[swagasaurus-rex]

Do you feel that this is a fair way to distribute earnings upon divorce? When no children are involved?

My interpretation is that one should not marry somebody who earns significantly less than them due to how courts will force payments with the possibility of jail time.

[angmarsbane]

My take is that the spirit of the law is to compensate spouses for sacrifices and risks they took in support of the other spouse. So for example, if Spouse A reduces their earning potential for Spouse B (ex. a military spouses are disadvantaged in their careers b/c they move constantly, if a doctor moves to a rural area that can support their career but not their spouse's career etc) then Spouse A should be compensated by Spouse B because Spouse B's career growth depended on Spouse A sacrificing theirs. Other examples are if a Spouse stays home to care for dependents, if a Spouse puts another Spouse through graduate / medical / law school etc. It's about acknowledging that you gained because of someone else's actions and compensating for that, honoring your debts as it were.

I do not feel that the alimony I paid aligned with the spirit of the law, but it did align with the letter of the law in California.

[BobaFloutist]

What if you think about it this way: By default, a marriage is a contract agreeing to equally pool financial resources. If that contract feels unfair to you, it's usually possible to draft a contract with a different distribution, which people often do if one of the two has vastly more financial resources going into the marriage.

Does that make it feel more fair?