I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for the Hoff

David Hasselhoff has filed to get his $21,000 monthly alimony payment to his ex cancelled, claiming he has only $600 in the bank and can't live off his monthly income if he has to support her.

According to this artcle, based on his court filing, his monthly income averages $112,000 and his outgoing expenses are $72,000 which leaves $40,000. It isn't clear if the alimony is included in his monthly expenses, so let's take it out and, in a worst case scenario, he is left with $19,000.

Am I wrong in hoping the judge denies his petition?

I would have been really good at being rich.
Jen

I don't get why you people are so opposed to alimony. My dad paid my mom till he retired, and then she got a settlement from his estate when he died.

My sister is getting divorced right now, and she'll be getting a generous settlement and/or alimony (I hope). She has an MBA and used to make a lot of money, but she also is close to 60 and you tell me how easy it is for a woman that age to get a good job. More to the point, though, she has a brain injury (indirectly caused by him) that makes it impossible to do the kind of executive work she used to do. She might be able to work in a bookstore or something, if she can stick with it.

Also, he is a very rich man. He can support her for the rest of her life, as far as I'm concerned.

I have no problem with the spouse who makes a lot of money sharing it with the spouse who doesn't. Permanently, if the circumstances support it (age, length of marriage, disability, gross abundance of available funds etc.).

ETA I also don't have a problem with the amount being lowered over the years, if circumstances such as reduced income warrant it.

From what little I know, alimony is paid to the (typically) woman in cases where she may be a SAHM or earning well below him. It is often for half the length of the marriage if over 10 years and meant to give her time to get back on her feet, etc. It is often stopped if she remarries. (Traditionally), it is often the woman who gives up career opportunities to provide for the children so this is a way to help her while she gets current. Yes, there is a very old fashioned view of it so I could be way off current times. Just a bit of info. from what I know or hear.

I think it depends on the agreement. 

My dh and I agreed I would stay home and care for the kids while he grew in his career. He has indeed, and I will never come remotely close to his salary, even if I work well past retirement age and with my education. 

So lets say in smaller numbers (made up here for ease of discussion) that he made 200,000 a year as a result of all the support he had at home while I was home raising our kids. Then I go back to work and while I can support myself I only make 50000 a year. 

Now I can live on 50K, a lot of people do. But after 20 years of marriage, should I have to go back to living in a much smaller home, unable to take vacations, etc. while he now supports only himself on that 200K? We were partners in the decision and in the growth of that career, so do I really not deserve some part of that salary if he divorces me? I can see both sides of this argument, but if the agreement was made together (and usually they make this stuff go into their prenups I think), then she should get the money. 

I don't know how long that should last post-divorce, but if she put her career on hold in any capacity in order for him to build his, maybe that's not such a bad thing that he shares in that wealth. Maybe if she gave it up for 15 years, she should get 15 years in alimony. But the reality is that she has a lot of lost time she can never get back in terms of work growth and earning potential. It doesn't matter if it's 1 million or 100000, it's still about the lifestyle and the agreement.