How To Get Around It

[Betty Crocker]

What is the name of your state? Georgia

My ex-wife pressed me into signing a Settlement Agreement I did not understand, and she convinced me to use no atty. (stupid, I know).

She waived Alimony, and I am paying her $1400 per month in CS. There was a "miscellaneous" paragraph I did not understand the gravity of until later:

"The parties specifically agree that the Wife shall be entitled to twenty percent (20%) of any and all commissions the Husband receives from his employment. The Husband shall pay to the Wife twenty percent (20%) of any amount received after it is taxed and he shall pay said monies to the Wife at the time his employer pays the commissions to him. The Husband shall
further provide the Wife with a schedule of the commissions and how they are to be paid."

Am I screwed? Doesn't this count as Alimony, which she waived? So on top of the outrageously high CS (it doesn't cost $1400 per month to raise a kid), she gets to skim off my hard-earned commissions too!

So how do I get out of this unfair paragraph? The CS laws here just changed, so when I take her for a mod to change to income shares, how do I get rid of this paragraph?

Should I just take a job with salary only and NO commission? Can my work call it a "bonus" and since the language in the settlement says, "commissions," work a loophole in on a technicality?

Just for history's sake, my ex is spending addicted and ruined my credit due to lying to me about what she spent and the cards she acquired. We have been divorced for two years, and I am currently remarried with another child.

Thanks for your help.

[stealth2]

Well...... I don't know GA support guidelines, but those bonuses would normally be considered wrt child support. I doubt you'd get far with the argument that your payments are alimony.

[Betty Crocker]

Hello - thanks for your answer.

The Georgia CS definition of "Gross Income" in regards to CS is: "All income from any source, whether earned or unearned, before deductions for taxes and other deductions. It includes bonuses, overtime, commissions, trust income, capital gains, disability, workers compensation, gifts, and unemployment."

The Decree stated that my income was a flat $70K, and we agreed on the 20% between 17-23%. The CS is clearly stated as $1400 per month, fine, but the "miscellaneous" paragraph should not be there since bonuses fall into the "Gross Income" definition. How do I get legs here to get rid of this obviously illegal paragraph?

The new law will go into effect on July 1, 2006, and will take the incomes of both parents into account. There will be a child support obligation table to find the basic child support obligation based on the combined adjusted gross income of both parents and the number of children to be supported. The amount from this chart will be presumed to be the appropriate amount of basic child support to be provided by both parents, prior to adjustments for parenting time or additional expenses.

Can I bring up the illegality of this paragraph then?

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Betty Crocker

Hello - thanks for your answer.

The Georgia CS definition of "Gross Income" in regards to CS is: "All income from any source, whether earned or unearned, before deductions for taxes and other deductions. It includes bonuses, overtime, commissions, trust income, capital gains, disability, workers compensation, gifts, and unemployment."

The Decree stated that my income was a flat $70K, and we agreed on the 20% between 17-23%. The CS is clearly stated as $1400 per month, fine, but the "miscellaneous" paragraph should not be there since bonuses fall into the "Gross Income" definition. How do I get legs here to get rid of this obviously illegal paragraph?

The new law will go into effect on July 1, 2006, and will take the incomes of both parents into account. There will be a child support obligation table to find the basic child support obligation based on the combined adjusted gross income of both parents and the number of children to be supported. The amount from this chart will be presumed to be the appropriate amount of basic child support to be provided by both parents, prior to adjustments for parenting time or additional expenses.

Can I bring up the illegality of this paragraph then?

Ok...what IS your actual gross income? I suspect that what happened was that 70k reflected your base salary only...and the 20% of your commissions was to reflect the additional amount that should have been included in your gross income, and wasn't.

When you go back to court for a recalculation, the commissions (even if your employer changes what they are called) WILL be included in your income. It will no longer be based on 70k, but will be based on your entire gross income.

[Betty Crocker]

Yes, the 70k is my base. In my W-2, my compny does not breakdown what is commission and what is salary, which is good. My actual last year was 78k.

The good news is that when I go back for the recalc, the new income shares model law states that the income to be regarded for CS is the amount AFTER TAXES, NOT BEFORE, as was the case previously. So this will put my AFTER TAX income in the 56k range WITH commissions.

My real question here is: Will the recalc to income shares render this paragraph erroneous? What is my strategy here?

[VeronicaGia]

Your real strategey here is to hire an attorney. You should never have signed the papers, but now that the law is changing, things may look up, but don't make the same mistake twice.

[nagol818]

Originally Posted by Betty Crocker

the new income shares model law states that the income to be regarded for CS is the amount AFTER TAXES, NOT BEFORE,

That's net income, not gross.
And I'm pretty sure(correct me if I'm wrong seniors) that regardless if you use a net shared income model or a gross shared income model the amount of CS would be similar because different formulas are used for each.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by nagol818

That's net income, not gross.
And I'm pretty sure(correct me if I'm wrong seniors) that regardless if you use a net shared income model or a gross shared income model the amount of CS would be similar because different formulas are used for each.

Correct..whether a state uses "net" or "gross" to determine child support the calculations would usually come out to be roughly the same. Different formulas are used for each.

He states that his W2 for last year showed an income of 78k Under his current orders that would reflect child support of approximately 1495.00 (total) per month.

While there is a chance that might go down under the income shares formula...I don't think that he should count on it to going down dramatically.

[Betty Crocker]

it will go down because she makes around $40k, and my child spends 60 days+ per year with us.

I plugged the appropriate numbers into a NC and TN CS calculators respectively, and got around $7-$800 per month.

The recent USDA Government report on the costs of raising a child in a single-family home with an incoming salary of $40k (hers) is $7230 per year. That's 602.50 per month.

I am having an esteemed economist come to the mod, (as per my Father's rights attorney - he was instrumental and in the picture when the new law was signed), so we have all our ducks in a row, and it's already all paid for.

It's just this paragraph; but then, I would expect that if it is CS, which is fairly obvious, the new law would change it as well, as it changes the entire concept of CS.

How about if I decide to start a business, guys? Would it be prudent to have it in my current wife's name only, and then take a salary of $50K? Ex couldn't touch me - my wife is very wealthy in her own right, but refuses to pay for my ex's lifestyle (ex is extremely jealous of my current wife), and will not merge her money with mine until my child is 18. Smart.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Betty Crocker

it will go down because she makes around $40k, and my child spends 60 days+ per year with us.

I plugged the appropriate numbers into a NC and TN CS calculators respectively, and got around $7-$800 per month.

The recent USDA Government report on the costs of raising a child in a single-family home with an incoming salary of $40k (hers) is $7230 per year. That's 602.50 per month.

I am having an esteemed economist come to the mod, (as per my Father's rights attorney - he was instrumental and in the picture when the new law was signed), so we have all our ducks in a row, and it's already all paid for.

It's just this paragraph; but then, I would expect that if it is CS, which is fairly obvious, the new law would change it as well, as it changes the entire concept of CS.

How about if I decide to start a business, guys? Would it be prudent to have it in my current wife's name only, and then take a salary of $50K? Ex couldn't touch me - my wife is very wealthy in her own right, but refuses to pay for my ex's lifestyle (ex is extremely jealous of my current wife), and will not merge her money with mine until my child is 18. Smart.

I wouldn't recommend that.....its too obvious. The judge would most likely just impute income to you at your previous earning level.

Also, using a child support calculator for another state doesn't necessarily give you accurate results.

[stealth2]

Originally Posted by Betty Crocker

How about if I decide to start a business, guys? Would it be prudent to have it in my current wife's name only, and then take a salary of $50K? Ex couldn't touch me - my wife is very wealthy in her own right, but refuses to pay for my ex's lifestyle (ex is extremely jealous of my current wife), and will not merge her money with mine until my child is 18. Smart.

As said above - you'd be taking a voluntary decrease in income and the court would simply impute you at your current income. Judges aren't THAT stupid.