Several months ago I wrote about permanent alimony and how that concept, entrenched in New Jersey law for well over a hundred years, might change if proposed legislation became law.  Since then, the debate has been heating up.

Anti-alimony groups have been lobbying for passage of a bill that would abolish permanent alimony (in most cases), create a formula for determining the amount and duration of alimony payments, and provide for an automatic end to alimony when certain events occur (such as when the payor reaches the age at which he/ she qualifies for full Social Security benefits).

There is a certain appeal to the predictability that a formula may provide. Planning for the future, by both the payor and the payee, would be easier in most cases. They each know how much the alimony payments would be and when they would end. A case-by-case, fact sensitive analysis, with the shades of gray and other vagaries that come with it, would be a thing of the past.

Several attorney groups are advocating for a more measured approach, acknowledging that some alimony reform is needed. These groups prefer legislation that would create a commission to study the issue and to make impartial recommendations for reform legislation that is based more on empirical data and less on anecdotal evidence and emotion.

Ironically, the pending reform bill might not always be fair to the groups that are advocating its passage most strenuously. For example, a payor’s alimony obligation would become a percentage of his/her income. What if that income is aberrationally high in the year in which the award is made and not at all reflective of the marital lifestyle during most of the marriage? The converse could also unfairly prejudice a payee.

If the goal is to achieve true reform, that goal is not achieved if new laws simply exchange one set of problems for another, particularly if the new set of problems could have been foreseen and avoided had the right amount of time been taken and the proper homework done.

There are nightmarish stories of alimony payors going deeper and deeper into debt to meet their obligations, of postponing retirement well beyond standard retirement age and of having to work two jobs while the payee works none. However, there are just as many nightmares affecting payees who were and are virtually totally dependent on alimony despite their best efforts at economic independence.

Before rushing into legislation that may simply trade one set of problems for another, it might be better to do this right than to do it fast.