OK Guys - You've Been Warned...
 

Not even death can stop alimony payments to divorcee

by David Weber
Friday, May 30, 2003

"Til death do us part'' has a whole new meaning in marriage now after a state court ruled yesterday that a woman should continue to receive alimony payments from her husband even though he died five years ago.

The Appeals Court said death is no excuse for Dr. Henry H. Cohan, formerly of Newton, to stop sending $475 a month to his wife, Barbara Cohan of Philadelphia, because the couple entered into a specific agreement in 1983.

The court said it is "well-established'' that alimony payments cease with the death of the husband if there is no court-approved decree.

But in the Cohan case, the divorced couple agreed to language stating the payments would continue "until the death or remarriage of (Barbara Cohan).'' The Appeals Court cited a 1932 case that paved the way for the justices to reach their decision overturning Superior Court Judge Diane Kottmyer's ruling in favor of Henry Cohan's heirs.

"It is a great decision. My client is thrilled. She is in some pretty severe financial constraints right now,'' said Barbara Cohan's attorney, Shannon Fitzpatrick.

The attorneys for Henry Cohan's estate had argued that the language of the 1983 alimony agreement was ambiguous and that Henry Cohan never intended the payments to continue after his death. But the Appeals Court found no ambiguity in the agreement.

"Barbara has neither died nor remarried, and therefore Henry's estate is bound to continue making payments,'' Justice Mel Greenberg wrote in the Appeals Court opinion.

LINK

Be careful what you write.... I also wonder if he had any kids and if this cuts into their money supply....

Damn lawyers. Now the IRS isn't the only one to take your money after you've kicked the bucket.

He must really have been a bastard for her to stick it to him like this.

Anyone need more proof about a woman scorned?

-Mikey

Crap...she prob. took him to the cleaners the first time and she's still sticking it to him now that he's dead !!
Wow she's a little nasty.

now that is long time spousal support....

now thats just ridiculous. make her get a damn job.

Divorce is so ugly in this society. Divorcees try to screw each other even after they stop sleeping in the same bed.

That gives another meaning to "sucking him dry"!

I vaguely remember hearing in the high school something like mormons wed their ancestors so that they can get to Heaven or something...

Just another one to add to my list of "Reasons not to get married."

not necessarily... some guys (like myself) get stuck with a blood-sucking evil witch banshee whore of an ex who will go to any measure to take advantage of anything they can possibly get their claws on... perhaps this was something planned from the get-go... but i could be slightly jaded. who knows.

Damn.

I got a dollar says her lawyer wrote the agreement.

Always gotta watch out for those technicalities. That's what's going to kill you, or steal your money after you've died.

Too bad he died. He would have better odds at a malpractice case against his attorney if he were still alive.

Bloodsucking exwives and incompetent attorneys. Now there's an all too common pairing.

Hanxter I apologize for straying, but I had to comment on how cool your avatar is, being this is the first time I've seen your latest one.

those damn word details ..

they will be the end of us all..

She should sue him! If that doesn't work then she should dig him up and see if she can squeeze another red cent out of him.

Ussualy I do not post short one sentence posts but...


What the fuck is wrong with us americans?

Well, any time there is a lawyer around,the only interest they have is for themselves. That and the equally corrupt judicial system,... By the way ,..superb set of avatars you are putting forth krwlz.

Did he have a terminal illness and no offpring? If he'd seen this coming he could have liquidized all his assets, put them in a numbered swiss bank account and then destroyed the account details.

Everything but for a single stale chocolate cake in a safety deposit box with the words "Here you go, you damn vampire." written on the top in icing.

another reason to live in the midwest...

there's no alimony in Indiana!

He jilted the hit man he hired, she should have been dead long before he was. LOL

Women may be the sweetest, most loving creatures, but they have more capacity for evil than any man alive.

A response from a source closely tied to the case...

In July of 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on this case, and sided with the family of Dr. Cohan, awarding the Plaintiff - Barbara Cohan, the person who sued for continued alimony - absolutely NOTHING.

Dr. Cohan did have two teenage children (15 and 18) at the time his estate was sued, and the money she was going after was to be inherited by his children. The money used to pay lawyers to fight her off for 8 years (1998-2004) also came out of their inheritance.

Dr. Cohan did not have an illness - he died quite suddenly as a matter of fact.

"He must really have been a bastard for her to stick it to him like this."
No, he was not.

"Some guys (like myself) get stuck with a blood-sucking evil witch of an ex"
Yes, she was.

Hey, the decree says what it says. If it doesn't mention his death, then she's entitled to the money. She may be a blood-sucking whore for taking it, but it may also be her only source of income besides SS. Maybe he cheated on her with the mother of the kids who had to fight her off. Anyone know? Regardless, the decree's in black and white, and its unfortunate for the kids.

So, shes taking money from what he was going to give to his kids?

I hope she has a nasty accident involving a moose, 3 bricks and a herring.

My mom had no skills, no education, and no prospects after she and my dad divorced. She also just had knee replacement surgery and she has a cashiering job and supports herself. Sounds like the woman in the story is a lazy bitch that tried to take advantage of the kids to me. I'm glad she got nothing. I hope there's some left over for the kids.

Why don't you guys quit blaming her for expecting a contract to be followed. They both signed it, so his heirs get a little less. They didn't work for that money either.

Here is a little more on it:

Yes he was a bastard. He got a divorce and failed to make child support and alimony payments. He ended up going to jail for it and when he was released, he tried moving to another state to again avoid making payments. The stipulation that alimony would continue either to her death or remarriage was a compromise on her part in exchange for payments that ended up amounting to just over half of what was agreed to 10 years earlier.

Good for your mom. You should be proud of her, and I hope you tell her that. You know all the facts in her case - will you conceed that you don't in this one? With kutulu's post, it's sounding more and more like the asshole in this story is the deceased. I read the brief, and the guy doesn't sound like a very nice guy, at least as far as his treatment of his exwife is concerned.

Finally, it really doesn't matter who's nice and who's not. The decree is the decree and it says what it says. The heirs just have sour grapes, but that's really too bad for them. If their father had signed a contract stating that he would fund something in perpetuity, they would be stuck then too. If he had made a provision for it in his will, they'd be stuck too. I'm sorry that they're kids and they loose out on their father's legacy (let alone his presence in their lives), but this is the reason that contracts and decrees exist.

Phred, you and I should start a club...

Ooh, my bf would join that club! He's making half the money he was making when they divorced, and has been paying the same amount of child support since then, yet when he tried getting it lowered because of the lack of funds, the child support was raised! And to top it off, she doesn't even let him see his son, because a visitation schedule wasn't put into writing at the time of divorce. =P

I am proud of her, and I've told her that many times. She pulled herself up by her bootstraps when a lot of people would take the easy way out and mooch.

As far as the topic at hand...well, it angers me that the ambiguity of the contract could allow money to be taken from his kids to be given to her. I've had several family members get screwed because of poorly written wills/legal contracts, and that probably biases me in this case. I guess this should be a lesson to all to make sure that legal documents be very, very specific.

That's an interesting idea on "Death do us Part". Hmmm.
Really makes you think.

I really wish that I knew more about the background behind this story.
is she a money-grubbing loser? or just super desperate for some sort of income? Is she disabled and cannot work? Is she old, was he rich? Do his family members hate her, or do they just not want to pay? The agreement is fairly straightforward. I see their logic with the wording. Did she choose for it to be worded as such, or did he? did anyone realize what this would mean when they worded it this way?

well... there we go. Another reason to have a good lawyer on your side. Even after death.