Contradictory Settlement Agreement on Alimony / Additional Support

[2MUCH$]

What is the name of your state? Florida

My ex-wife & I are having a disagreement on the meaning of the Alimony paragraph in my divorce settlement agreement.

We have a 17 yr old child who will be graduating from high school in May 2008 and who will be turning 18 at the end of October 2008. In addition to the child support I'm paying, I've also been giving my ex one-half of my Christmas Bonus. (My Christmas Bonus from work is distributed on the last business day in December each year.)

It was my understanding that once our child turns 18 I would no longer have to give my ex-wife half my Christmas Bonus. But it’s my ex’s understanding that she is entitled to half my 2008 Christmas Bonus.....even though our child will be 18 two months before I receive my bonus.

The following is how my divorce settlement agreement reads:
“The Husband shall pay to the Wife periodic alimony until the minor reaches eighteen, the wife remarries or the Husband dies. The Husband has asked that his alimony be lumped into his child support payment. The Wife has agreed. As additional support, each Christmas the Husband shall give the Wife one-half of his Christmas Bonus annually through the year 2008. This additional support shall also cease upon the Wife’s remarriage, the child turning 18, or the Husband’s death, whichever occurs first.”

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by 2MUCH$

What is the name of your state? Florida

My ex-wife & I are having a disagreement on the meaning of the Alimony paragraph in my divorce settlement agreement.

We have a 17 yr old child who will be graduating from high school in May 2008 and who will be turning 18 at the end of October 2008. In addition to the child support I'm paying, I've also been giving my ex one-half of my Christmas Bonus. (My Christmas Bonus from work is distributed on the last business day in December each year.)

It was my understanding that once our child turns 18 I would no longer have to give my ex-wife half my Christmas Bonus. But it’s my ex’s understanding that she is entitled to half my 2008 Christmas Bonus.....even though our child will be 18 two months before I receive my bonus.

The following is how my divorce settlement agreement reads:
“The Husband shall pay to the Wife periodic alimony until the minor reaches eighteen, the wife remarries or the Husband dies. The Husband has asked that his alimony be lumped into his child support payment. The Wife has agreed. As additional support, each Christmas the Husband shall give the Wife one-half of his Christmas Bonus annually through the year 2008. This additional support shall also cease upon the Wife’s remarriage, the child turning 18, or the Husband’s death, whichever occurs first.”

It specifically says through the year 2008. To me, that indicates that not only do you have to give it to her this year, but next year as well. However, the statement that it ceases when the child turns 18, is contradictory, which means a trip to court for clarification, unless the two of you come to an agreement.

If your child is still in high school, you are still obligated to pay child support. Therefore, I would tend to think that you would be ordered to pay it this year, but perhaps not next year if your child is graduating in May. You might want to negotiate that point with mom.

Also, I sincerely hope that you have not been deducting your "alimony" on your tax return, because this is a textbook scenario where the IRS would deny you the tax deduction if you were audited. Any time that alimony is tied to a child's age (ie ceases when a child becomes an adult) it is not alimony under federal tax law, its additional child support, and therefore not deductible as alimony. The IRS announced a couple of months ago that they are reinstituting random audits for individual returns.

[las365]

Surely you can reach a compromise on this without the time and expense and wasting a Court's resources by asking for a clarification.

Why don't you prorate the bonus? Divide the half that she is potentially entitled to by 12 to give an amount per month and then pay her for 10 months of it (Jan - Oct). Voila.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

It specifically says through the year 2008. To me, that indicates that not only do you have to give it to her this year, but next year as well. However, the statement that it ceases when the child turns 18, is contradictory, which means a trip to court for clarification, unless the two of you come to an agreement.

If your child is still in high school, you are still obligated to pay child support. Therefore, I would tend to think that you would be ordered to pay it this year, but perhaps not next year if your child is graduating in May. You might want to negotiate that point with mom.

Also, I sincerely hope that you have not been deducting your "alimony" on your tax return, because this is a textbook scenario where the IRS would deny you the tax deduction if you were audited. Any time that alimony is tied to a child's age (ie ceases when a child becomes an adult) it is not alimony under federal tax law, its additional child support, and therefore not deductible as alimony. The IRS announced a couple of months ago that they are reinstituting random audits for individual returns.

Another clear example of some knit wit inept lawyer's double talk! This is what you get when you put your trust and faith in a legal "professional".

Both lawyers and the judge are a bunch of clowns and OP has to pay more money and spend time straightening something out that should have been clear from the start.

When the child turns 18 support stops and so does the bonus!

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by las365

Surely you can reach a compromise on this without the time and expense and wasting a Court's resources by asking for a clarification.

Why don't you prorate the bonus? Divide the half that she is potentially entitled to by 12 to give an amount per month and then pay her for 10 months of it (Jan - Oct). Voila.

Because if he conceeds that he owes SOME of the bonus (which he does NOT) a judge will just bend him over further and make him pay all of it!

[las365]

As additional support, each Christmas the Husband shall give the Wife one-half of his Christmas Bonus annually through the year 2008. This additional support shall also cease upon the Wife’s remarriage, the child turning 18, or the Husband’s death, whichever occurs first.”

I would not construe this as meaning that the obligation to pay the additional support ceases at the beginning of the year in which the child turns 18. I believe the equitable solution is what I suggested.

Unless this is a huge bonus, it would be a total waste of money to take this to court.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by las365

I would not construe this as meaning that the obligation to pay the additional support ceases at the beginning of the year in which the child turns 18. I believe the equitable solution is what I suggested.

Unless this is a huge bonus, it would be a total waste of money to take this to court.

Equitable means the man gets screwed.

Just bend over again because it takes money to fight for your rights in court?

There is no bonus at the beginning of the year and there is no bonus when the child reaches 18.

[2MUCH$]

The bonus is not only alot of money, but I'm also paying her 3.5 times more in child support then I needed to. Yes, I did agree to this when we settled for our divorce because I didn't want my child's lifestyle to change. (And please note that I also gave her the family home and also agreed to pay 100% of my child's college.) ---

But when I agreed to splittiing the Christmas Bonus, it was my understanding that once my child turned 18, I no longer had to split it with her. Now that we're less then one year from the finish line, she's trying to twist more out of me and she's using this contradictory "through the year 2008" to her advantage.

I'm not trying to get out of what we agreed upon at divorce, but like I stated before, it was my understanding that once my child turned 18, I longer had to split my bonus with my ex. I am remarried now with two other small children and it's now their turn to have what I was able to provide for my first family.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by 2MUCH$

The bonus is not only alot of money, but I'm also paying her 3.5 times more in child support then I needed to. Yes, I did agree to this when we settled for our divorce because I didn't want my child's lifestyle to change. (And please note that I also gave her the family home and also agreed to pay 100% of my child's college.) ---

But when I agreed to splittiing the Christmas Bonus, it was my understanding that once my child turned 18, I no longer had to split it with her. Now that we're less then one year from the finish line, she's trying to twist more out of me and she's using this contradictory "through the year 2008" to her advantage.

Of course she is and the idiot lawyer who put that wording in there probably knew there would be a potential for more bucks in their pocket.

I'm not trying to get out of what we agreed upon at divorce, but like I stated before, it was my understanding that once my child turned 18, I longer had to split my bonus with my ex. I am remarried now with two other small children and it's now their turn to have what I was able to provide for my first family.

To me her thinking and the thinking of las365 are one in the same. Using their rationale, if you received a big pay raise in November 2008 you would need to pro-rate that and pay her more per month starting at the beginning of the year. It's just a game to get men to pay more money to women! The men get pissed and the lawyers make money!

[las365]

Just out of curiosity, how much do you anticipate your 2008 bonus will be?

The Order is poorly worded, as of course everyone knew at the time it was written that unless the child died, he would turn 18 in October of 2008. So if it means what you think it means, the reference to the Christmas bonus should have said "through 2007" and if it means what she thinks it means, it should have said "through 2008" but not had the qualifying language about when it ceased.

Given the way you feel about it, hire an attorney and get a clarification.

By the way, Bali is completely wrong about what I think. Just so ya know.

[2MUCH$]

After tax deductions and then splitting it with my ex, I end up with approx $7,000 out of a $20,000 bonus.

[las365]

I still think your lowest cost solution is to negotiate a compromise. You could easily spend a lot of money in attorney fees and still end up having to pay her some of the bonus. At least you have some time to work it out. Best of luck!

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by 2MUCH$

After tax deductions and then splitting it with my ex, I end up with approx $7,000 out of a $20,000 bonus.

What month was the order signed by the judge and in what month did you give her part of the bonus the very first time?

[2MUCH$]

Judge signed order in March.
First gave 1/2 bonus to ex in December or January after check cleared bank.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by 2MUCH$

After tax deductions and then splitting it with my ex, I end up with approx $7,000 out of a $20,000 bonus.

You know, after reading through your first post again, there was something I missed. I thought that your child was already 18, therefore making "through the year 2008" a serious contradiction.

However, now I think that the intention of the wording was that you would split the bonus the year that the child turned 18...since the child turns 18 so late in the year, and is still in high school for part of the year. Therefore I think that Las's idea of a pro-rated compromise is a reasonable one.

However, you can take it back to court for clarification. If your child is really graduating in May of 2008 (graduating before his 18th birthday) then you might have a case for a clarification in your favor.