Gut Rumbles

January 08, 2005

divorce court

It's bizarro-world. It's the theater of the absurd. It's Kafkaesque. IT'S DIVORCE COURT!!!

Via overlawyered:

Donna Austin, 37 at the time, signed a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony before marrying Craig Austin back in 1989, in what was a second marriage for both parties. Nonetheless, a Massachusetts appeals court has decided that her alimony waiver is "unreasonable" and will not be enforced. A lawyer for Craig Austin says his client plans appeal and says Donna Austin benefited substantially from the division of property assets from the marriage. (David Weber, Boston Herald, Dec. 30). And the New Jersey Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Craig Caplan, who retired in his 30s with a so-called silver parachute, should be obliged to return to the work force to pay increased child support, thus sparing his ex-wife Sandra the need to dip into her $2.4 million divorce settlement; for more on the "imputed-income" doctrine, see Sept. 18, 2003 (Michael Booth, "In Divorce Case, Early Retiree Gets Tangled in Silver Parachute", New Jersey Law Journal, Oct. 6).

The emphasis is mine in the quote. But the "logic" is right out of divorce law. Asking the ex-wife to abide by the pre-nup and be content with $2.4 million is "unreasonable," while demanding that the ex-husband go back to work to pay her MORE MONEY is justice.

Want to know what it feels like to be a fish in a barrel with lots of guns pointed at you? Go to divorce court.


Ah yes, the fine handwork of the Feminazi judges. How well I know it!

Posted by: Jim on January 8, 2005 08:29 AM

And the legal doctrine that men should be punished for failed marriages and women should be rewarded. How about making both of them pay alimony to some couple who've managed to stay married? Then we reward success instead of failure.

Posted by: Murel Bailey on January 8, 2005 10:54 AM

How about making both of them pay alimony to some couple who've managed to stay married?

Murel, you have just made dollar signs appear in my eyes. Naughty!

Posted by: McGehee on January 8, 2005 11:53 AM

I always discourage young men from marrying. In most pairings, there is nothing in it for them.

Posted by: Brett on January 8, 2005 12:38 PM


I believe there are two differnt cases being discussed in that clip. Donna v Craig Austin is the one with the pre-nup at issue and Sandra v Craig Caplan is the one with the effort to push that poor fucker back to work.

Both are fucked up cases anyway.

Posted by: Russ on January 11, 2005 02:04 PM

Ignore that last post. Reading your post again, I see you probably weren't assuming they were the same case. Sorry.

Posted by: Russ on January 11, 2005 02:06 PM

Re: Caplan v Caplan, there goes my, "Well fuck her, I'll just do volunteer work in subsaharan Africa," idea.

As I told my dad -- "Rope + (enter ex-wife's name) + tree, some assembly required"

Posted by: brian on January 11, 2005 07:40 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.