Should Moving In Mean Losing Out? Making a Case to Clarify the Legal Effect of Cohabitation on Alimony

As nonmarital cohabitation has skyrocketed over the last several decades, courts and legislatures have increasingly struggled to decide what legal effect an ex-spouse\u27s cohabitation with a new partner should have on the receipt of alimony payments. In seeking to answer this cohabitation question, states have taken a variety of approaches. Often, however, courts\u27 answers to the cohabitation question are not grounded in the rationale that those courts used to award alimony in the first place and may therefore lead to inconsistent or absurd results. This Note addresses the cohabitation question and argues that states should revisit their current approaches in light of the multiple contemporary theories of alimony and twenty-first century social-science research on cohabitation. Ultimately, this Note proposes several clarifications to existing law in order to provide a sensible, workable rule that would introduce consistency to courts\u27 considerations of the cohabitation question

Are Intra-Household Allocations Policy Neutral? Theory and Empirical Evidence

We develop a collective household model with spousal matching in which there exists marital gains to assortative matching and marriage quality for each couple is revealed ex post. Changes in alimony laws are shown to affect existing couples and couples-to-be differently. For existing couples, legislative changes that favor (wo)men benefit them especially if the marriage match quality is low, while, for couples not yet formed, they generate offsetting intra-household transfers and lower intra-marital allocations for the spouses who are the intended beneficiary. We then estimate the effect of granting alimony rights to cohabiting couples in Canada using a triple-difference framework since each province extended these rights in different years and requiring different cohabitation length. We find that obtaining the right to petition for alimony led women to lower their labor force participation. These results, however, do not hold – and, in some cases, are reversed – for newly formed cohabiting couples.intra-household allocations, matching, cohabitation, alimony laws

Alimony: What Social Science and Popular Culture Tell Us About Women, Guilt, and Spousal Support After Divorce

Over the past few decades, fewer divorcing women have received alimony, and when alimony awards are made, they are in declining amounts and for shorter periods of time. Conventional explanations of this trend focus on legal changes that have made divorces easier to obtain, as well as social changes that have led to larger numbers of married women in the paid workforce, and to greater social tolerance of divorce. Certainly these changes partly explain the downward trend in alimony, but they do not fully explain why alimony awards continue to decline, even among women who do not have viable job skills at the time of divorce and who experience severe post-divorce financial hardship. This article looks to the women themselves and uses social science research to examine gender differences in emotional reactions to marriage and divorce. The article argues that women\u27s tendency to assume emotional responsibility for the success of the marriage and parenting, and in particular women’s greater susceptibility to feelings of guilt and shame about divorce and parenting, make it difficult for many women to successfully negotiate for alimony. Further, the article looks at women\u27s feelings and behaviors in negotiation situations, arguing that social pressures exacerbate the feelings of guilt over the divorce and lead women to accept unfavorable outcomes. Ultimately, this article concludes that the legal system may need to impose solutions, such as mandatory pre-nuptial agreements or alimony formulas, in order to achieve a degree of predictability and fairness in alimony outcomes

Migratory Alimony: A Constitutional Dilemma in the Exercise of In Personam Jurisdiction

Obstacles to obtaining binding determinations of domicile often block the personal jurisdiction required for alimony adjudication. A way out of the impasse, Professor Ritz argues, is offered by the mechanism of removing cases to federal courts under the constitutional grant of federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship

Gender Division of Labor and Alimony

According to the principle of comparative advantage, the gender division of labor is utility enhancing during marriage. However, in the long term it decreases the earning power of the party who specializes in housework. Once the marriage is dissolved she/he will be the losing party and hence should be compensated by the other party, who specializes in paid work which usually involves higher degree in the accumulation of human capital. As an effective means of compensation, it is shown formally that alimony may promote the gender division of labor and improve Pareto efficiency. The rule of remarriage termination of alimony is doubly inefficient by reducing gender division of labor and by discouraging efficient remarriages.Gender; division of labor; alimony; spousal support; marriage; specialization.