Child Support Modification

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I really do understand your problem and do have sympathy for it. I realize that you are in a very tough position.

The problem is that a huge number of people either quit high paying jobs or deliberately get themselves fired right after being ordered to pay high amounts of alimony or child support. Therefore it always raises red flags with judges.

Well, that was something else I had as evidence that the judge didn't pay any attention too. I had a spreadsheet showing my past work history. Since 2001 (that's 9 years), I've had 15 different employers. Opposing council objected to the evidence (I can't remember the reason), and the judge sided with her. And remember, my income was threefold: A.Selling Cars. B. Delivering Newspapers. C. Family Business. (Investments/real estate). I was forced to sell my shares of the business ($25,000) so I could keep up with my obligations. The job I had at the time wasn't a high paying position so your reasoning (or her's) isn't relevant.

She didn't pay attention to what was going on and my attorney sucked. I still don't see how someone can lose that much income and not get a modification.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by scottklein

Well, that was something else I had as evidence that the judge didn't pay any attention too. I had a spreadsheet showing my past work history. Since 2001 (that's 9 years), I've had 15 different employers. Opposing council objected to the evidence (I can't remember the reason), and the judge sided with her. And remember, my income was threefold: A.Selling Cars. B. Delivering Newspapers. C. Family Business. (Investments/real estate). I was forced to sell my shares of the business ($25,000) so I could keep up with my obligations. The job I had at the time wasn't a high paying position so your reasoning (or her's) isn't relevant.

She didn't pay attention to what was going on and my attorney sucked. I still don't see how someone can lose that much income and not get a modification.

Selling your shares in the family business may have been what hurt you in court.

You stated that your job was not high paying. Delivering newspapers is not high paying either. Therefore it stands to reason that a decent chunk of your income was coming from the family business.

Selling your shares, most likely TO family, is likely what raised the red flag with the judge and what has caused your current problems.

I hope for your sake that you weren't playing any income "games".

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by scottklein

Well, that was something else I had as evidence that the judge didn't pay any attention too. I had a spreadsheet showing my past work history. Since 2001 (that's 9 years), I've had 15 different employers. Opposing council objected to the evidence (I can't remember the reason), and the judge sided with her. And remember, my income was threefold: A.Selling Cars. B. Delivering Newspapers. C. Family Business. (Investments/real estate). I was forced to sell my shares of the business ($25,000) so I could keep up with my obligations. The job I had at the time wasn't a high paying position so your reasoning (or her's) isn't relevant.

She didn't pay attention to what was going on and my attorney sucked. I still don't see how someone can lose that much income and not get a modification.

Having 15 jobs since 2001 means you are going to be imputed with the highest amount of income you are capable of earning. You have shown what you can earn. YOU screwed up. Hence you live with the consequences. And if you were somewhat bright you would realize that OHIO GAL is female. I am also an Ohio attorney and guardian ad litem. You may not like the explanation but that is not my problem. That is the way it works.

The spreadsheet was most likely objected to on the basis of best evidence or not authenticated or no foundation -- there could have been dozens of reasons why it was kept out of evidence.

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Selling your shares in the family business may have been what hurt you in court.

You stated that your job was not high paying. Delivering newspapers is not high paying either. Therefore it stands to reason that a decent chunk of your income was coming from the family business.

Selling your shares, most likely TO family, is likely what raised the red flag with the judge and what has caused your current problems.

I hope for your sake that you weren't playing any income "games".

As far as the income from the family business, it was about 30K a year...Nothing earth shattering.

No income games. I had documentation of the $25,000 going into my checking account as well as bank statements for all the months after I sold my part of the business.

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Having 15 jobs since 2001 means you are going to be imputed with the highest amount of income you are capable of earning. You have shown what you can earn. YOU screwed up. Hence you live with the consequences. And if you were somewhat bright you would realize that OHIO GAL is female. I am also an Ohio attorney and guardian ad litem. You may not like the explanation but that is not my problem. That is the way it works.

The spreadsheet was most likely objected to on the basis of best evidence or not authenticated or no foundation -- there could have been dozens of reasons why it was kept out of evidence.

What I was trying to push for was an average of what I made over the last 10 years. That makes the most sense. Computing my income based on the highest amount I'm capable of making? Please, that leaves the door open for supposition which is a recipe for failure. Averages make the most sense for everyone involved. In fact I was trying to get the modification based on a percentage of my paychecks from week to week which make even more sense. Since I'm on commission, my paychecks fluctuate from week to week, month to month and year to year. If they based my child support on a percentage from week to week it would protect me and the ex. If I have a bad month then I don't have to worry about falling behind. If I start making more money, she doesn't have to worry about taking me back to court. But that makes too much sense for a court of law, therefore it got T.D.

And what does OHIO Gal sex orientation have to do with anything? Besides...I'm from Michigan originally so Go Blue Baby!

The system isn't fair and it needs to be reworked. I've said this more than once here...I lost 40% of my income. That's a substantial change in financial circumstances. If that's not grounds for a modification then what is?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by scottklein

As far as the income from the family business, it was about 30K a year...Nothing earth shattering.

No income games. I had documentation of the $25,000 going into my checking account as well as bank statements for all the months after I sold my part of the business.

You sold property generating 30k in income annually for only 25k? Somebody got a heck of a deal, they are going to make their purchase price back in less than a year. I suspect that had something to do with the judge's attitude.

[Ohiogal]

And what does OHIO Gal sex orientation have to do with anything? Besides...I'm from Michigan originally so Go Blue Baby!

Your attitude has to do with everything. You called me GUY several times.

you're really not paying attention here Guy.

and

Come on guy,

and

We're not talking a few hundred dollars here guy.

It has to do with the fact that YOU are an idiot and your attitude is what will do you in. I am not male. I am female. I am not a guy and you are an arrogant, bitter person. Your bitterness is part of a major issue in court.

The system isn't fair and it needs to be reworked. I've said this more than once here...I lost 40% of my income. That's a substantial change in financial circumstances. If that's not grounds for a modification then what is?

Again you made a bad deal. Then you sold your interest in the family business for less than what it was worth. Hence you screwed yourself. The court will not give you the benefit of trying to lower your income voluntarily -- which is what you did by selling the family business for such a low price.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Again you made a bad deal. Then you sold your interest in the family business for less than what it was worth. Hence you screwed yourself. The court will not give you the benefit of trying to lower your income voluntarily -- which is what you did by selling the family business for such a low price.

Again, I agree with this. There is no way that a judge wouldn't note that you sold property generating 30k in annual income for 25k. In most scenarios the minimum sales price of an asset should be at least equivalent to two years worth of annual income...and when it comes to real estate assets, its more than that.

[Golfball]

Originally Posted by scottklein

That makes no sense. That's like saying I got fired because I wanted to get fired hence there'd no downward modification in child support. So in other words, I'm just plum out of luck...If I quit or get fired I'm in the same boat. I lost 40% of my income which leaves me with almost nothing to live on and I'm just supposed to grin and bear it? I guess there aren't grounds to have your child support modified then...What I was told was that if there is a substantial change in circumstances you could get a modification. We're not talking a few hundred dollars here guy. I lost $3,300 a month in income...that's not chump change.

There is a difference between terminated for cause, resignation, and terminated w/o cause.

The first two are voluntary, or caused by voluntary behavior. And thus, barring anything weird, they will *not* be grounds for a downward mod on child support, and you are just supposed to grin and bear it. Think along the lines of "you broke it, you bought it!" You broke your circumstances, now live with the consequences.

The last one is involuntary, and would be grounds for a downward mod. However, since you have listed a cause, this one probably doesn't apply to you.

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

You sold property generating 30k in income annually for only 25k? Somebody got a heck of a deal, they are going to make their purchase price back in less than a year. I suspect that had something to do with the judge's attitude.

Let me paraphrase councilor as you're reading too far into this. In previous years before the the economy/real estate market crashed, the business was producing around 30K. Last year I lost money due to the value of my percentage of the partnership. I either sold out for the 25K or risked getting less due to the shrinking market. And besides, I needed the cash to keep my unrealistic obligations current. So nobody got a deal and there won't be anything to get back as the company for all practical purposes is BK. Also, I had documentation on all this so if this had something to do with the judges decision then she made a decision not on facts but on opinion which is why I think the judge sucks. Judge the case on the facts not on what you think you know. The facts are the facts and you can't argue the truth. Supposition on the other hand is wide open for misjudgment and errors which is what happened here. She's not as smart as she thinks she is and if she would have made her decision on the facts then the outcome would have been different.

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Your attitude has to do with everything. You called me GUY several times.
and

and


It has to do with the fact that YOU are an idiot and your attitude is what will do you in. I am not male. I am female. I am not a guy and you are an arrogant, bitter person. Your bitterness is part of a major issue in court.



Again you made a bad deal. Then you sold your interest in the family business for less than what it was worth. Hence you screwed yourself. The court will not give you the benefit of trying to lower your income voluntarily -- which is what you did by selling the family business for such a low price.

What does my attitude have anything to do with calling you "guy." Calling you "guy" is a matter of speech.

I shouldn't be penalized for making a deal that would benefit my family. Had I known in advance I was going to lose 40% of my income, I wouldn't have made that deal. Remember, I was paying $3,800 a month for all my obligations. With the two jobs I had at the time, I wasn't even making that. The family business was on the verge of BK and since I needed the cash to pay for my obligations, I had no choice but to sell out. That being the case, it wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory.

The problem here is you keep trying to twist the facts around to make it look like I'm trying to manipulate the situation of reducing my child support. And you've made the comment that I made a bad deal so I'm stuck with it. I had documentation on everything to support my situation. I had a lame attorney that had no business handling my case as he was unprepared to overcome opposing councils arguments. In the state of GA the child support guidelines are from 17-23% of your income. That would put my child support down to about $1,150 (assuming that I was making 5K which according to my YTD is actually less). But I'm paying 40%, or almost double.

Also, when I went to court I was confident that justice would be served. I bust my ass by working two jobs. My ex wife still doesn't work. I lost 40% of my income and I'm paying 40% of my income in child support obligations. I had documentation to substantiate my loses in the family business. It was a no brainer according to my attorney. So if I sounds like I'm bitter and I have an attitude it's because I got the raw end of the deal.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by scottklein

What does my attitude have anything to do with calling you "guy." Calling you "guy" is a matter of speech.

I shouldn't be penalized for making a deal that would benefit my family. Had I known in advance I was going to lose 40% of my income, I wouldn't have made that deal. Remember, I was paying $3,800 a month for all my obligations. With the two jobs I had at the time, I wasn't even making that. The family business was on the verge of BK and since I needed the cash to pay for my obligations, I had no choice but to sell out. That being the case, it wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory.

The problem here is you keep trying to twist the facts around to make it look like I'm trying to manipulate the situation of reducing my child support. And you've made the comment that I made a bad deal so I'm stuck with it. I had documentation on everything to support my situation. I had a lame attorney that had no business handling my case as he was unprepared to overcome opposing councils arguments. In the state of GA the child support guidelines are from 17-23% of your income. That would put my child support down to about $1,150 (assuming that I was making 5K which according to my YTD is actually less). But I'm paying 40%, or almost double.

Also, when I went to court I was confident that justice would be served. I bust my ass by working two jobs. My ex wife still doesn't work. I lost 40% of my income and I'm paying 40% of my income in child support obligations. I had documentation to substantiate my loses in the family business. It was a no brainer according to my attorney. So if I sounds like I'm bitter and I have an attitude it's because I got the raw end of the deal.

Oh good grief, would you just admit that you've made choices and that perhaps they weren't the best idea?!

Seriously. You are so out of line here it's almost funny.

[scottklein]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

Your attitude has to do with everything. You called me GUY several times.
and

and


It has to do with the fact that YOU are an idiot and your attitude is what will do you in. I am not male. I am female. I am not a guy and you are an arrogant, bitter person. Your bitterness is part of a major issue in court.



Again you made a bad deal. Then you sold your interest in the family business for less than what it was worth. Hence you screwed yourself. The court will not give you the benefit of trying to lower your income voluntarily -- which is what you did by selling the family business for such a low price.

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

Oh good grief, would you just admit that you've made choices and that perhaps they weren't the best idea?!

Seriously. You are so out of line here it's almost funny.

I've already admitted that I made bad choices here, but what does that have to do with the facts of the case? The bottom line is this...I'm paying 40% of my income for child support. That's almost double the state guidelines. I'm not a high income earner that can afford to pay that and I shouldn't be penalized for trying to do the right thing. Where in your law book does it state I should be a victim of bad decisions that were intended for the good of my children? Oh, that's what I thought, there's nothing in any law book that stipulates that. That being the case, judge the case based on the facts, not decisions good or bad. That's not what I call justice...that's what I call ignorance.