I have never heard of such a thing as "lump sum alimony." It sounds as if your attorney is suggesting just a lump sum payout instead of an amount being paid out over time. And it seems to me that this is something you have asked opinions on before -- just using different words. A lump sum is NOT TAXABLE TO YOU if it is paid within 12 months of the divorce.

Alimony is alimony -- "rehabilitative" is the term used to describe a set amount of alimony over a set period of time (i.e., until such time as the recipient has achieved enough education and/or training to adequately support themselves). "Indefinite" alimony is where there is no set time for the alimony to be paid within. This is rarely awarded -- usually just in cases where the recipient has some sort of health problem that prohibits them from being able to fully support themselves or is so old they can't. NOTE: 99% of the time, ALIMONY is taxable to the recipient as income and tax-deductible for the one who is paying it.

Google it, Kathi. There is such a thing as lump sum alimony.

I think there are many things that you have to take into consideration with a lump sum. You know your ex better than anyone...and...you know yourself better than we do. The pros and cons are obvious to me. If you dont trust him to make payments...take the lump sum. The thing is...with the lump sum..its a one shot deal. I took a very small lump sum but I managed it well...I bought a small house with it. I have to work full time to take care of myself because I have no income other than what I earn and I have no retirement savings. But...I know my ex well....for me....this was a good decision with an even better outcome.

Yes, dairy, I think you're absolutely right. This, however, is not a traditional lump sum. It's a lump sum paid out as alimony.

Over what period of time? This would make me very nervous

I'm thinking like CGK. It seems whichever terminology or semantics is used, the intent of alimony is to assist you for living expenses while being "rehabilitated". Your lawyer's recommendation seems to align with your lean towards for the request for lump sum. It is still a more of the matter of your ex having the ability and gives his approval of handing over the pot of money. All we can do is hope for the best. Good luck!

Here's an explanation:

http://www.sc-aaml.com/lawprimerpopups/alimony.htm

See #2.

The payout would be same as the rehabilitative alimony…monthly for 8.5 years(until I'm 65).

I took a lump sum but part of my consideration was that my lawyer couldn't guarantee that I would even GET alimony!

The courts here (Ontario) pretty much leave settlement decisions up to the judge, and judge "A" might not subscribe to the idea that alimony is a given in a long marriage where the spouse has an education and should be able to earn a living so....zero alimony awarded. It's a crap shoot what judge you get so.....I chose the lump sum.

Good luck with your decision. Only you know what's best for you.

You have been wanting lump sum since day one, so as you do not believe he will live long enough to pay you or that he won't pay. I say take the lump sum.

I took a partial lump sum for child support. I lost about 20% of what I could have gotten because the lump sum takes into account the loss he suffered by having to pay so much at once, and the amount of interest he could have made over the next 10-15 years if he had the money in the bank.

This allowed me to keep the house and pay off the mortgage with the lump sum

It has turned out he still pays his child support on time and has never missed a day. I would have sworn I would never see a cent. But here we can garnish wages for child support very quickly, and he was young enough and likes his toys that he couldn't just quit his good paying job.

Good luck !!!

GG et al:
Ok, I googled it and here's the summary of definition -- LUMP SUM ALIMONY:

"A lump sum is a large, fixed payment comprising all of the alimony, for example, lump-sum alimony, which is a fixed payment from one ex-spouse to the other. LUMP SUM ALIMONY IS OFTEN GIVEN INSTEAD OF A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT WHEN THERE IS LITTLE PROPERTY TO DIVIDE."

The ALL CAPS used are for EMPHASIS -- you gotta consider what other assets you are asking for part of!

And the bottom line still remains -- if the cash isn't there, it isn't there. The now-X could have easily afforded to pay me in a lump sum what I got him to agree to over the ensuing 6 years, BUT it would have meant liquidating a lot of investments and raiding his IRA. I knew he was good for the money long-term AND because our financial settlement was negotiated and agreed upon INDEPENDENT OF THE COURT, I could make it stick if he decided to get stupid about it.

Since the PAYOUT would be same, it's a no brainer especially "IF" there is no penalty. To me it's like asking for a taste of the pie while you could have the whole pie in your possession. Make your request and hope your ex approves.

If you truly want to achieve a lump sum, you might seriously want to think of making your request appealing to your ex by allowing a [cash] discount. In the real world, those who do have upfront cash carries weight generally requires the privilege of a discount. Otherwise your ex can hold onto his pot and make you wait monthly like everyone else if he says no. There's really no lost in the payout.