Question: Throughout our marriage, my husband worked long hours while I gave up my job, stayed home and home-schooled our son, scrimped, and saved so that we could pay off our mortgage and have a reasonable amount of money in the bank for retirement.

Now, 25 years later, he has left me. I understand that I will receive a division of the property and some alimony, but my lawyer says I won’t be able to get anything to save to help me with retirement. If I saved throughout our marriage so we could accumulate assets, how can I be denied the ability to save for the future?

Answer: The purpose of alimony is to give sufficient funds to the dependent spouse to allow him or her to maintain a reasonable facsimile of the prior lifestyle. While two houses can’t operate on the same funds as were available to operate one household, continuation of the prior lifestyle is the goal. Accordingly, some courts won’t consider a “savings component” when establishing alimony, while others will.

Remember, too, that as part of your equitable division, you should receive a portion of your husband’s pension, 401(k), and/or IRA that, along with Social Security, should tide you over pretty well. And, because you apparently don’t have a work record of your own for Social Security purposes, your benefits will depend on his work record. Check with Social Security today.

Question: My former husband is a financial advisor. We divorced nine years ago, and I have custody of our teenagers. When we divorced, I got a share of our assets plus alimony and child support. The increased cost of living, though, has eaten up my buying power. I tried to work out increased payments from my ex, but couldn’t, so I was forced to hire a lawyer. During the financial disclosures, I learned that my former husband has been able to increase his net worth significantly while his income has remained about the same as it was when we divorced. My lawyer says it’s not worth going after him because we won’t win. Is there anything I can do to get more money for me and my children?

Answer: Based on the limited facts you provide, it appears that your former husband has chosen to invest for growth, meaning that except for dividends that are taxed annually, the increases in the value of his portfolio won’t be realized and taxed until they are sold. If we are correct, your former husband has done a good job sheltering current income; however, there is authority in some states that would allow you to take the position that the potential income from your former spouse’s assets should be imputed to him for the purpose of setting your support and alimony.

This theory is similar to proving that an individual is under-employed, or is not working to capacity and can earn more money. Then, it is your lawyer’s job to try to convince the court that because your husband could invest his assets in a way that would earn much more than, say, one-and-a-half percent per year, the unrealized income should be imputed to him, just as if he were receiving it.

Making different investments that generate more income will not require your ex-husband to deplete his principal because he will likely incur capital gains taxes when he changes investments. You need a financial expert to help make your case.