Question: Six months after our divorce in 1975, my former husband married my best friend. I sued him for being unfaithful for many years during our marriage, but I didn’t know with her. During our proceedings, I was involved in an accident that left me with facial and head Injuries. Since some of the cost of future reconstruction was not covered by health insurance, our agreement said that he would pay for my non-covered medical expenses in excess of $1,000 in any year.

Because of my disfigurement, the doctors said that I would be having more surgery as I became older. After he paid $5,000 in 1976 and $3,500 in 1977, he went back to court, and the judge amended the agreement with a provision that my husband did not have to pay for my medical expenses if his taxable income was less than $30,000.00 in any year. I did not go to the court date because I was in the hospital, but received the judge’s order in the mail. Although I made demands after that for payment, my husband refused, and I did not take him back to court because I had moved to another state. He kept saying that he did not earn $30,000 that year. I did not have the money to fight him.

I finally got a job and have retired, but from 1977 to now, I have paid more than $45,000 in medical expenses that reduced my standard of living then and now. I have not remarried. He and my former friend have no children, but they went into a business that was successful. My question is if I would be wasting my time to try to collect the past due medical expenses from his estate. Now that I am not working, I have the time to do this. Thank you for your opinion.

Answer: By tying your medical payments to a proviso that your husband’s taxable income from his closely-held business reach $30,000 annually, the court basically put the fox in charge of the hen house. For example, all your husband had to do was to pay his new wife a sufficient salary to keep his below $30,000 in order to avoid making payments to you. Since you did not appeal this order, you are probably stuck with those terms.

But you also have a number of other hurdles before you could collect: If the wording of your agreement makes the payment provisions binding upon your husbands’ estate, you may have a better chance than if it does not. If you do make the claim, we think you may well have to go back and prove that in each year, his income reached the $30,000 threshold. If it does not, proving that he defrauded you by artificially reducing his income would be a monumental task.

And, lastly, because you waited so long, your claim could well be barred by what is known in the law as "laches". In other words, the estate will probably argue that because you delayed for such an unreasonable delay in asserting your claim, your husband changed his position and was prejudiced.

Bottom Line: If you are going to make a claim against his estate, you are time-limited based on the law of the state where his estate is being probated. While it would not be a waste of time to see a lawyer and find out your chances, we think you are in for a long, hard fight.

Question: My husband and I have been married for 18 years and have three children. At age 45, he has walked out with a mid -life crisis. My religion is opposed to divorce, and when we married, we both told the minister that we would not divorce. Can he obtain a divorce if I don’t want one?

Answer: Yes. Marriage is the one institution where the promise of “I do” doesn’t mean forever if one party decides to leave the relationship. Each state has grounds for divorce that allow one spouse to get divorced, regardless of religious beliefs or desires of the other. We suggest that you see a lawyer and protect yourself and your children.