alimony and child support

[bluesinger]

I live in nj. My current child support is $400 doll ars per week that includes alimony. My wife collects ssdi and has worked part time up to the limit so she doesnt lose her ssdi. We have married for 22yrs. She says she can get pemanent alimony for life if we go to court based on her raing the kids. She has the third distribution of a inheritance coming for about $30,000. The first two installments we used to pay off joint credit cards and she bought me a car.The mediator says i am not entitled to any of that unless she comingles with the house funds. Now she is going to use part of that money for renovations in the house so that we can sell. Once the house is sold half the porfits will go to me. I in turn will give it back to her in lieu of child support so that she can afford to buy house with kids in another state.(north carolina) We go back to mediation in two weeks. She is willing to drop the amount to $300 per week once she gets inheritance in august. We are agreeing tentaively on me paying $300 dollars per week for one year or when the house is sold.
which ever comes first. It is in my best interest to make sure she doesnt foreclose on house then we both lose. She gets ssdi of 1!200 per month and makes another $900 which is her lmit. Plus my child and alimony of 1600 dollars currently. So basically she makes about $36,000 a year working part time!! The mortgage is 1900 per month. Should i go for this deal or fight her?

 

[LdiJ]

I live in nj. My current child support is $400 doll ars per week that includes alimony. My wife collects ssdi and has worked part time up to the limit so she doesnt lose her ssdi. We have married for 22yrs. She says she can get pemanent alimony for life if we go to court based on her raing the kids. She has the third distribution of a inheritance coming for about $30,000. The first two installments we used to pay off joint credit cards and she bought me a car.The mediator says i am not entitled to any of that unless she comingles with the house funds. Now she is going to use part of that money for renovations in the house so that we can sell. Once the house is sold half the porfits will go to me. I in turn will give it back to her in lieu of child support so that she can afford to buy house with kids in another state.(north carolina) We go back to mediation in two weeks. She is willing to drop the amount to $300 per week once she gets inheritance in august. We are agreeing tentaively on me paying $300 dollars per week for one year or when the house is sold.
which ever comes first. It is in my best interest to make sure she doesnt foreclose on house then we both lose. She gets ssdi of 1!200 per month and makes another $900 which is her lmit. Plus my child and alimony of 1600 dollars currently. So basically she makes about $36,000 a year working part time!! The mortgage is 1900 per month. Should i go for this deal or fight her?

I am not totally clear about what you are doing....despite the fact that I read that several times.

However, since she is on SSDI its quite possible that after 22 years of marriage you could be on the hook for permanent alimony. Not because she raised or will be raising the kids, but because she is disabled.

Its also problematic to do lump sum child support. There are definite pitfalls. Lump sum alimony is less problematic.

I can also see her having a bit of a tough time covering a 1900.00 monthly mortgage payment with her income. Its not impossible but it would be tight...particularly with a lowered child support/alimony amount. Will she have enough to cover groceries and sundries for herself and the kids, after paying the rest of the bills? You know what the bills are, we don't, so we can't really advise you there.

Do you realize that you very much lucked out on her inheritance? If she had put all three installments in a bank account in her name only, you couldn't have touched it. It would have been 100% her separate property. Instead, she used it to pay marital debts, to buy you a car and now is agreeing to use some of it for home renovations.

That money is specifically traceable as to where it went. A good attorney could even try to argue that it should remain her separate property because its traceable. So, I would be very careful about how much you decide to "fight". You are at risk for permanent alimony, and somewhat at risk for all three installments of her inheritance to be considered separate property.

 

[garrula lingua]

Legally, child support cannot be 'waived' by a parent - it belongs to the child.
Additonally, the State has an interest in enforcing both parent's obligation to support their child - otherwise, the public unfairly supports your family.


Any supposed waiver of future cs does not have to be (and should not be) honored by the court; the parent who waived the cs could return to court and get a new order for support.

 

[LdiJ]

Legally, child support cannot be 'waived' by a parent - it belongs to the child.
Additonally, the State has an interest in enforcing both parent's obligation to support their child - otherwise, the public unfairly supports your family.


Any supposed waiver of future cs does not have to be (and should not be) honored by the court; the parent who waived the cs could return to court and get a new order for support.

This isn't really a waiver though, its a lump sum situation. The intent is that mom will use the money to purchase a home, which then would relieve mom of a mortage payment/rent expense...therefore would be a permanent contribution to the children's support.

However I agree, its still quite problematic and should mom need any state assistance for the children, the state will go right after dad for support, and will not care about any agreement.

 

[Bali Hai]

I am not totally clear about what you are doing....despite the fact that I read that several times.

However, since she is on SSDI its quite possible that after 22 years of marriage you could be on the hook for permanent alimony. Not because she raised or will be raising the kids, but because she is disabled.

Its also problematic to do lump sum child support. There are definite pitfalls. Lump sum alimony is less problematic.

I can also see her having a bit of a tough time covering a 1900.00 monthly mortgage payment with her income. Its not impossible but it would be tight...particularly with a lowered child support/alimony amount. Will she have enough to cover groceries and sundries for herself and the kids, after paying the rest of the bills? You know what the bills are, we don't, so we can't really advise you there.

Do you realize that you very much lucked out on her inheritance? If she had put all three installments in a bank account in her name only, you couldn't have touched it. It would have been 100% her separate property. Instead, she used it to pay marital debts, to buy you a car and now is agreeing to use some of it for home renovations.

That money is specifically traceable as to where it went. A good attorney could even try to argue that it should remain her separate property because its traceable. So, I would be very careful about how much you decide to "fight". You are at risk for permanent alimony, and somewhat at risk for all three installments of her inheritance to be considered separate property.

Well that is a new twist on your past inheritance advice to husbands. You have specifically advised that once the husbands inheritance money is comingled, it is included in the marital assets for property division purposes!!!

Or was that advice to the husbands with "BAD" attorneys???

 

[LdiJ]

Well that is a new twist on your past inheritance advice to husbands. You have specifically advised that once the husbands inheritance money is comingled, it is included in the marital assets for property division purposes!!!

Or was that advice to the husbands with "BAD" attorneys???

Actually, I have changed my advice slightly on that issue, based on new information that I have encountered. If the money goes into a joint account and is comingled with other money, so that its not possible to specifically trace which money paid for what the inheritor is SOL. (that is an example)

However, if its specifically traceable there is a small chance, not a guarantee, that it could still be considered as separate property. I don't see that argument flying in a community property state, but in a equitable distribution state I can see it being possible.

 

[garrula lingua]

This isn't really a waiver though, its a lump sum situation. The intent is that mom will use the money to purchase a home, which then would relieve mom of a mortage payment/rent expense...therefore would be a permanent contribution to the children's support.

However I agree, its still quite problematic and should mom need any state assistance for the children, the state will go right after dad for support, and will not care about any agreement.

I know of no state that allows a 'lump sum situation' of future child support for Mom to buy a house.
What statute are you looking at ?
There is case law in CA which states when NCP is paying the mortgage pendente lite, then cs can be reduced below statutory requirement, but where is there case law or statutes allowing Mom to buy a house with future cs ?

No matter what agreement the parents have regarding future cs, the court can still enter an order for current cs.

 

[LdiJ]

I know of no state that allows a 'lump sum situation' of future child support for Mom to buy a house.
What statute are you looking at ?
There is case law in CA which states when NCP is paying the mortgage pendente lite, then cs can be reduced below statutory requirement, but where is there case law or statutes allowing Mom to buy a house with future cs ?

No matter what agreement the parents have regarding future cs, the court can still enter an order for current cs.

I am not saying that there is a statute that allows for that....or necessarily even case law. I am saying that this is the parents current intent, however problematic. We both know that judges will sometimes sign off on agreements that are problematic or even unenforceable.

 

[fairisfair]

I wanna see a judge anywhere that would sign off on that......

 

[Bali Hai]

I wanna see a judge anywhere that would sign off on that......

Meet Justice Jackass, 6th Judicial District, New York State Supreme Court.

Signed a decree that I did not agree to, but presented by opposing counsel.

In the decree there was alimony totalling X amount. In the decree it was Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the alimony paying spouse was to procure a life insurance policy THREE TIMES the amount of the total alimony payments with alimony payee as sole beneficiary!!

Furthermore, said jackass judge ordered that any EXISTING life insurance policies at the time of commencement of the divorce action covering defendent, name the plaintiff as sole beneficiary.

From this you can see that judges CLEARLY overstep their authority when trying to protect women in divorce cases!!!

 

[LdiJ]

I wanna see a judge anywhere that would sign off on that......

The judge in my case signed off on a property settlement that basically said "we will take care of everything ourselves"...LOL, and a bunch of other provisions regarding child support and child custody that had both of our attorneys kicking and screaming. Both of our attorneys said that there was no way that the judge was ever going to sign it...and the judge did.

So...judges do sometimes sign off on things that even attorneys don't think that they will sign.

 

[fairisfair]

Meet Justice Jackass, 6th Judicial District, New York State Supreme Court.

Signed a decree that I did not agree to, but presented by opposing counsel.

In the decree there was alimony totalling X amount. In the decree it was Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the alimony paying spouse was to procure a life insurance policy THREE TIMES the amount of the total alimony payments with alimony payee as sole beneficiary!!

Furthermore, said jackass judge ordered that any EXISTING life insurance policies at the time of commencement of the divorce action covering defendent, name the plaintiff as sole beneficiary.

From this you can see that judges CLEARLY overstep their authority when trying to protect women in divorce cases!!!

hardly the same thing Bali. I don't see anything in your case that equates to a lump sum settlement of childsupport used for a purpose other than the daily needs of a child.

I KNOW where to find jack@$$ judges. LOL

I don't even see this as a protecting of a woman during a divorce case but rather a case of not protecting the best interest of the child.

It ain't gonna happen.

 

[fairisfair]

The judge in my case signed off on a property settlement that basically said "we will take care of everything ourselves"...LOL, and a bunch of other provisions regarding child support and child custody that had both of our attorneys kicking and screaming. Both of our attorneys said that there was no way that the judge was ever going to sign it...and the judge did.

So...judges do sometimes sign off on things that even attorneys don't think that they will sign.

really, so what is the square footage of the home that you bought with your lump sum child support?

 

[LdiJ]

really, so what is the square footage of the home that you bought with your lump sum child support?

This thread has really gotten off the topic. I clearly told him that it was not a good idea to agree to a lump sum child support payment. However we cannot say for certain that a judge won't sign off on it. We can say that its very very unlikely, but we can't say its impossible.

 

[garrula lingua]

The judge in my case signed off on a property settlement that basically said "we will take care of everything ourselves"...LOL, and a bunch of other provisions regarding child support and child custody that had both of our attorneys kicking and screaming. Both of our attorneys said that there was no way that the judge was ever going to sign it...and the judge did.

So...judges do sometimes sign off on things that even attorneys don't think that they will sign.

So, one Judge signed an illegal order (which would be found to be invalid, if challenged), and therefore, you are advising OP that she should attempt the same act ???

?? on the slightest, minisculest, chance she'd have as big a doofus dumb-dumb of a Judge ???
I don't know any Judge that dumb - it's a sure reversal.