Probably, but you might not be able to stop paying right away. If you and your former spouse have an agreement or court order that says alimony ends automatically when your ex remarries, you can stop paying after the wedding. If not, you’ll have to look to your state’s laws for the answer.

In some states, like Missouri, spousal support ends automatically when your ex-spouse remarries. But if you’re in a state that doesn’t follow this rule, such as Michigan or Ohio, you’ll have to continue paying support until you get a new court order that says you can stop – even if your ex marries someone with beaucoup bucks.

Before you race back to court, you might want to try and work it out with your former spouse. If your ex agrees to end support, memorialize the agreement in a writing signed by both of you. You may want to hire an attorney to draft the agreement on your behalf. An experienced family law attorney will know which legal terms need to go into the contract to make it enforceable. Next, you must take your agreement to court so a judge can turn it into an order, which puts an official end to your alimony payments.

If your ex won’t agree, you’ll have to file a motion to modify or terminate support. As long as there is no agreement or court order that prohibits you from requesting an adjustment, a court can modify alimony if there’s a “material or substantial change in circumstances.” Remarriage is typically considered a substantial change in circumstances that proves alimony isn’t necessary anymore. Although laws vary from state to state, courts generally terminate alimony when a supported ex remarries, even if the new spouse isn’t über rich.

What if your ex lives with a wealthy new partner, but they have no plans to marry? In many states, cohabitation (meaning living in a marriage-like relationship) is a material change in circumstances that justifies cutting off support. A cohabiting couple’s combined incomes and shared expenses usually reduce or eliminate the need for alimony. If you can prove your ex has shacked up with someone like Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump (ewww), you have a good shot at getting off the alimony hook.

Rhode Island is the Tenth State to Legalize Gay Marriage

With the May 2, 2013 passage of its same-sex marriage bill, Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to recognize gay marriage. The new law takes effect in Rhode Island on August 1, 2013, when same-sex marriage ceremonies will begin taking place.

As of the writing of this post, gay marriage is legal in 10 U.S. states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – plus the District of Columbia.

More States are Following Suit: Delaware will Become the 11th

With all major polls now showing that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, other states are quickly following suit. Just today, the Delaware Senate voted to legalize gay marriage. The bill now goes to Democratic Governor Jack Markell, who has already promised to sign it.

On May 9, the Minnesota state House will vote on a same-sex marriage bill: Minnesota House Speaker Paul Thissen says he believes the Democratic majority has enough votes to pass the bill. A vote in Illinois may follow later this month. The Illinois state Senate has already passed the marriage equality bill, as has a House committee. If it gets approval in the full House vote, the bill goes to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, who vowed to sign it.

And we’re very close to resolution on the landmark California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases, both of which were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this past March.

What’s the Proposition 8 Case all About?

“Prop. 8” is the 2008 California ballot measure that effectively overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Prop. 8 amended the California Constitution to recognize only those marriages between a man and a woman.

In 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Prop. 8, finding that it discriminated against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and upheld Judge Walker’s decision, but Prop. 8 supporters appealed the ruling. On March 26, 2013, the Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, heard oral argument on the Prop. 8 case and took it under submission.

In a nutshell, the Supremes are reviewing a 9th Circuit decision that addressed the freedom to marry in California. SCOTUS may uphold (or overturn) the 9th Circuit’s decision as it applies to California, or rule more broadly and issue a decision that has far-reaching effects on same-sex marriage recognition across the country.

What are the Issues in the DOMA case?

The federal Defense of Marriage Act or “DOMA” was enacted by Congress in 1996 to nullify same-sex marriage for purposes of federal law. DOMA defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and prohibits all same-sex married couples from receiving federal benefits opposite-sex married couples receive, such as Social Security benefits, tax benefits and immigration status. SCOTUS heard oral argument regarding the challenge to DOMA on March 27, 2013 – the day after the Prop. 8 oral argument took place.

If the Supremes strike down DOMA’s definition of marriage, same-sex married couples will be entitled to the same federal benefits opposite-sex couples receive.

There’s no way to predict SCOTUS’s rulings, but stay tuned – decisions in both cases are expected as early as June 2013. However these cases play out, it’s clear that the marriage equality movement is gaining widespread support and legal validation across the country.

Anyone who’s been through a divorce–or been the sounding board for a friend who’s going through it–knows that there’s a lot of emotional stress involved. The word “crazy” comes up a lot–for example, in the new romantic comedy about divorce, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” and the popular book Crazy Time: Surviving Divorce and Building a New Life. It’s especially hard if the divorce is high-conflict, but even if it’s relatively peaceful, people in the midst of divorce often find themselves depressed, angry, and having trouble functioning.

Many people dealing with the emotional challenges of divorce need some support during the “crazy time,” and a good therapist can make a big difference. Finding one, though, can be a challenge–most of us don’t know much about how therapists work or what the difference is between a good and a bad therapist. One excellent resource is GoodTherapy.org, which includes basic information about different types of therapy and how the process works, as well as blog posts and resources for finding a therapist who will be a good fit. Mental Health America is another good resource for information and referrals, including resources for low-cost therapy.

In addition to individual therapy, a relatively new field called “divorce therapy” provides help for divorcing couples who are parenting together–it’s not the same as couples counseling during a marriage, which has the goal of repairing the relationship, but instead focuses on supporting parents as they learn to work together and communicate more effectively for the good of their children.

Therapy may not be for everyone, but if you think it might be for you, don’t hesitate. Divorce is hard, but help is available. I’ll do a future post on therapy for kids during and after divorce.

A judge in rural Clinton County, New York, has decided that one deadbeat dad lacks appropriate budgeting skills, and has handed the dad, called Thomas M., a list of items he is forbidden from purchasing until he has repaid $14,000 in child support arrearages to his ex-wife on behalf of their two daughters. Thomas can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol, nor can he buy a hunting or fishing license or any other item that the judge considers not to be a necessity of life. He must have the Probation Department’s written permission to purchase certain other items, including furniture and clothing. Thomas’s lawyer questioned whether the judge had authority to make such an order, but the broad language of the applicable law certainly gives him a lot of leeway. Maybe if more dads were kept away from their internet service, hunting licenses, and restaurant dinners, there wouldn’t be $12.6 billion in child support arrearages.

A New York attorney, Steven Simkin, settled his divorce in 2006 by dividing property and assets equally with his wife, Laura Blank. At the time, the couple had a large sum invested in Bernie Madoff’s now-infamous Ponzi scheme. Mr. Simkin opted to leave his money there; his wife preferred cash, so he took $6.6 million in cash out of the Madoff account and paid it to her. She also got one of their houses and half of the rest of their assets.

The divorce had been final for more than two years when the Madoff fund collapsed, and Mr. Simkin immediately went to his wife and asked for a do-over on the distribution of assets. She refused. He took her to court, arguing the theory of “mutual mistake.” That theory says that when both parties to a contract are laboring under the same erroneous belief–for example, that the value of an item is much greater than it actually is–the contract can be cancelled. Mr. Simkin argues that because both he and his then-wife were mistaken in their belief that they had money in the Madoff account, their settlement agreement should be voided. Ms. Blank’s rejoinder is that there was no mistake and that the money was there at the time, as evidenced by Mr. Simkins’ ability to take out $6.6 million to pay her for her share. She says the only mistake was Mr. Simkins’ belief that the account would continue to have value in the future–a mistake made by many a divorcing spouse who retains certain assets based on a belief that they’ll continue to appreciate.

Does this seem like a simple question of Mr. Simkin regretting a bad decision? Apparently the courts don’t think so–the case is now pending in New York’s highest court, after a trial court held in favor of Ms. Blank and an appellate court overturned that ruling.

My favorite part is the claim of “extreme hardship” by Mr. Simkin, who earns at least $3 million annually as a partner at the law firm that is representing him in the divorce do-over case (for free).

Check back for updates when the New York high court rules on this interesting case.

A mother who suffered severe brain damage during the birth of her triplets can have in-person visits and Skype calls with her kids, a Southern California judge ruled this week.

Abbie Dorn, who is in a vegetative state after a series of medical errors during childbirth, lives with her parents in South Carolina after being divorced from her husband following her brain injury. Her parents petitioned on her behalf for visits with her kids, who live with her former husband in Los Angeles.

Attorneys for both sides praised the ruling, with the grandparents’ attorney calling it a victory for all disabled parents. The father was also pleased, having prevailed in his request to both limit and supervise visitation.

Anyone going through a divorce knows that it affects every aspect of your life, and that you can find yourself in need of just about every kind of resource, from legal information to where to store the stuff that doesn’t fit into your new apartment. Where can you find all of that information in one place? Entrepeneur Tom Kaufman aims to provide it at The Next Chapter Expo by offering one-stop shopping and education at the first-ever expo for divorced and divorcing spouses, in Denver on May 14, 2011. Kaufman says that he intends the event to include a long list of resources, whether you need a makeover or a tax expert. The expo will cater to both opposite-sex and same-sex spouses and will include both educational sessions and exhibitor booths. Interesting idea and we’ll be watching to see how it goes.