Question: My second wife is 18 years younger than I am. So when we divorced three years ago after a seven-year marriage, I agreed that as part of our property settlement when I retired, I would make her the survivor beneficiary so that, if I died before she did (which is likely), she would get 60 percent of my pension for the rest of her life. By doing this, the amount of my pension was cut. I also agreed to pay some alimony to supplement her wages.

Earlier this year, I was "involuntarily" retired due to a work force reduction, and I began drawing my retirement pay. Because I was short of money, when a reasonable-paying part-time job came available, I took it. Now my ex-wife has sued me to increase her alimony. She says that the monthly retirement pay I now receive -- which is less than it would have been if I had not given her a life annuity -- should be added to my new salary when considering my ability to pay her more alimony. I don't think my retirement should be counted twice. My lawyer tells me that I have little chance to exclude it, and that my wife and I are "breaking new ground". Why am I getting shafted for being a nice guy?

Answer: Commonly called "double dipping," this tactic is not unusual in matrimonial cases. Although you should always follow the advice of your lawyer, it appears to us that if your pension was previously divided with the other assets, your ex would be unjustly enriched if allowed to count the retirement twice -- once as an asset and again as part of your ability to pay alimony.

Because changes in economic circumstances and ambiguities in agreements often cause post-divorce litigation, those faced with similar situations should make every effort to state their intentions clearly, thereby avoiding vague provisions in agreements. When this type of agreement is made, a clause should be included to clarify this point.

For example: "The husband's retirement has been divided as an asset of the marital estate and, therefore, neither his share of the fund nor any income derived by the husband from that fund shall be considered in any future action to increase alimony or for any other reason." With the wife's name on the line agreeing to this, a situation such as you describe might be less likely to occur.

Question: My husband and I lived together for three years before we finally got married. During our cohabitation, he was recovering from a financially devastating divorce, so I bought a home with my money. After he begged me for a year to give him an interest in the house, against my better judgment, I deeded him a half-interest. Unfortunately, I again refused to follow my instincts and married him. Now, only a year later, our marriage is on the rocks and he claims half of everything. While I think this is unreasonable, I don't want to spend more money than his half-interest would be worth ($10,000). Is court avoidable?

Answer: The answer depends on your state of residence. Some courts have ruled that jointly titled premarital property is converted to marital property upon marriage and can be divided. However, the way in which the asset is divided will be affected by the comparative contributions. In other words, you have a tracing and accounting problem, the cost of which could exceed his maximum interest. While litigation could have been avoided had a co-ownership agreement been entered when the property was purchased, your decision should be based on economics rather than emotions.