Backgrounding -- and finding something problematic on someone who you've profiled and liked is definitely one of the least fun things I've done as a reporter. Regardless of the merit of the person's claims/denials, it must genuinely suck to have talked to a reporter for what was initially intended to be a positive recognition (e.g. "proud local owner of 'Best Burger Bar in America'". Only to find out that your previously private legal problems -- i.e. known only to your personal network -- are going to be mentioned in the mass media. Even if the mention is minimal -- i.e. doesn't change the main focus of the story -- the subject of the story might wish they had never been picked as a story idea.
That said, when you fail to mention a glaring problem at all -- well, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I would've understood if the original author had found out about the legal problems and decided not to write a followup at all. I can believe that he wasn't truly aware of how serious the burger bar owner's legal history is, and didn't want to pry if it was the kind of crime that didn't make normal headlines. But when you write a self-indulgent graf like this --
> And that fact is the thing I can’t quite get past. That a decision I made for a list I put on the internet has impacted a family business and forever altered its future. That I have changed family dynamics and relationships. And it could very easily happen again.
-- you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting. It's true that owner that owners of well-reviewed establishments are thrown into a world of stress -- this has been true since the "golden age " of newspapers and print critics. But for someone to have suddenly and inexplicably shut down, it's also possible there's more to the story than what the owner would like to publicly claim.
When i read the story originally, I just couldn’t believe he was telling us everything. The whole premise sounded absurd. If the burger place got too busy, he could’ve hired more. Or tell people he had a seating limit. Or spray some fart odor around the place to detract more visitors... lots and lots of things. Either the owner was lazy or something else was going on.
Also the story sounded like a humble brag of sorts. “Oh my publicity made tons of people go there and shut it down!!” (please.. unless you’re Trump or Elon, I highly doubt your words were that influential)
Yeah...you just make people wait in line...and often times that just increases demand. There's a BBQ joint in Austin with that situation. Franklin's always has a wait. But I hear it's damn good BBQ.
While it may sound absurd, I do think there's merit to what he's saying. Expectations can be hard to deal with, especially when you're selling cheap, humble food. How do you balance trying to sell a $10 meal with the expectations of a foodie waiting hours to get in? And then how do you cook for volumes significantly higher than what you designed your restaurant for? It's easy to say hire more people, but sometimes the secret sauce is simply a cook who cares, and you can't always hire that (especially at a low price point).
The previous article seemed to be as objective as the reporter could make it, describing his personal sense of guilt but also the people around him who tried to convince him it wasn't entirely his fault.
He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting.
This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles
It definitely was a set of unfortunate circumstances for the author. If he was told about the messy divorce, it would have been standard procedure to get the ex-wife's side of things, especially since she had been a manager at the bar for nearly 2 decades. But I'm assuming she's dead, if she had stage 4 breast cancer in 2014. And that might have led the author understandably to think that "messy divorce", and drinking problems, was as problematic as it got.
I completely agree with you that the author still had a good point. I think his article is particularly resonant today, with the growing fear and resentment of social media oversharing, online harassment and doxxing, and even data retention (e.g. "Right to be forgotten").
> you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting
On a hamburger review? I'm all for holding the media accountable, but it's just a guy saying he like the hamburgers he ate there. The owner's personal life is his own business, and the reviewer has essentially no obligation here.
> Stanich and his wife divorced, citing "irreconcilable differences," in 2016. He agreed to give her a family home in Tempe, Ariz., $400,000 in a lump sum and $8,000 a month in support payments—and custody of the family dog, Rambo.
a house, 400k, 8k every month, and the dog. Jesus.
re: assaulting his ex-wife: no allegedly. He pleaded no contest for that.
Also, and it's quite minor given the other stuff discussed here, it seems like he expected not to pay his staff for a couple weeks and have them hang out and wait for him. Or maybe the employees liked their manager / his ex-wife.
Considering the context (he claims she defrauded him about her cancer being terminal) it looked like he thought she was dying and he wouldn't be on the hook for the rest of his life.
Jesus Christ. I wish I hadn't read about this at all.
That's almost exactly my terms. In my case, not so much as a harsh word between us--ex just decided she deserved it, and that's the way the law works. My current gross doesn't even cover alimony. (And alimony isn't deductible while you're unemployed, nor can you make qualified withdrawals from retirement accounts to pay for it.)
Still pretty happy to be rid of her. Be careful out there...
I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
Unless I'm missing something, community property doesn't affect alimony, it affects division of assets acquired during marriage (that is a community property state, generally assets acquired during marriage are treated as shared 50/50 in divorce.) Though I suppose a settlement of divorce could trade off one for the other, and having more claim on marital assets to trade could lead to higher average alimony when settlements are considered.
Generally, community property will be split 50/50. Alimony would generally be set as a percentage of all income. Judges have a lot of leeway, though, and may lean considerably towards whomever seems more sympathetic (according to lawyers).
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
> One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth.
It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
I agree, i'm not aware of a state where it does (except by settlement agreement, as you say).
I think i misunderstood the question.
I thought they were asking whether there was a standard way alimony is calculated, and whether there is a standard way to do asset division.
I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state.
These are two unrelated things, as you say.
I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.
Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
> Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
This figured for me. FAANG income, but only for a couple of years, so going to court would have burned up our entire net worth. (Lawyers and consultants are very expensive.) I was fine with mutually assured destruction for she and me, but not with the harm that would have been done to her kids, who I loved/love.
A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true.
Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic.
Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks.
Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
> Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did
Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
Yes. I should have said "unreviewable after the initial court approval".
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.
2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him
3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum.
Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
I assume he had significant income in previous years, switched jobs for whatever reason, makes significantly less, but alimony is based on past few years income. That must hurt but I think is done to protect the other person since some people might purposefully quit etc in order to have alimony be set at a lower amount, then get a new job after divorce to match what they were making previously.
Friend of mine found himself in such a situation. His mistake was thinking that all the arrangements were done by formula so he didn't have to pay for his own attorney. Whoops. He ended up having $400/month after alimony and child support. That was supposed to pay for a place to live and transportation to his job. Amazing, but the judge really didn't care that the terms were onerous enough to risk the very employment that would allow him to pay anything at all.
Moral of the story, always get a lawyer if you're going through a divorce. The best one you can afford.
And that’s really the salient concept underlying the forces at work here:
Now thrive the armorers.
The key feature of prevailing marriage statistics is that there are exploitative forces operating a narrative, to profit from both sides of the conflict.
Legal representation for divorce is a volume-oriented practice. The more, the better, and anything to fan the flames of strife from both directions.
“Make sure everyone falls into the trap, and make sure at least someone is making money off these morons, so we can all play golf together, after we rip them apart, and rifle through their wallets, and get our cut of the profits from whoever might win. Make sure the guys are paranoid and fearful of getting taken to the cleaners, and make sure the girls are salivating at an early retirement. Then either version of clientele will pay through the nose for our services.”
Basically, what tech recruiters do, except lawyers do it to families, while recruiters do it to companies.
Alimony is adjusted to your current salary. While some judges have tried to force the alimony-paying ex-spouse remain in/take higher-paying jobs to justify continuing higher alimony payments, most of those decisions were reversed on appeal.
EDIT: I see from a comment below that you were your own lawyer for your divorce. That explains the outcome.
We'll have to hear more from the restaurant critic about what he asked/didn't ask, and what the owner, Stanich, told or didn't tell him. But if it's the case that Stanich agreed to be profiled for an article about his shut-down burger bar, and he presented a whitewashed version of events, then it's not fair to his wife, who was a long time manager, whom he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor harassment and strangulation. The "dirty laundry" here is him beating his wife in front of their son, not something like him being an adulterer.
A further reminder that just because something is technically public does not make it necessarily okay to broadcast it. We have a real problem in our modern world dealing with all the data out there and how it should be protected, or not. Used to be it didn't matter much because you'd have to go down to the courthouse to get detailed information. Now it's being data mined, collected, aggregated with 100s of other sources, and sold. Yuck.
Maybe there's a very good reason why crimes and our court systems are public? Such as, so that people who choke their wife who is dying from cancer can be avoided and shunned by moral, law abiding persons.
The divorce agreement called for $8k/month alimony. That's something like $150k per year out of his pre-tax income.
I don't know about Stanich's mental state and finances. But if I were forced by the courts to sign such an agreement, reneging and drinking myself to death within a year would look like an extremely tempting way out.
The Probation / Parole system, and the "correctional" institution in the US is a national disaster. The idea to prevent an adult, an elderly adult at that, from engaging in lawful activities like drinking alcohol as terms of probation is ludicrous. This man's life spiraled out of control for one reason.. the punitive nature of law enforcement and correctional institutions. What should be regarded as a health condition and treated as such (alcoholism) is instead used as a tool to further humiliate and demoralize this individual. It's not even safe to cold-turkey quit alcohol for an alcoholic because of the possibility of Grand Mal Seizures.
His charge of reckless driving was in 2017. In 2014, he received probation after pleading no contest to choking his terminally ill wife, whom in 2016 he divorced. And then got a contempt-of-court charge for not meeting the terms of the divorce settlement.
What does the probation/parole system have to do with his particular issues?
Where did you see that he was certifiably an alcoholic?
I would agree that the humanity here is lost in the weeds of bureaucracy... but if alcohol was at all a factor in the physical altercation with his ex wife, then I can't see it being that unreasonable a request. This is of course problematic since he's 70 and lots of his friends and family are probably starting to pass away and who can really blame someone for having a few drinks too many at one too many wakes?
There is also the problem of unmarried older single men without a source of human affection having a much higher mortality and crime risk, which was brought into the equation. This man probably has almost no emotional support system at this point, which just exacerbates the overdrinking risk. The impending stress of work if he reopens can't be making that any easier, either.
EDIT: Before someone accuses me of sympathizing with a felon, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory_(crimin... ; the antiquated idea that a person's behavior is due in some significant part to their intrinsic nature in some fashion instead of their circumstances/environment is not only the well-studied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error , it should be put to rest ASAP. We need to get to work fixing situations AS WELL AS the people inhabiting them.
Disagree. Alcohol abuse makes people dangerous. Certain people struggle with this more than others, and since they won't regulate themselves we have elected representatives and law enforcement who have a responsibility to step in and regulate this for them.
> This man's life spiraled out of control for one reason.. the punitive nature of law enforcement...
False. It spiraled out of control because of his own selfish decisions.
Gotta love "feminism" when it represents equal rights. But yet when the very idea of alimony is "I'm a lesser woman because I married", puts to rest any idea about it being equal rights.
> But yet when the very idea of alimony is "I'm a lesser woman because I married",
That's not the idea of alimony.
The idea of alimony is closer to “I sacrificed my future income for my husband's by the division of domestic vs. external work in marriage”.
> Say.. How many men get alimony?
A small but growing number, largely because of slow erosion of persistent patriarchal gender roles which manifest in a number of ways.
(1) Men are still more likely to support their wives and have their career advancement and future income potential dominate in marriage than vice versa, making them less likely to be eligible for alimony,
(2) Men are less likely to seek alimony when they are eligible,
(3) Men are less likely to resist alimony demands in divorce,
(4) There's bias in judging where judges are more likely to view men as capable of independent self-support and less deserving of alimony in objectively similar conditions.
> The idea of alimony is closer to “I sacrificed my future income for my husband's by the division of domestic vs. external work in marriage”.
I'd argue that's even worse, as it encourages economic classes to 'marry amongst oneselves; don't relate with lesser people's
And that very statement also packs in the idea the woman is some married domestic servant. And increasingly that is not true. My wife and I share the work. Equally. We both work. Right now I make more, but before this job, she made more. And now, on my extra salary, she's attending Harvard. Soon enough, she'll make more than I.
And the sooner these gender roles are busted thoroughly for both men and women, the better we all will do.
> I'd argue that's even worse, as it encourages economic classes to 'marry amongst oneselves; don't relate with lesser people's
Well, no, if you are interested in minimizing alimony, it encourages working to maximize your partners income and income potential during marriage (in addition to working to avoid divorce.)
> And that very statement also packs in the idea the woman is some married domestic servant.
No, it implies that marriage often involves a division of responsibility and/or a trade-offs where one person's income earning potential is sacrificed for the others; subordination (master/servant) rather than co-equal status is irrelevant.
> And increasingly that is not true.
Yes, it's less true over time that wives are sacrificing more income potential in marriage in favor of their husbands, as the old traditional division of marital roles becomes less absolutely dominant.
And increasingly fewer women and more men get spousal support, which reflects that.
> My wife and I share the work. Equally. We both work. Right now I make more, but before this job, she made more. And now, on my extra salary, she's attending Harvard. Soon enough, she'll make more than I.
Good for you. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with anything, since we aren't discussing who should or shouldn't get spousal support in your hypothetical divorce.
>> persistent patriarchal gender roles which manifest in a number of ways:
>> men .. have their career advancement and future income potential dominate in marriage
Is it really a gender role ? or, a genetic adaptation - with females being attracted to more successful men, because it helps give their children helpful resources ?
> or, a genetic adaptation - with females being attracted to more successful men, because it helps give their children helpful resources ?
You are presenting a false dilemma; that it may be, in whole or in part, a product of genetic adaptation does not impact whether or not is a gender role.
The debate you seem to want to have is over whether gender roles are pure social constructs or not, which may be an interesting debate but isn't actually all that germane here. The gender role in question exists and contributes to the effect under discussion and is manifestly changing, though slower than some people might prefer.
I'm all for equal rights 100%, but a lot of women conveniently forget about the bonus benefits society gives them just for being women, and they don't seem keen in giving it up/transferring to men when the time comes.
As examples... holding the door open for women. The idea of "ladies first". The custom of men being required to message first on dating services. Men paying for dinner/etc.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality.
I hold the door open for everyone. Male, female, and other. This is common courtesy.
> The idea of "ladies first".
I've never really encountered this.
> The custom of men being required to message first on dating services.
My wife messaged me first when we met on OkCupid.
> Men paying for dinner
Similarly, on our first date my wife offered to do half/half, but I insisted on paying largely because she was still a college student at that point, and I was not.
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality.
Well, one of us is the more rare case. I'm not sure which one.
I find a good majority of people hold the door open for everyone. The rule is usually, the first person to the door holds it open for the people behind. That certainly crosses gender lines.
I think most feminists don't think men should pay for dinner each time on a date, and don't think "ladies first" is a rule we should keep.
I don't know what you mean by "I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality". Do you mean you don't see women protesting trying to get these equalities? That is incredibly disingenuous to claim that women not fighting for these equalities means they think they should persist. They don't fight for those equalities because those aren't the ones they need to fight for. They need to fight for the ones that are holding them back. Those other ones can follow.
I see many people, myself included, protesting for genuine equality. The only thing disingenuous I see is people thinking you can obtain both equality and equity at the same time.
Bad examples aside, women get a "leg up" in a lot of ways, and men do too. If we want equally, we either need to be inclusive so that everyone gets the same leg up, or we need to compensate with different kinds of legs.
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality.
There's a few. You see them, by the way they do head forward in male-dominated careers that don't have prestige. Think: manual labor, professional manual labor (framers, steamfitters, plumbers, electricians, etc), military combat, and more. And there are a few who speak of equality (not equity).
Those are pretty weak examples. There are some legitimate gripes you could have brought up, IMO. Things like the way a man can get treated (ostracized or worse) when he shows up at a playground with his young daughter. Or the way many women react in a situation when it's just the two of you that implies she is really afraid of you. It makes me pretty uncomfortable to be in those situations but nobody really cares. That's a legit gripe. At the same time, men do basically run the world at this point, even if individually many of us are not in any kind of powerful role.
I agree, I was just trying to pick quick examples.
Last year I was in line trying to get into a college dance club, and a group of girls in front of me started screaming, one saying "I lost my phone! Someone stole my phone!" They turned and made face at me and started accusing me of theft. My friends were already in and I was alone in line, clearly minding my own business to anyone paying attention. But once they started screaming I had to defend myself by basically yelling at them that they were being stupid and to leave me alone. They started makinga big scene and people all around were getting interested. Just a bit later and the girl just pathetically says "oh I found it" and walks away with her phone, clearly unconcerned with the potential fallout against me.
Plenty of women are jumping to embrace this kind of equality. It's not always easy due to established behavioural tendencies, but I know of plenty of women who are determined to embrace equality on things like door-opening and dating.
84 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 78.6 ms ] threadBackgrounding -- and finding something problematic on someone who you've profiled and liked is definitely one of the least fun things I've done as a reporter. Regardless of the merit of the person's claims/denials, it must genuinely suck to have talked to a reporter for what was initially intended to be a positive recognition (e.g. "proud local owner of 'Best Burger Bar in America'". Only to find out that your previously private legal problems -- i.e. known only to your personal network -- are going to be mentioned in the mass media. Even if the mention is minimal -- i.e. doesn't change the main focus of the story -- the subject of the story might wish they had never been picked as a story idea.
That said, when you fail to mention a glaring problem at all -- well, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I would've understood if the original author had found out about the legal problems and decided not to write a followup at all. I can believe that he wasn't truly aware of how serious the burger bar owner's legal history is, and didn't want to pry if it was the kind of crime that didn't make normal headlines. But when you write a self-indulgent graf like this --
> And that fact is the thing I can’t quite get past. That a decision I made for a list I put on the internet has impacted a family business and forever altered its future. That I have changed family dynamics and relationships. And it could very easily happen again.
-- you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting. It's true that owner that owners of well-reviewed establishments are thrown into a world of stress -- this has been true since the "golden age " of newspapers and print critics. But for someone to have suddenly and inexplicably shut down, it's also possible there's more to the story than what the owner would like to publicly claim.
Also the story sounded like a humble brag of sorts. “Oh my publicity made tons of people go there and shut it down!!” (please.. unless you’re Trump or Elon, I highly doubt your words were that influential)
He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting.
This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles
I completely agree with you that the author still had a good point. I think his article is particularly resonant today, with the growing fear and resentment of social media oversharing, online harassment and doxxing, and even data retention (e.g. "Right to be forgotten").
On a hamburger review? I'm all for holding the media accountable, but it's just a guy saying he like the hamburgers he ate there. The owner's personal life is his own business, and the reviewer has essentially no obligation here.
a house, 400k, 8k every month, and the dog. Jesus.
Edit: and considering he choked his wife on their lawn, (allegedly), divorce sounds reasonable to me.
Also, and it's quite minor given the other stuff discussed here, it seems like he expected not to pay his staff for a couple weeks and have them hang out and wait for him. Or maybe the employees liked their manager / his ex-wife.
"If you want to save yourself a lot of trouble, find a girl you don't like and give her a house".
Jesus Christ. I wish I hadn't read about this at all.
Still pretty happy to be rid of her. Be careful out there...
They do all have standard asset division and support/etc calculators
One bit that surprised me is that there is no reluctance to set alimony (considered on an NPV basis) larger than your net worth. It kind of sucks to have every dollar you've ever saved wiped out in one stroke, replaced with a nice pile of debt.
It's not uncommon for people with decent income to have near zero net worth (future expected labor income is not, even on an NPV basis, included in net worth), so that's not really all that surprising.
I tried to answer both - The asset division depends on the state, and the alimony does have standard calculators in every state. These are two unrelated things, as you say.
The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.
From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.
As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.
Every state has a standard calculation, but I'm pretty sure like most terms of divorce a settlement agreement can vary quite far from the formula the court would use were it to decide the matter in a contested case. As most divorces are settled (which saves costs in the divorce process, is faster than contested process, can be less traumatic for the parties and any children involved, etc.), the official formula may do more to shape negotiatig position than set the actual final amount.
A lot of assumptions an outsider would make only work if you have two parties willing to be more or less reasonable. They fall apart completely when that's not true.
Unfortunately, settlements can be much harsher in terms that the legal formulas, and a good opposing lawyer will make them utterly unreviewable by a court, no matter how badly your situation changes, as mine did. Tax law is also unsympathetic.
Divorce sounds like it ought to be simple-ish, but going through it, you realized that each one is awful and complex in its own ways. The financial part of it isn't the worst. Finding out what your ex is really like sucks.
Many would say I was a schmuck in what I agreed to, but I think I probably did get the least awful outcome, measured by my values. All of this would pale in the face of having to deal with common kids, so counting my blessings there.
Strictly speaking, settlements have to be reviewed and approved by the court, but, yes, they can include terms making the support level fixed even if circumstances change, while most support laws would otherwise allow a party to petition to adjust support based on material change in conditions.
In my case, made it clear during negotiations that I simply could not keep up with my current job, and planned to downsize dramatically. (All quite true.) Noble of me, but probably a mistake to mention during negotiations. I was in serious denial about just how far my ex would push things.
1) OP is just straight up lying
2) OP basically just blindly signed whatever was put in front of him
3) OP doesn't have much income but has a large net worth and payments were structured as monthly payments instead of a lump sum.
Edit: Please note I'm just listing possibilities. I'm not calling OP a liar, just that it is possible he is lying. Or that he is sitting on millions in investments.
(Never hit a million, and falling fast these days.)
and yet:
Still pretty happy to be rid of her.
Moral of the story, always get a lawyer if you're going through a divorce. The best one you can afford.
I'd actually go as far as 'The best one you can't afford.'
Legal representation for divorce is a volume-oriented practice. The more, the better, and anything to fan the flames of strife from both directions.
“Make sure everyone falls into the trap, and make sure at least someone is making money off these morons, so we can all play golf together, after we rip them apart, and rifle through their wallets, and get our cut of the profits from whoever might win. Make sure the guys are paranoid and fearful of getting taken to the cleaners, and make sure the girls are salivating at an early retirement. Then either version of clientele will pay through the nose for our services.”
Basically, what tech recruiters do, except lawyers do it to families, while recruiters do it to companies.
Watch Divorce Corp Inc. to see the most fucked up shit happening to people getting divorced.
EDIT: I see from a comment below that you were your own lawyer for your divorce. That explains the outcome.
The divorce agreement called for $8k/month alimony. That's something like $150k per year out of his pre-tax income.
I don't know about Stanich's mental state and finances. But if I were forced by the courts to sign such an agreement, reneging and drinking myself to death within a year would look like an extremely tempting way out.
That's not how settlement agreements work.
Unfortunately, his version was a lie. Not a bad thing for someone to expose the truth.
What does the probation/parole system have to do with his particular issues?
I would agree that the humanity here is lost in the weeds of bureaucracy... but if alcohol was at all a factor in the physical altercation with his ex wife, then I can't see it being that unreasonable a request. This is of course problematic since he's 70 and lots of his friends and family are probably starting to pass away and who can really blame someone for having a few drinks too many at one too many wakes?
There is also the problem of unmarried older single men without a source of human affection having a much higher mortality and crime risk, which was brought into the equation. This man probably has almost no emotional support system at this point, which just exacerbates the overdrinking risk. The impending stress of work if he reopens can't be making that any easier, either.
EDIT: Before someone accuses me of sympathizing with a felon, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory_(crimin... ; the antiquated idea that a person's behavior is due in some significant part to their intrinsic nature in some fashion instead of their circumstances/environment is not only the well-studied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error , it should be put to rest ASAP. We need to get to work fixing situations AS WELL AS the people inhabiting them.
> This man's life spiraled out of control for one reason.. the punitive nature of law enforcement...
False. It spiraled out of control because of his own selfish decisions.
Say.. How many men get alimony?
That's not the idea of alimony.
The idea of alimony is closer to “I sacrificed my future income for my husband's by the division of domestic vs. external work in marriage”.
> Say.. How many men get alimony?
A small but growing number, largely because of slow erosion of persistent patriarchal gender roles which manifest in a number of ways.
(1) Men are still more likely to support their wives and have their career advancement and future income potential dominate in marriage than vice versa, making them less likely to be eligible for alimony,
(2) Men are less likely to seek alimony when they are eligible,
(3) Men are less likely to resist alimony demands in divorce,
(4) There's bias in judging where judges are more likely to view men as capable of independent self-support and less deserving of alimony in objectively similar conditions.
I'd argue that's even worse, as it encourages economic classes to 'marry amongst oneselves; don't relate with lesser people's
And that very statement also packs in the idea the woman is some married domestic servant. And increasingly that is not true. My wife and I share the work. Equally. We both work. Right now I make more, but before this job, she made more. And now, on my extra salary, she's attending Harvard. Soon enough, she'll make more than I.
And the sooner these gender roles are busted thoroughly for both men and women, the better we all will do.
Well, no, if you are interested in minimizing alimony, it encourages working to maximize your partners income and income potential during marriage (in addition to working to avoid divorce.)
> And that very statement also packs in the idea the woman is some married domestic servant.
No, it implies that marriage often involves a division of responsibility and/or a trade-offs where one person's income earning potential is sacrificed for the others; subordination (master/servant) rather than co-equal status is irrelevant.
> And increasingly that is not true.
Yes, it's less true over time that wives are sacrificing more income potential in marriage in favor of their husbands, as the old traditional division of marital roles becomes less absolutely dominant.
And increasingly fewer women and more men get spousal support, which reflects that.
> My wife and I share the work. Equally. We both work. Right now I make more, but before this job, she made more. And now, on my extra salary, she's attending Harvard. Soon enough, she'll make more than I.
Good for you. I'm not sure what you think this has to do with anything, since we aren't discussing who should or shouldn't get spousal support in your hypothetical divorce.
>> men .. have their career advancement and future income potential dominate in marriage
Is it really a gender role ? or, a genetic adaptation - with females being attracted to more successful men, because it helps give their children helpful resources ?
Yes, it is really a gender role.
> or, a genetic adaptation - with females being attracted to more successful men, because it helps give their children helpful resources ?
You are presenting a false dilemma; that it may be, in whole or in part, a product of genetic adaptation does not impact whether or not is a gender role.
The debate you seem to want to have is over whether gender roles are pure social constructs or not, which may be an interesting debate but isn't actually all that germane here. The gender role in question exists and contributes to the effect under discussion and is manifestly changing, though slower than some people might prefer.
As examples... holding the door open for women. The idea of "ladies first". The custom of men being required to message first on dating services. Men paying for dinner/etc.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality.
I hold the door open for everyone. Male, female, and other. This is common courtesy.
> The idea of "ladies first".
I've never really encountered this.
> The custom of men being required to message first on dating services.
My wife messaged me first when we met on OkCupid.
> Men paying for dinner
Similarly, on our first date my wife offered to do half/half, but I insisted on paying largely because she was still a college student at that point, and I was not.
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality.
Well, one of us is the more rare case. I'm not sure which one.
I think most feminists don't think men should pay for dinner each time on a date, and don't think "ladies first" is a rule we should keep.
I don't know what you mean by "I don't see women jumping to embrace this kind of equality". Do you mean you don't see women protesting trying to get these equalities? That is incredibly disingenuous to claim that women not fighting for these equalities means they think they should persist. They don't fight for those equalities because those aren't the ones they need to fight for. They need to fight for the ones that are holding them back. Those other ones can follow.
Bad examples aside, women get a "leg up" in a lot of ways, and men do too. If we want equally, we either need to be inclusive so that everyone gets the same leg up, or we need to compensate with different kinds of legs.
There's a few. You see them, by the way they do head forward in male-dominated careers that don't have prestige. Think: manual labor, professional manual labor (framers, steamfitters, plumbers, electricians, etc), military combat, and more. And there are a few who speak of equality (not equity).
Last year I was in line trying to get into a college dance club, and a group of girls in front of me started screaming, one saying "I lost my phone! Someone stole my phone!" They turned and made face at me and started accusing me of theft. My friends were already in and I was alone in line, clearly minding my own business to anyone paying attention. But once they started screaming I had to defend myself by basically yelling at them that they were being stupid and to leave me alone. They started makinga big scene and people all around were getting interested. Just a bit later and the girl just pathetically says "oh I found it" and walks away with her phone, clearly unconcerned with the potential fallout against me.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553560 and marked it off-topic.