Progressive Insurance Antics

[digitalErich]

Interesting...is this pretty rigidly defined around physical inability or death? What I'm getting at is if Loss of Consortium is something one is able to sue for, why do we not see divorcing spouses suing for Withholding of Consortium to increase or decrease their alimony?

Edit: Thanks for the links

[Ox]

Well, loss of consortium is an injury from someone who committed a wrong against you by crippling your spouse; but your spouse is legally entitled to refuse to have sex with you, and anyway alimony isn't considered compensation for harm. They might seem similar, but legally they fall into completely different categories.

There is, however, an ancient rule that allows you to sue your husband's mistress for "alienating his affections," i.e., she's getting the salami that is rightfully yours. It's been abolished in most states, but North Carolina still has the rule and it's exercised pretty frequently down there. I recently attended the local polo opener and made the mistake of expounding at length about my fascination with this cause of action to one of my guests... who, I realized only too late, was going through a divorce precipitated by her rather flagrant infidelity. Sometimes my intellectual delight gets in the way of subtle social cues like everyone staring at me in horror.

[digitalErich]

The way I phrased my question was stupid, I realized that after I posted it. I didn't mean to imply that loss of ability should be equated to refusal, but I was curious that since lack of sex in the extreme was something you could recover compensation for, why not a lesser example, and your answer makes sense.

I think you hit the nail on the head that I probably don't understand exactly how alimony compares to other types of compensation, even in cases where one spouse is completely in the wrong, like having an affair.

[Ox]

Part of the problem is that you think there's such a thing as "in the wrong" in a divorce. 49 states [edit: it looks like New York, the last holdout, finally created true "no fault" divorce after I graduated law school and stopped caring] have instituted "no fault" divorce, which is exactly what it sounds like: someone wants to not be married anymore, the marriage gets dissolved without legal finger-pointing. Frankly, judges are often more than happy not to get into that fight.

Alimony isn't compensation for a wrong, but more akin to the concept of justified reliance. If you declare that you intend to pay all my living expenses for the rest of my life and there are various good reasons for me to believe you're telling the truth, I'll quit my job and take up that crack habit which (according to connoisseurs) is so delightful. If you later back out of that pledge, a court may require you to throw me a bone so I don't go directly to Skid Row for being so foolish as to believe you. Alimony is the same way: if you tell your wife to quit her job because you'll be the breadwinner and she will be a blowjob factory full-time, you can't just throw her on the street the instant you get tired of her; you have to give her some transition.

[TheKeck]

And from the sound of it, the same applies if she gets tired of you.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by TheKeck

And from the sound of it, the same applies if she gets tired of you.

Holy crap, that would be amazing. "OK, honey, I understand that you want a divorce. But you made certain promises during our marriage. You can't just cut me off the blowjob gravy train cold turkey. I demand blowjob alimony."

[Hawkzombie]

I'm a kept husband, but I'd have to pay her because she has our child. At least that was how it worked here in Alberta when her and I split. I made dick all at the time so it was only 13 bucks a month, and we never went to court over it, just a verbal agreement, and I certainly paid far more than that.