Started by Galt, May 13, 2013, 04:11 AM
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/08/judge_says_ex-wife_of_exoneree.phpA man marries a woman, and she gets pregnant.He is then falsely convicted of a string of rapes and goes to jail for decades. The couple divorces while he is in jail.27 years later, he is exonerated based on DNA evidence and finally let out of jail. Under the "Tim Cole" act, the man has a claim to $ 4-6 million because he was absolutely falsely convicted. The state also paid the child support to the ex-wife that he wasn't able to earn because he was in prison.So now - decades after the divorce - the ex-wife wants a chunk of the money that the man got for being falsely imprisoned. And a judge awarded her money.
I know that upon divorce the legal fiction, especially in community property states, is that each party contributed equally to the marital assets.But I have always wondered how family law people can even stretch that legal fiction to cases that are obviously not equal. A guy gets higher combat pay because he is risking his life in the military in a war zone. Pumpkin supposedly earned half of that while she was watching "The View" on TV back in their comfy home. A boxer gets the living crap beat out of him for money; Cupcake earned half of that. A guy wins the Nobel Prize - there was even a case in which a long-since divorced wife got part of that (genius as she is).Even the more normal case of a guy getting his health destroyed because of the stress of a full-time, soul-sucking job while Homemaker dusts a little and then watches Dr. Phil - why is society so heavily invested in bending and twisting everything to try to pretend like this is equal? Why is there massive resistance to saying, "you got a free ride up to now honey, you ain't getting any more if you want a divorce", instead of the usual: "we have to giver her the standard of living to which she has become accustomed, even if the person who earned it loses his standard of living".