Tuesday, November 10, 2009
In a long term marriage, when permanent periodic alimony is a given, we often speculate when someone can retire and possibly eliminate or severely reduce a monthly alimony amount. Often times, if someone retires at a normal retirement age, alimony can be eliminated or reduced at retirement. However, a judge in Massachusetts has ruled that a person may have to continue working or seek part-time employment even after retirement in order to satisfy an alimony obligation. Is this fair? Should someone have to continue to work well into his/her 70s or 80s in order to satisfy an alimony requirement? Shouldn't a person be allowed to retire? On the other hand, should someone be allowed to retire in order to escape the necessity of paying alimony? Alimony is one of those nasty words that causes heartburn for those who have to pay it and heartburn for those who are fearful of losing it. With people living longer and retirement ages still around 65, it'll be interesting to see how all courts handle this complex issue.
To read the article about the Massachusetts ruling see: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/10/divorce_may_mean_retiring_is_delayed/