Ex-husband stops alimony payments for terminal cancer patient

Chacal wrote:

Au Contraire Duffy:
If anyone is wrong here and should accept the shame, it is you. If you had seen the video, you would realize that the article is just a repeat of the script used for the video.
If you were satisfied with the “facts” presented in the article then one can only deduce that you are easily influenced and satisfied with superficial, inaccurate and prejudicial reporting.
It the article had been about you instead of Coleman, it would appear that it wouldn’t matter to you whether or not your side of the issue was given to thousands of readers in your city. How sad.
Irresponsibly reported articles like this one do a grave injustice to one of the parties. As a reader who knows nothing about the parties, I would expect to get the background on both sides with supporting facts as to the reasons that led up to “why” the alleged injustice exists.
Apparently it doesn’t matter to you whether or not the other side of an issue has presented a defense to any allegations. To only state that a phone call was unreturned is no reason publish an article and to paint a villainous picture of someone without any supporting facts as to why the payments were not made or anything else that might be relevant. This applies not only to Coleman, but to any other person about whom a similar article might be written.

Chacal - because it was so very difficult for me to respond to your 3,929 character post (and be able to quote you precisely in case my answers ended up on the next page) when this forum allows a maximum of 4,000 characters per post.....

Because of that fact, I had to do revisions to my reply so many times that it was basically impossible for me to be able to quote you as much as I needed to and still have my reply make sense. So let me try once again to address your first few paragraphs by themselves. My previous post addresses the questions you asked, so I will not go into that a 2nd time.

You stated it apparently does not matter to me whether or not both sides were represented. It matter greatly to me, to Ms. Cochran, to Ms. Cochran's advocate in this matter who is trying to bring the details and the FACTS to light this particular case, just as it matters to everyone who has an opinion on this case. That is why I beseech anyone who wants to accuse us of not fairly presenting the FACTS of this case to contact the CBS affiliate in Tampa Bay and demand an in-depth report be done. One in which Mr. Coleman will hopefully try to defend himself.

I cannot stress enough that although Mr. Coleman is now a disbarred lawyer, he is nevertheless a lawyer and can represent himself in court for free - something Ms. Cochran is not trained to do. And until this report aired on tv, Ms. Cochran was not able to afford a lawyer to represent her while Mr. Coleman continued to file motion after ridiculous motion, effectively tying this case up in the courts, hopefully - I would assume - thinking he could do so quietly until Ms. Cochran was cooperative enough to die.

We want all the facts of this case brought to light, we want the details aired. We do not, however, have the power to make that happen unless the Tampa Bay CBS affiliate decides to pursue the matter and satisfy people like you, Chacal. We would love to educate you on all the facts from BOTH parties in this case - I repeat, we do not have the power to make that happen.

For answers to your questions in your almost 4,000 character post from earlier, please see my previous response to you. Thank you. Duffy (who is temporarily stuck in the midwest instead of Florida)

Duffy...I really don't care what "choices" this women made in her marriage. They were choices of hers like all of us in this life make with good and bad results. Bottom line Duffy...he isn't her husband and as unfortunate as it may be for her to be in this condition, she is doing wrong by taking someone to court for this. Christian's do know God's will, it's promised to us through the Holy Spirit. Regardless of that it is wrong to force one individual to pay for another one in this way. If they were still married and he quit his job and refused to work or get insurance for the women, she couldn't do anything in the courts about this. Why should she have the ability to control this man now? God does not condone taking a brother to court in fact the bible says NOT TO! So if you think that anything opposing His command is from Him then you might want to read that someday. The bible also says the love of money is the root of all evil. I think alimony seekers are loving money more than people when they are willing to throw them in jail for not giving it to them. All I'm saying is that if she is affiliated with a church then to me she very well could be saved and if that is so then she needs to rely on God and obey Him in all things and He will bless her for that. He may not spare her life in this but He will be there and she will feel Him and be comforted more than money. She is far enough in her Ovarian Cancer that the outcome doesn't look good. That is just the facts of the disease. Alimony is either right or wrong regardless of each ones circumstances. Either on person in a marriage should have to continue after the marriage with obligations or not. Shouldn't both, if one does?

Bob wrote:

For every one of these "poor" woman divorce stories, there are a dozen women who have financially raped and tortured their ex husbands using divorce and alimony laws.........all the while having no impediment to supporting themselves........One thing we can all agree on is that state involvement in our private lives and marriages needs to be studied, scrutinized, and reformed....
Some stats:
Divorce rate 50%+
Divorces filed by women 60-70%

Well said. It does suck what is happening to Mrs. Cochran, but keep in mind that when what is happening to her happens to men, no one cares.

It is hypocritical for many of you to make attacks on Cochran for what he is doing to her, yet remain silent when a woman does this to a man.

I spent some time reading all of the comments. Everyone attacked everyone elses opinions and I feel everyone but one person missed the point. The problem is not with the man or the woman. The problem is the judge and the family court system. If each of you would ensure your State representatives would get a copy of this article along with your opinions it might have an effect on issues of this kind in the future.

This is the ultimate. He must be the meanest and most self-centered person alive.

Sorry to say, I have to agree with Bob and Richard Lindsey. I just lost my job and I am stuck with permanent alimony in Pinellas County for a marriage that ended by my ex after just more than 15 years. I liken this to quitting a job. When a person quits a job, they are NOT entitled to unemployment benefits or severence pay from their former employer -- period. So why should a wife who files for divorce be entitled to alimony?
The last time I looked a wife was defined as being a woman. In this day and age, women are in middle and upper management, a place they were not in 20 years ago.(Many of these women bosses have men as direct reports.) They have opportunities for advancement in careers and business, based on gender bias, that men never enjoyed.
It is up to the woman/wife to make that decision to work. If she decides not to, there is always welfare.

kelly wrote:

Duffy...I really don't care what "choices" this women made in her marriage. They were choices of hers like all of us in this life make with good and bad results. Bottom line Duffy...he isn't her husband and as unfortunate as it may be for her to be in this condition, she is doing wrong by taking someone to court for this. Christian's do know God's will, it's promised to us through the Holy Spirit. Regardless of that it is wrong to force one individual to pay for another one in this way. If they were still married and he quit his job and refused to work or get insurance for the women, she couldn't do anything in the courts about this. Why should she have the ability to control this man now? God does not condone taking a brother to court in fact the bible says NOT TO! So if you think that anything opposing His command is from Him then you might want to read that someday. The bible also says the love of money is the root of all evil. I think alimony seekers are loving money more than people when they are willing to throw them in jail for not giving it to them. All I'm saying is that if she is affiliated with a church then to me she very well could be saved and if that is so then she needs to rely on God and obey Him in all things and He will bless her for that. He may not spare her life in this but He will be there and she will feel Him and be comforted more than money. She is far enough in her Ovarian Cancer that the outcome doesn't look good. That is just the facts of the disease. Alimony is either right or wrong regardless of each ones circumstances. Either on person in a marriage should have to continue after the marriage with obligations or not. Shouldn't both, if one does?

Kelly,
Thank you for your Godly response. My ex-wife is a so-called Christian who gathered her 'Desparate Housewife Girlfriends' from the church we attened as a married family (shoe now attends it with our 2 sons) and has prayed the Rosery for my financial destruction. All because she chose NOT to work during our marriage. It was I who decided not to fight it and divorce her for the sake of the children (now in their early teens).
It is said to say, and very unChristian, but it seems like the only hope for a man tagged with permanent alimony is an early death. My wishes for my ex are to have 2 years of alimony and be financially independent, so that she can enjoy a long and prosperous life, but at my age 52 and hers 50, that is not likely to happen unless she becomes reasonable.
God Bless You for your comments.

Found this little tidbit of info in a brief sueing the Govenor of Florida for making poor Dick pay alimony. Hey Dick, if you want a fair system, give her a lump sum equal to your payments and stop whining.

Member Richard Lindsey provides an example of the discriminatory
application of alimony. In Richard Lindsey v. Barbara A. Lindsey, Case No. 81-1057 CA, a final judgment was issued on November 30, 1982,
which granted periodic alimony payments of $800 per month. The circuit court found in its order that the purpose of the alimony award was so that the wife "be well provided for" although the award of alimony was "not sufficient to fully support the wife". Mr. Lindsey continues to pay alimony without even knowing the financial condition of his former spouse.

Golflyboy wrote:

Found this little tidbit of info in a brief sueing the Govenor of Florida for making poor Dick pay alimony. Hey Dick, if you want a fair system, give her a lump sum equal to your payments and stop whining.
Member Richard Lindsey provides an example of the discriminatory
application of alimony. In Richard Lindsey v. Barbara A. Lindsey, Case No. 81-1057 CA, a final judgment was issued on November 30, 1982,
which granted periodic alimony payments of $800 per month. The circuit court found in its order that the purpose of the alimony award was so that the wife "be well provided for" although the award of alimony was "not sufficient to fully support the wife". Mr. Lindsey continues to pay alimony without even knowing the financial condition of his former spouse.

Why should this guy Dick be required by law to give his ex a lump sum or periodic payments still be fair? I think the point he is trying to make is alimony itself is an antiquated system. Women have the same opportunites as men to earn a living and should be expected to support themselves. One ex-spouse (male or female) should not have to be an indentured servant to another. It's one thing if you care to do it in the marriage. But once you want to end the marriage, you shouldn't be a slave to financailly support a person you no longer want to be with. I think a temporary alimony situation is ok to transition the one spouse, say 5 years max, but then its up to every individual to take care of themselves. Let's stop this welfare mentality people in the US seem to want to perpetuate.

Hold it Guys....This woman worked 2 jobs to put him through One year undergraduate and 3 years Law School and promised her an education after he is practicing Law.

In the Divorce , Mr coleman recieved every asset including 401 Ks and Businesses that they worked in during 22 years of marriage...Mr Coleman laughingly stated "HE GOT IT ALL."

He still has his Law Degree and Accounting degress and Mortgage Broker License, which all were accumlated during their marriage.

ALL Ms. Cochran received was ALIMONY....NOW , Mr Coleman WANTS THAT TOO!!!!!! He still has everything he accumalated during their marriage and now wants more.......

Mr Coleman is the GREEDY ONE...money hungry...and does not want to lower his lifestyle down...like Ms Cochran has extremely reduced her lifestyle and in sick and cannot work.

Lowest person on the face of the Earth is Mr. Coleman.

Hmmm i keep hearing that this case is not about alimony and that it is about the guy who stop giving alimony to his sick wife because he thought that she was going to die. That in itself shows that he has no heart, but there are always two side of a story. The question is why would someone do such a thing is answered through many comments posted here.... people find alimony to be a form of slavery, injustice, and legalized scamming of divorced people. In a sense they are still joined for life being that one is still providing for the welfare of the other. On side sees the inhumane way he treated he ex-wife while the other side sees the ongoing injustice redendered to the ex-husband in the form of alimony.. no matter what way a person treated the other should they in fact have to pay for it for life? legally the answer is yes if the courts say you do then you will. Has the system been abused? yes by some and no by others... what is the way to correct what some perceive as an injustice.... look at every divorce differently without making a blind decision that will effect the one who is punished for life to pay for the welfare of another for life......

Well, just when you think people can sink as low as they could ... here comes someone pulling the 'fatally ill' card.
It's bad enough that divorce happens and that (1)able bodied women typically get alimony, because of the stereotype of the unliberated woman syndrome. Then they get more money per month because of something called (2) child support, which requires no spending accountability to the single dad.
Now terminal illness (3) of the recipient is another reason for alimony?
There are 3 reasons that I've listed above for alimony, which gives the recipient NO incentive to work. What's reason #4 -- recipient is of an ethnic minority? What's reason #5 -- recipient is a member of a weaker political party?
Look at the numbers themselves. The alimony payment of $1,650.00 monthly translates to $19,800.00 annually. With there being 2,048 work hours annually, this translates to $9.67 hourly. In addition, there are COBRA requirements, which Ms. Cochran should have paid for from the alimony before she got sick.
This is not an injustice to men only, but to women as well who take major financial risks because they are told of their 'rights', but it seems like everyone forgets about their responsibilities of self preservation. She could have gotten a job at Publix starting for a little less than $9.00 hourly, received periodic wage increases and obtained a decent insurance plan through her employer.
Recipients of permanent alimony are going to have to face up to the fact that the gravy train that is their former spouse's revenue source DOES run out of gravy. There is NO job in this country that is guaranteed for life.
The only guarnatees in life are death and taxes.

All comments talk about alimony for life not being fair....WHY?
Mr. Coleman has his education that Ms. Coleman worked 2 jobs to put through Law school and 1 year undergraduate school...EDUCATION FOR LIFE!
So he can support himself but she cannot.

TAKE back ALIMONY...THEN take back EDUCATION ...He shouted..I WON! I WON! I WON! afte the divorce proceedings...He got ALL assets FOREVER...

What does she get? A little alimony ..not even alot of alimony...now he is 19K in arrears...so she gets NOTHINGS OH! Thats FAIR!!!!!!!!!!

Her ex is scum!
He figures she will be dead before she can get him in court. Anyone think the judge might be a friend of his, I bet they are golf buddies. Why wouldn't a judge move the case up. Judges think they are gods and can do anything they want. Margaret, I hope you get your day in court soon. God bless and protect you.

Big B wrote:

All comments talk about alimony for life not being fair....WHY?
Mr. Coleman has his education that Ms. Coleman worked 2 jobs to put through Law school and 1 year undergraduate school...EDUCATION FOR LIFE!
So he can support himself but she cannot.
TAKE back ALIMONY...THEN take back EDUCATION ...He shouted..I WON! I WON! I WON! afte the divorce proceedings...He got ALL assets FOREVER...
What does she get? A little alimony ..not even alot of alimony...now he is 19K in arrears...so she gets NOTHINGS OH! Thats FAIR!!!!!!!!!!

Alimony for life is NOT FAIR! Why is anyone entitled to be supported by someone else just because at one time they were married. When either party decides they do not want to be married anymore, they should be given their freedom. We are in the USA aren't we? The divroced couple should split the assets and move on with the freedom to not be shackled to the other inidividual for life by an alimony obligation. Are all parents required by law to support their children after the age if 18? No! You are considered an adult and you are to take personal responsibility for yourself. Are employers required to pay an employee for life when they do not want to employ that person anymore? NO, you have to go out and find another job and take personal responsibiltiy for yourself. Lifetime alimony removes personal responsibiilty and is unjust.

The fact that he was disbarred is irrelevant. The embezzlement issue is irrelevant. No offense, the fact that she is sick is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is ability to pay and willingness to pay. If he is a mortgage broker, then I am sure he has no money right now. He was a attorney, and I am sure he knows the law like the back of his hand. If he was able and willing( or even unwilling) to pay, I am sure he would to avoid jail. By the way, do you know how much it costs to pay of a judge? I am sure that it is a lot more than $11,000. So why pay more to save a little?

Alimony for life is NOT FAIR! Why is anyone entitled to be supported by someone else just because at one time they were married. When either party decides they do not want to be married anymore, they should be given their freedom. We are in the USA aren't we? The divroced couple should split the assets and move on with the freedom to not be shackled to the other inidividual for life by an alimony obligation. Are all parents required by law to support their children after the age of 18? No! You are considered an adult and you are to take personal responsibility for yourself. Are employers required to pay an employee for life when they do not want to employ that person anymore? NO, you have to go out and find another job and take personal responsibiltiy for yourself. Lifetime alimony removes personal responsibiilty and is unjust.

Mr. Coleman should be ashamed of himself. I agree that karma will get him in the end. My mother has terminal ovarian cancer. My parents are still married, but if they weren't I would have no respect for my father. He is not only hurting his ex-wife, he is hurting his children. depending on there ages they have no respect for their father. He needs to grow up and be a responsible human being before it is too late for all involved.

My guess would be that you are disgrntled ex-husband. this woman has major health issues and if she is in the situation my mother is in she is completely unable to work. If she can't work there goes her helath insurance. Get a grip. You are not a nice person and should really examine your life and leave this poor woman alone.

Ricky wrote:

My guess would be that you are disgrntled ex-husband. this woman has major health issues and if she is in the situation my mother is in she is completely unable to work. If she can't work there goes her helath insurance. Get a grip. You are not a nice person and should really examine your life and leave this poor woman alone.

Nice has nothing to do with fairness! Alimony for life is NOT FAIR! Why is anyone entitled to be supported by someone else just because at one time they were married. When either party decides they do not want to be married anymore, they should be given their freedom. We are in the USA aren't we? The divorced couple should split the assets and move on with the freedom to not be shackled to the other inidividual for life by an alimony obligation. Are all parents required by law to support their children after the age of 18? No! You are considered an adult and you are to take personal responsibility for yourself. Are employers required to pay an employee for life when they do not want to employ that person anymore? NO, you have to go out and find another job and take personal responsibiltiy for yourself. Lifetime alimony removes personal responsibiilty and is unjust.