Spousal support modification

[pghobbsjr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR
I have a modification hearing coming up and wondered if I can bring witness's into the hearing to counter my X's claim of her living conditions? She is cohabitating and claims she isn't.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by pghobbsjr

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR
I have a modification hearing coming up and wondered if I can bring witness's into the hearing to counter my X's claim of her living conditions? She is cohabitating and claims she isn't.

You need proof that she is cohabitating - do you have anything else at all other than witness statements?

(and be sure to check your decree actually allows for modification upon cohabitation)

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

You need proof that she is cohabitating - do you have anything else at all other than witness statements?

(and be sure to check your decree actually allows for modification upon cohabitation)

Where the court ordered the alimony absent an agreement, the state statutes would apply. The decree could be silent regarding cohabitation but state law WOULD allow for a modification.

Just because the jerk judge ordered something and left out the cohabitation clause doesn't mean OP is necessarily SOL.

[Ohiogal]

How do you know she is cohabitating and doesn't just have a roommate? How do these witnesses KNOW that?

Are you subpoenaing the person she is allegedly cohabitating with? Cohabitating is NOT the same as living with someone.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

How do you know she is cohabitating and doesn't just have a roommate? How do these witnesses KNOW that?

Are you subpoenaing the person she is allegedly cohabitating with? Cohabitating is NOT the same as living with someone.

I think we need to treat this issue like contempt of court, someone files a motion to the court, it's up to the person to prove to the court that they are not in contempt.

Therefore, OP files a motion saying his ex-wife is cohabitating, shouldn't it be up to the ex-wife to prove that she is not cohabitating?

[kimberlywrites]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

I think we need to treat this issue like contempt of court, someone files a motion to the court, it's up to the person to prove to the court that they are not in contempt.

Therefore, OP files a motion saying his ex-wife is cohabitating, shouldn't it be up to the ex-wife to prove that she is not cohabitating?

Innocent until proven guilty, Bali, by the prosecution (that would be the ex accusing her)

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by kimberlywrites

Innocent until proven guilty, Bali, by the prosecution (that would be the ex accusing her)

This is not a criminal case, different rules apply.

If OP's ex was feeling that OP somehow was in violation of a court order in their divorce decree, she could file a motion with the court and OP would have to prove he was not in contempt.

Likewise, if OP feels that his ex is in violation of a state statute regarding cohabitation and improperly collecting alimony, it should be OP's ex's responsibility to prove that she is not cohabitating if he brings it to court.

What all this amounts to is loopholes in the law and procedure favoring women.

It's women by far that bring contempt issues to court and it's women by far that go to great lengths to shack up without losing their alimony.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

This is not a criminal case, different rules apply.

If OP's ex was feeling that OP somehow was in violation of a court order in their divorce decree, she could file a motion with the court and OP would have to prove he was not in contempt.

Likewise, if OP feels that his ex is in violation of a state statute regarding cohabitation and improperly collecting alimony, it should be OP's ex's responsibility to prove that she is not cohabitating if he brings it to court.

What all this amounts to is loopholes in the law and procedure favoring women.

It's women by far that bring contempt issues to court and it's women by far that go to great lengths to shack up without losing their alimony.

This is not contempt. This is a modification. The burden of proof is on the movant -- OP. He has to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

This is not contempt. This is a modification. The burden of proof is on the movant -- OP. He has to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

One would think the same rule would apply with contempt.

You have a movant who has to prove the contempt by clear and convincing evidence. Instead the accused has to prove their innocence.