When two courts have jurisdiction over a case, the first court keeps the case and a second court cannot interfere.  Since Mrs. Woodcock filed first, she should have won.

However, Mrs. Woodcock had filed a suit for alimony, not divorce, which fell within the general rule so it should have been filed in her husband’s county.  The Baltimore judge dismissed her complaint for alimony and gave her permission to refile an amended complaint for divorce, which she did.

The husband appealed and the Maryland Court of Appeals said slow down.  Since the first case for alimony was filed in the wrong county, it didn’t count.  That meant the Wicomico court had jurisdiction over the case when the husband filed for divorce there.  And the Baltimore court couldn’t get it back by an amendment to the alimony complaint.

Woodcock v. Woodcock, 169 Md. 40; 179 A. 826 (1935)

The prince ran off with his secretary.  The princess sued him for divorce based on adultery and desertion.   She got custody, child support, alimony, lawyer fees, the castle and half the kingdom.  And then they lived happily ever after.

In Lee v. Andochick, discussed in “Going Broke on 1.76 Million a Year”, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed a $10,000 a month alimony award because the numbers just didn’t add up.  But the Court also found the trial judge erred in awarding indefinite alimony on the basis of unconscionable disparity.

Section 11-106(c)(2) of the Maryland Family Law Article provides that alimony may be awarded indefinitely if the court finds that even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress of  becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate.

Mr. Lee made $1,760,282 and Dr. Andochick made $267,000 in 2006.  But the appeals court said a disparity in income is not the same as a disparity in standards of living.

Dr. Andochick, the court said, did not explain or prove how her standard of living would be unconscionably disparate from Mr.  Lee’s if she did not receive alimony.  The court also said the trial judge did not discuss his analysis of why the respective standards of living of the parties would be unconscionably disparate.  Therefore the case was sent back to the trial judge to make further findings.