[ta3216]

I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.

[throwaway5250]

Clarifying, I did "quit" my job, though likely I'd have been dismissed, or simply worked myself to death. This was after the settlement was signed, and I knew full well when I signed it that there would be no relief--that I'd have to continue full alimony payments regardless of what salary, if any, I could get in the future.

The judicial leeway comment was a separate issue, and was simply the consensus of several lawyers. I could have rolled the dice, but at best that would merely have decreased my ex's take, and her kids' financial situation, not improved mine. Every extra hour spent in a divorce does significant damage to your end net worth.

From a legal point of view, if you are or have recently made a lot of money, the ironclad assumption is that you will continue to do so, at least through the duration of alimony. There will be no mercy. On the flip side, at least in my case, the starting assumption is that the recipient will be able to earn zero, regardless or their skills or prior employment.

As for "fair", I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Justice is just a fairy tale in my book.

[ta3216]

That does suck. Ideally you should have waited a few years after you quit before initiating the divorce.