LovingFather
Bronze
Reged: 04/08/08
Posts: 27
|
|
Ex has decided to settle for about what I've offered. Apparently something in our discovery motion has scared her, and she doesn't want to need to do it. Fine by me. Even if she's been socking money away or has been working under the table, I don't care. The settlement lets me pay the bills and keep my head above water and saves me tons of lawyer fees. In a few years I'll have more money than I know what to do with.
Anyway....
She's proposing the settlement be all spousal maintenance and no child support (through the clearinghouse, etc). I'm fine with that, but I've heard scenarios where someone moves to another state or simply goes for a child support review, and the judge looks and sees no child support paid and slaps the father with a huge arrearage.
I'll ask my lawyer about language in the settlement agreement to say that a certain amount of SM is being paid as support for the children.
Anyone have any experience to give guidance on how to do this or landmines in this area to avoid?
I really don't want to reach a deal, then get hauled into court and handed a huge bill. Ex would probably love it, but I'd like to have this as protected as I can. Always the chance of some screwball crusading judge, but those are the breaks....
Thanks for your help!
|
gigi
Platinum
 
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4842
|
|
There's tons of landmines there. Although spousal maintenance looks great because it's deductible and child support is not, you end up basically not deducting the children at all and if she wants to go back EVER and say you've not paid any child support, then they'll order you to pay it on top of the spousal maintenance which is what you thought was going to be combined & was supposed to take care of both.
My husband's ex tried to get him to agree to something like that (though her numbers for the total support were going to be outrageous, like it would have doubled her own $80K a year salary and he'd end up with a tiny little bit to live off of, so he didn't agree to it). He met me & we talked about it & I suggested he talk to his lawyer & find out what she said, and his lawyer was pretty appalled (at the amount), but also mentioned this other stuff about it not being final when you say "no child support".
THEN one day the ex decided that since he'd been paying his entire salary to her for the first 6 months fo thier divorce but doing it voluntarily and with no court order to support his children, that this meant that there was NO child supprot being paid. She went to court with the kids and had them helping her photocopy papers, talking to the people in the lobby about how he was a deadbeat and not giving any child support at all. Those poor kids... their dad had given his entire after-tax salary to thier mother for them all to live off of (on top of her own salary, they were not hurting in any way)... and they were being told that he didn't love them and was a deadbeat. It was pure evil.
Now, later on, they got an evaluation by a therapist & a diagnosis that she does have a mental problem. So seh was ripe for doing evil stuff like that in order to get back at him, even though it meant using the kids and hurting them in the process... it's all about her, basically...
But my point is: Doing stuff outside of the ordinary like this can leave you open to all kinds of weird interpretations and problems... Stuff that lawyers worked out 30 years ago and so that's why they don't do it that way any more... to prevent these weird interpretations and problems.
Have you ever filed papers in any beaurocracy OUTSIDE of the normal course of business? Your taxes, your car registration? Have you ever tried to buy or sell a house using paperwork that is not standard in your own realtor's or title company office? EVERY TIME it gets messed up, you have to chase down things, etc. I did that last year and found myself chasing down $156,000 that was supposed to be deposited directly into my account immediately, but took a week to get there. You better believe that we followed up & heads were rolling and I got paid for the interest lost during that week, because I KNEW my papers were filed properly... just the lower level clerks passing them along from desk to desk to get the job done did not recognize my papers so every one of them took an extra day to do their jobs, asking their own bosses and me having to start knocking some heads around before it got moving!
Just my own little version of an example that even if it's something you agree to, and even if it's legal to do it that way, that doesn't mean it'll get done properly.
Oh, another example that's maybe more helpful to you. A friend in a support group just got custody of his kids 6 months ago. Ex is supposed to pay support. They filed all the papers & it's supposed to come directly through her work. However, because his name is MALE, some lower level clerk at the child support office got all confused and sent the support back to her rather than on to him. It took a while to straighten it out, and NOW he's getting the support he was supposed to get 6 months ago...
What you're asking to do is not standard, is subject to being reviewed because it says "no child support", which is almost never legal, and likely to result in problems in the future.
Your children deserve to know that you are supporting them, officially. It's worth working out all the numbers so that your child support is whatever your state's formula says it is. The rest of the numbers can work around it so that she ends up with the same AMOUNTS as you and she had agreed to, but with some of it designated as SUPPORT, you will never have the problem of ANYONE ever saying that you never supported your kids... you won't have the worry that she'll wnat to run back to court and demand support on top of the spousal maintenance, and you won't have the problem of having to explain and HOPE that someone agrees with you, that this unusual arrangement you've proposed is a good one.
Let us know what your laweyr says, though.
|
KGrow
Platinum

Reged: 01/27/06
Posts: 3112
Loc: Colorado
|
|
You need to rework it so that a portion of what you are paying is standard child support as per support formulas. Even if there's a waiver in the decree, she can go to court and get CS ordered. Your SS will not be adjusted to compensate.
You should have an end date or lump sum amount called out for alimony payments. You should strive to have alimony designated non-modifiable.
In general, it is a good idea to take a deal you can live with. You should find some way to do a reality check on it. Find someone with experience in your jurisdiction and find out if it is consistent with how the judges are calling 'em.
|
Dawn Elise
Bronze
Reged: 12/31/07
Posts: 32
Loc: Arizona
|
|
I have been doing family law for 15 years and I have never heard of a judge allowing sm to sub for cs. SM is for spouses, CS is for kids. There can be a SM order with a no cs order.
BE CAREFUL how you word this or you are going to end up with CS later on and paying arrearages.
|
LovingFather
Bronze
Reged: 04/08/08
Posts: 27
|
|
Here's what lawyer is putting in the property settlement agreement as a clause under the heading "Child Support and related terms":
e. Neither party shall pay to the other any amount for child support. Pursuant to the calculations, Father would owe to Mother an amount of approximately $450 in child support. However, Father has agreed to an amount of maintenance that is significantly higher than the guidelines reflect. The parties agree that this arrangement is in the best interest of the minor children.
I plan to spend some money to get a second lawyer to review the docs and highlight any landmines.
Here's hoping!
Wife made an offer I can finally survive on during the SM period. I'm taking it. Hopefuly there won't be any end runs to get around the intent.
|
gigi
Platinum
 
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4842
|
|
Truly, I'd rather see you say, "$450 as and for child support in accordance with the attached guideline worksheet. Father to declare children on his taxes in years X, Y & Z. ... XXX (whatever was your original number minus $450 per month) for spousal maintanance, non-modifiable, for XXX years"
It would prevent the problem we're all worried about. And what would be the difference other than taxes on $450 per month and you get to claim the dependent deductions for the kids?
|
KGrow
Platinum

Reged: 01/27/06
Posts: 3112
Loc: Colorado
|
|
Gigi's suggestion might work but it is really safer to pay child support and spousal maintenance separately. What is yours or her the motivation for lumping them together?
|
gigi
Platinum
 
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4842
|
|
Yipes, I didn't realize I could have been seen as suggesting to lump them together. I am suggesting quite the opposite. Two separate sections or clauses, one with the $450 a month child support, referring to the dependent deduction and child support worksheets & such, and a SEPARATE clause with the spousal maintenance, just taking what had been calcualted by the parties as thier grand total lump sum that they had wanted to have as spousal maintenance, and subtracting the $450 that they'd accounted for in the child support worksheet.
The lump sum can come out of the husband's paycheck and go through the child support enforcement or collection agency or whatever, and the grand total remains the same, but ... I guess I wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be... it SHOULD be separate, just to be safe!
|
KGrow
Platinum

Reged: 01/27/06
Posts: 3112
Loc: Colorado
|
|
If I understand it correctly, your suggestion does not lump but it does link. That may fly in the face of modifiability for child support orders. CS orders must remain modifiable to accommodate changing needs of children as they grow. If there is a stated linkage such that spousal support is reduced in proportion if child support is increased, the recipient could protest that modifiability has been circumvented. Safest to let each type of support stand alone.
|
gigi
Platinum
 
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4842
|
|
Oh yeah, absolutely. I was just trying to be short and put in elipses in the hopes of simply cutting out all the different section and paragraph markers, not intending to make CS non-modifiable at all, just intending to do that with the spousal maintenance.
That's what I get when I try to shorten up what I'm writing! People are always complaining that I put in too much, but then when I TRY to shorten things up, it ends up being subject to interpretation like that and ... well, frankly, a mistake on THIS issue could cost this guy 4450 a month till the kids are grown! MORE, if his salary raises in the meantime! EEEK.
To original poster... KGrow's interpretation is the way to go.
|