Compromise and impartiality in alimony settlements

by | Jun 28, 2013 | Alimony, Firm News |

Connecticut residents may be interested to learn of a divorce discussing spousal support that was recently written by a post-divorce coach. Her details about her personal emotional struggle with alimony may prove insightful to anyone who finds themselves in a similar circumstance.

Essentially, the coach’s husband requested spousal support while he returned to college. He wanted to pursue a professional degree in a different line of work and needed two years of alimony in order to do it. She naturally did not agree with the suggestion until she discussed the issue with a close friend. The friend asked her if she preferred to be right–to act only in accordance with her legal obligations–or be happy. After considering that for a little while, the coach agreed to the settlement.

When a couple divorces, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion that both parties can maintain the standard of living they enjoyed when they were together. Regardless of the fact that her former spouse was requesting temporary alimony, as opposed to permanent alimony that can last a lifetime, she likely did not have any legal obligation to provide the support she did.

The post-divorce coach states that she was unwilling to further compromise her emotional well-being for what amounted to a principle. It should be emphasized here that the circumstances of her decision do not necessarily apply to that of anyone else’s divorce proceeding. However, as she learned, if someone is involved in a divorce negotiation, it can be beneficial to have an impartial intermediary’s perspective. For this reason, many people in similar situations turn to divorce attorneys who may be able to assist their cases.

Source: Huffington Post, “Do You Want To Be Right Or Do You Want To Be Happy?“, Debbi Dickinson, June 18, 2013


FindLaw Network