After 26 years of marriage, Rick Fleming and his wife divorced in the fall of 2009. The court ordered Fleming to send her $2,200 a month — for the rest of his life. Their children are grown, and they’ve both since remarried and have jobs, but he still has to hand over 40 percent of his income to her.
“Divorce shouldn’t be a life sentence,” Fleming told a panel of state senators at a public hearing last month.
His crusade for changes to the law — he wants to abolish permanent alimony and limit judges’ leeway to determine payments — is gaining momentum in the Vermont Statehouse. On March 1, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to create a task force to recommend changes to the law.
“We’ve heard a lot of horror stories,” said Sen. Jeanette White (D-Windham), who serves on the committee. “I think it’s important to have this task force to look at it.”
Alimony is a court-ordered payment from a higher-income ex-spouse to a lower-income former partner. Traditionally, that has resulted in divorced husbands paying alimony to their ex-wives. The centuries-old system was designed to prevent nonworking women from becoming destitute after separating from their wage-earning husbands.
Today, either spouse can be ordered to pay alimony. The logic for alimony’s continued existence: When one spouse makes sacrifices that advance the other spouse’s career, that person should be remunerated for those years of nonmonetary contributions. Postdivorce payments also help address the fact that job prospects can be meager for older people who have been out of the workforce.
“There’s no question that it’s outdated — that today’s marriages and today’s lifestyles are much more different than they were 50 years ago,” said Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington), referring to the state’s alimony statute.
“The perception is that this is a rich, white, old man’s issue, and that’s not the case,” said Fleming, who is white and a manager at an oil company.
“The perception is that this is a rich, white, old man’s issue, and that’s not the case.” Rick Fleming
But according to U.S. Census Bureau data, men still make up about 97 percent of those paying alimony. And not everyone is convinced that scaling back the practice would be in the best interest of women.
“I would hate to take alimony off the table,” said University of Vermont professor Felicia Kornbluh, who specializes in gender, sexuality and women’s studies. Dismissing the policy as being outdated, she argues, “ignores the fact that we do still have economic discrimination” against women.
Deeply personal and sometimes messy divorce proceedings aren’t often openly discussed. But a group of exasperated divorcées, led by Fleming and his second wife, are going public with stories they believe show alimony gone awry. In 2015, they created a group called Vermont Alimony Reform, now 70 members strong, according to Fleming.
“It’s a growing movement throughout the country,” said Fleming. “Vermont, which is very, very progressive in many ways, is behind the times.”
States including Minnesota, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arkansas and Oregon have recently changed or are considering changes to their alimony laws.
Massachusetts revamped its statute in 2012, placing strict limits on alimony. Payments cease when the payer retires or when the receiving spouse has lived with another romantic partner for at least three months. To bring more consistency to the system, the Massachusetts law also creates guidelines for determining alimony, based on the length of the marriage and the disparity between incomes.
Vermont Alimony Reform is seeking those same changes in the Green Mountain State, which, Fleming maintains, has one of the most “archaic” and “draconian” laws in the country. He notes that Vermont is one of only a handful of states that still allows permanent alimony.
When making these decisions, Vermont judges consider both spouses’ finances, the length of their marriage, their ages and their ability to work. They also take into account the couple’s standard of living. Alimony is supposed to allow the person it supports to maintain his or her lifestyle, not just stay out of poverty.
Vermont Alimony Reform wants payments limited to the amount necessary for the other spouse to become self-sufficient — through training programs or education, for instance — rather than continuing indefinitely. Exceptions would be made for people with disabilities or mental health problems.
“Currently, our system is based on entitlement — it should be rehabilitative,” Craig Miller told senators at the public hearing. The Chester resident introduced himself as a former payer of alimony. He said his lawyer warned him ahead of his divorce: “You’re a man, you’re a professional, and you’ve been married for 15 years. You’re gonna get screwed.”
Miller was one of about a dozen people who shared stories of financial hardship that evening. The committee, however, heard only one side of each account. No one on the receiving end of alimony testified, nor did the judges who made the decisions.
Dan Woodcock of West Topsham, who divorced in 2013, told the committee, “I am hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. This was a known fact [when the court issued its alimony order], but I still pay over $100 a day in spousal support.”
Charlie Morse, a Northfield farmer, said he nearly had to sell off farm equipment to make an unexpected alimony payment. Ultimately, his second wife stepped in to cover the $17,000 expense.
Fleming is also relying on his second wife, Amy, to make payments to his first one. If not for Amy, he said, “I would probably be living in the back of my car.” At the time of his divorce, he owned a business he says was on the brink of going under; he later sold it to pay his debts.
Fleming asked for reconsideration in a case that went to the Vermont Supreme Court, which ruled against him. Two years ago, after spending upwards of $250,000 in alimony payments and legal fees, he filed for bankruptcy.
A divorced Essex Junction woman told the Senate committee, “I am responsible for paying alimony to a man who was emotionally abusive to me, and every month that I have to write that check to him and provide for him a life that I cannot provide myself is very difficult.”
“Obviously, it’s a very personal, emotional issue for anyone involved in the process,” said Chief Administrative Judge Brian Grearson. But, he noted, alimony disputes are quite rare in Vermont. Of the 2,380 divorce cases that came though the state’s court system last year, only 181 were contested, according to Grearson. The judiciary doesn’t track why cases were contested, he said, but it’s unlikely all 181 dealt with alimony.
Sears said he’s aware that his committee is hearing about “outlier” cases — and only getting one side of the story. “Nevertheless, they’re cause for concern,” he said.
Grearson has been reluctant to embrace wholesale reform. He said he does support writing guidelines into the law but cautioned the committee against adopting rigid standards that would reduce judges’ discretion.
Pricilla Dubé, a longtime Burlington divorce attorney, agreed that approach is impractical: “I have people who have moved from other countries to be with their spouse. They don’t even speak the language, and then they get divorced. I mean, how do you take that into account with a [formula]? It’s not possible.”
Patricia Benelli, a lawyer who chairs the Vermont Bar Association’s Family Law Committee, unsuccessfully tried to dissuade the committee from calling for a comprehensive review of the law. “I think if you do this, you’re going to be opening Pandora’s box,” she said.
The endeavor will almost certainly stir up a debate about gender roles.
Alimony reformers say they’re trying to modernize a patriarchal policy that’s now punitive for both women and men. Still, regardless of their motives, they must deal with the fact that men’s rights groups champion the same cause. (Fleming said Vermont Alimony Reform has no ties to such groups.)
“It’s a difficult issue for feminists,” said Kornbluh, who admits to having mixed feelings about alimony. She added: “The claim is that [the push for reform] is not for alimony payers or for men, and yet it seems clear that the outcome would be that alimony payers, typically postdivorce men, would be paying less. I would have to believe that this is kind of the point,” she said.
Senate Majority Leader Becca Balint (D-Windham) supports the effort to reexamine Vermont’s laws — with some reservations. “Although gender roles within households have shifted dramatically over the last three decades, we still do not have parity,” she said. “Study after study has shown that women who work outside the home still do the majority of housework and childcare duties on top of their career work.”
Kornbluh has concluded that alimony, although imperfect, addresses this persistent inequity: “It is not a great system, and yet it is the system we have.”
Correction, March 13, 2017: A previous version of this story reported incorrectly that Dan Woodcock told the committee he’d asked a court three times to reconsider his alimony. That testimony was actually from another man. The previous version also reported incorrectly where Woodcock lives.
This article appears in Mar 8-14, 2017.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
My husband parents just went through divorce. She is in her 70’s and He early 80s (don’t ask me why they waited so long). She never worked an actual job. She initiated the divorced because it was all about the money. The alimony money discussion was tough. She wanted half of his income right off the top. He was diagnosed with possible early Alzheimer’s in the middle of divorce. Our lawyer was awesome but advised us to settle the alimony out of court because the courts thought was “hes 82, probably going to die soon, we should give her more money” they settled out of court to avoid him paying more. The laws do need to be changed. But shows how things need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Why are we marginalizing folks based on gender? There are male and female payors. True, there may be more men and gender equity isn’t quite there yet, but alimony laws as well as reform of the existing and outdated laws would address that. Most families have both persons working today to make ends meet. Often times if either spouse stays home and does make sacrifices which should be accounted for, it is not for an entire lifetime, it is for a few years when the children are young. Why does this entitle someone to be paid for the rest of their life?? In Mr. Fleming’s case, his ex-wife is remarried and has a career of her own. One marriage contract has ended and she has entered into another. Why is he on the hook until death? These laws are not archaic, they are ANCIENT and need updating! If it were mostly women paying men, this would have been fixed YEARS ago!
It’s strange that Seven Days didn’t attempt to get the other side of any of these stories, despite noting their absence. It also doesn’t mention why the VSC would decline Fleming’s challenge, or provide any information about why others speaking at the hearing failed to convince the courts to revise their payments. Whatever your opinion on the topic, those would be interesting and important details for this story.
Consider the following story:
Once upon a time Sue and Judy met at a community river clean out, fell in love and got married. Sue was bright financial wiz and Judy was an aspiring poet. Over their 15 year marriage both Sue and Judy worked hard at their professions, but Sue, due to her chosen career path, enjoyed substantial salary increases to the point of making about 110K a year. Judys income remained about the same hovering around 20K a year selling poetic thoughts embroidered on local woven flax clothe at flea markets.
After 15 years of marriage it came to pass that both had lost that loving feeling. One evening, after large bottle of cheap red wine, Sue confided to Judy that she felt strongly that she was lazy, and so stupid she couldnt even produce anything better than a nursery rhyme.
Judy, filed for divorce siting emotional abuse and asked for alimony. The Judge, a closet poet, promptly whipped out their handy dandy freshly printed Alimony Guideline and deduced that:
Party A 110,000
Party B 20,000
Difference 90,000
15 year rule factoring the emotional abuse of a poet yields 45% thus it came to pass that Sue pays $40,500.00 annually for 14 years.
This is the Alimony Reform being proposed by the Vermont Judicial Committee with the blessing of the Vermont BAR.
It is also the reason why a Task Force of ALL key stake holders needs to happen!
Well Martin , I considered your story . Better 15 years of alimony then forever and ever . This would actually be an improvement for Sue . Maybe not a great improvement but an improvement none the less .
If nothing else, the remarriage of the recipient MUST be grounds for termination of the alimony paid by the first husband. If not then the second husband is now absolved of the most basic intent of marriage and that is to take care of his spouse. Not only that but now the first husband is supporting the second husband. If nothing else, Vermont should at least fix THAT egregious error. As far as I have been able to determine, VT is the only state that perm alimony doesn’t end automatically on remarriage. And I would be willing to bet the house that it is also the only state that the recipients are actually remarrying. What does that say? Come on legislators….get your hands out of these payors pockets and do the right thing. DO THE RIGHT THING.
The laws of Vermont, particularly vsa 665, are completely rigged against men and their children. It is truly disgusting. There are countless women who remarry but they keep their new husband finances separate and in that way force the first husband to keep supporting paying alimony to support ex wife and the new husband. Even worse, in almost all instances children are stripped of time away from their father in order for more time to be spent with mother, which of course also results in increased child support. So much for equality, apparently equality only applies to transgenders and gays but not to children and their fathers.It‘s funny how Vermonters pride themselves as defenders of equal rights, yet prevent kids from having access to their very own dad. What a bunch of hypocrites. I would love to hear all the radical Vermont feminist, Defenders of equality, explain why in parenting both parents are not equal in Vermont. Truly a disgusting place.
I pay alimony to my ex. She prentended she could not work or earn her high shool diploma because of here disability. Yet she is currently going to school and working. I have custody of our child, receive no support from her. I have to pay for his college education also. The laws are a disgrace.This is not even Biblical alimony. This is extortion.
Vermont still has some of the most punitive laws in the country. The Courts assign a “winner” and a “loser”, which bankrupts families and causes generational emotional and psychological scars. Families are torn apart. There is a better way to make divorces more amicable and equitable for all parties, Vermont needs to join its neighbors in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and the rest of the country and adopt Alimony Reform! Visit us at http://www.vtalimonyreform.com and help change the law!