Source: http://fathersunite.org/New/adjusting_child_support_spouse_of_exspouse.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:59:40+00:00

Document:
An ex-spouse's income MAY have an effect on child support indirectly. Income is not counted for purposes of CS to support another man's children.. Assets are not counted for purposes of CS to support another man's children.
The NEW spouse's income and assets are counted towards his ability to support his NEW spouse/wife. The NEW spouses has zero obligation to support another man's children. If he works, he has some obligation to support his NEW spouse.
This means some or all the New wife's assets and money become available to support her children in the lifestyle and menas which they have been living in prior marriage.
1. The Court finds and concludes there has been a change in circumstances to entitle the Plaintiff Mr. Wright to alimony from Defendant Ms. Wright AKA Bowyer. The purpose of an award of alimony is to provide economic support to a dependent spouse. Gottsegen v. Gottsegen, 397 Mass. 617, 623 (1986). Grubert v. Grubert, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 811, 819 (1985).
2. The Court has it in its power to award alimony pursuant to M.G.L.A. c. 207, § 37 provides that "[a]fter a judgment for alimony or an annual allowance for the spouse or children, the court may, from time to time, upon the action for modification of either party, revise and alter its judgment relative to the amount of such alimony or annual allowance and the payment thereof, and may make any judgment relative thereto which it might have made in the original action.
3. The Court has it in its power to award alimony pursuant to the language of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, § 34 which permits a petition for alimony to be brought at any time after a divorce Talbot v. Talbot 13 Mass. App. Ct. 456. Alimony, like the custody of children, is a matter which from its very nature cannot be finally disposed of, id quoting Smith v. Smith, 190 Mass. at 575. The financial exigencies of the wife require relief in this case if the husband is able to contribute, id.
4. The Court finds and concludes the Plaintiff is entitled to a lump sum award in addition to monthly support. In addition to or in lieu of a judgment to pay alimony, the court may assign to either husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other. Brash v. Brash 407 Mass. 101.
6. The Court finds and concludes the Plaintiff’s receipt of state support for psychological services mandates alimony. As a matter of policy, a judge ought not, even if there is some financial hardship, shift to the public a party's obligation to provide support for his former spouse and children. See O'Brien v. O'Brien, 325 Mass. 573, 578 (1950); Knox v. Remick, 371 Mass. 433, 437 (1976); Stansel v. Stansel, 385 Mass. 510, 515 (1982).
8. The Court finds and concludes the Plaintiff is entitled to a lifestyle comparable to that during the marriage. Need is measured by what is required to maintain the parties' standard of living enjoyed during the marriage Grubert v. Grubert, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 811, 819 (1985); Moriarty v. Stone, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 151, 158 (1996). "Among the objectives of a financial award is providing means, to the extent the marital assets allow, which enable the parties to approximate the standard of living enjoyed during marriage." Id. "Absent some good reason, the financial orders in a divorce judgment should not cause the standard of living of one spouse to drop perceptibly down while that of the other spouse remains high." Denninger v. Denninger, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 429, 433 (1993)  Absent good reason, in a long term marriage, there is no justification for the life-style of one spouse to go down while the other remains high." Goldman v. Goldman, supra, 28 Mass.App.Ct. at 611, 554 N.E.2d at 865.
9. The Court finds and concludes the Defendant’s ownership of a valuable asset demonstrates ability to pay alimony without further inquiry as to whether payment can be enforced directly against the asset; the law does not require that an obligor be allowed to enjoy an asset, such as a valuable home or the beneficial interest in a spendthrift trust, while he neglects to provide for those persons whom he is legally required to support. Katz v. Katz 55 Mass App Ct 472.
10. The Court concludes it may consider the second spouse’s income and vocation. Probate Court judge may consider income or assets of second spouse in determining payor spouse's ability to pay alimony; while second spouse does not share duty to obey support order directed against payor spouse, income of second spouse contributes to support of current household and payor spouse therefore has more of his or her own money with which to satisfy alimony. Cooper v. Cooper 43 Mass.App.Ct. 51.
11. The Court concludes the admission of evidence inferring substantial income of ex-wife’s second husband to pay her expenses, frees her funds to finance alimony support. Admission of evidence as to the income of the husband's second wife was proper as the income and assets of that spouse were part of the circumstances relevant to the ability of the husband to pay Silvia v. Silvia 9 Mass.App.Ct. 339.
Outrageous exactly but it is the case law in Massachusetts which is used to castrate most men with children.
For example, attribution of income for when one loses his job is a very common occurrence. Your are expected to sell off all your assets to met these state imposed obligations.
That is how I lost my house equity. The Judge gave it to the Ex. She later sold it for huge sum and kept the "change". This was somewhat like another case except he signed it over voluntarily and later lost his chance to recover it due to his attorney screw-up.
As Joe says, "Help the EX get a new spouse. His income is worth something to you indirectly. " New spouse adds money to the pie to support a group of people including the former EX spouse. In reality who can say exactly where the dollar being used to pay the rent came from? It was thrown into the support pie for the wife but the EX's kids are part of the package. Put a roof over her head and New Hubby puts a roof over their head (assuming she had custody). It is a fixed cost.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 37
 § 34
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.