• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

can my child support be raised in reguards to inheritance?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

missyjo

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Iowa
My ex-husband is ordered to pay only $327.00/month child support for our two children. He just recieved an inheritance of 500,000+ and can I take him back to court to have the child support raised? He lives in Colorado and the children and I live in Iowa. Please help me find out if I can or not. Thank you so much for your help!
 


Why do you think child support needs to be raised? Just because he came into some money? If he doesn't owe any arrears, why are you pushing for more? It sounds to me like your reasons for wanting to raise the child support are for personal gain. :rolleyes:
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
missyjo said:
What is the name of your state? Iowa
My ex-husband is ordered to pay only $327.00/month child support for our two children. He just recieved an inheritance of 500,000+ and can I take him back to court to have the child support raised? He lives in Colorado and the children and I live in Iowa. Please help me find out if I can or not. Thank you so much for your help!
Unfortunately, yes you can. But I'm not going to tell you how because frankly, this entire idea makes me sick.
 

BL

Senior Member
BelizeBreeze said:
Unfortunately, yes you can. But I'm not going to tell you how because frankly, this entire idea makes me sick.
Breeze , now you said yes . Good grief now she'll want a mansion with waiters , a " personal trainer " and everything . Oh don't forget the the vehicles .
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Blonde Lebinese said:
Breeze , now you said yes . Good grief now she'll want a mansion with waiters , a " personal trainer " and everything . Oh don't forget the the vehicles .
And she can hire an attorney, pay his/her staff for their research at $200 an hour and then find out that her legal fees don't get reimbursed....

Oh, and then she can find out that such a change in circumstances must also be substantiated by a need. Since her child support falls within the statutory requirements in the Iowa guidelines, she'll have a whole new set of problems then.
 
hmmm....

and I thought this whole time she was looking at a whole new body thanks to a board certified plastic surgeon. :p
 
I find the smugness of these replies to be nothing short of inane and out of touch with reality.

$327 a month is an absurdly small amount...sorry, but that is true!!! $327 hardly begins to cover the expenses of clothing, food, housing, daycare, medical care, etc. If her ex-husband has the capacity to pay more, why shouldn't the children benefit? Oh, the only appropriate benefit is that now during the summer vacation visitation, he can take them on fabulous Disney dad vacations? If the father was already paying a meaningful amount, I might feel differently, but $327 does not begin to defray the cost of raising a child. The poster is hardly living in the lap of luxury on $327 a month, so why the snide remarks about a mansion, cosmetic surgery, cars?

The rest of you were sadly off target.
 
It's not the non-custodial parents job to assist the custodial parent in "living in the lap of luxury." And your reasoning that the custodial parent ought to seek more child support just so that they can live it up is unfounded.

First of all, it is not strictly the non-custodial parents responsibility to provide financially for the children. So for you to state that it takes more than $327/month to raise children IS correct, and it is the custodial parents responsibility to provide the other portion of that! Too many times, I see people on here make the mistake of looking at the dollar amount that a non-custodial parent pays and rationalizing that the amount listed is all the courts thought that it took to provide for their children.

THIS IS INCORRECT!!! The amount is generally proportionate based upon the parents total earnings (with the parent who makes the most income having the higher proportion.)

The previous posters did not provide incorrect information. They advised the OP that she COULD request a modification. What is being called into question is the moral reasoning behind it. Don't be so niave to believe that there aren't custodial parents out there just looking to make a little more spending money for themselves. It happens all the time!
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
johannah11 said:
I find the smugness of these replies to be nothing short of inane and out of touch with reality.
then YOU tell the Iowa Leglislature. Otherwise, who give's a crap what you think?

$327 a month is an absurdly small amount...sorry, but that is true!!!
And what amount would you consider fair? $1,000 10,000. Guess what? The Iowa Leglislature has alreayd established the amount and they didn't consult you.
$327 hardly begins to cover the expenses of clothing, food, housing, daycare, medical care, etc. If her ex-husband has the capacity to pay more, why shouldn't the children benefit?
And why shouldn't the children benefit from HER contributions?
Oh, the only appropriate benefit is that now during the summer vacation visitation, he can take them on fabulous Disney dad vacations?
Actually, most father's I know can't afford disneyland. Not after paying for two families. And if you don't like the way things work, do what I advise all custodial parents do in the same situation. Give custody to the NCP then live on the OTHER side.
If the father was already paying a meaningful amount, I might feel differently, but $327 does not begin to defray the cost of raising a child. The poster is hardly living in the lap of luxury on $327 a month, so why the snide remarks about a mansion, cosmetic surgery, cars?
and what is a reasonable amount to you? Would it be what the Iowa leglislature and the courts have awarded or some arbitrary amount that the custodial parent is allowed to set?
The rest of you were sadly off target.
and you are an idiot.
 

genivieve

Member
327.00 a month is not sh#t for two kids, which tell me this. The ex does not make nearly anything for income. So it comes down to this. MOST people who do receive sums of money like that at once always blow it within a year. The second year they are pawning everything off at half the retail price for cash.

So the ex is gonna run out buy a big house, a couple of nice cars, a Bermuda vacation, and piss away what ever else he can on stupid things . So by the time this woman does file for modification he will be selling the new BMW and looking to buy a Stratus. There is a saying for people that come in money like this, though I really cant repeat it. LOL. OP dont waste your time whinning and blatting about it. If your SO worried about your kids missing out, send them over to Dads for awhile.
 
I was not stating that the OP should be entitled to "living in the lap of luxury." As many of you posted, child support is based on a proportional ability to pay so if the financial circumstances of the NCP change, doesn't the proportional ability pay also change?

I strongly object to the knee-jerk reaction that the OP was a gold digger looking to take advantage of ther ex's good fortune. If someone has a net worth of a half a million, then $327/month for child support is absurdly small. And I did not suggest that all NCPs can afford to take their kids to Disneyland...what I DID say, was that if the NCP suddenly becomes wealthy (as is the case here), what is wrong with increasing child support? Do the children only get to benefit by the frills the NCP can now provide? Increasing child support from $327 a month in a long long way from providing anyone the means to live in the lap of luxury.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
genivieve said:
327.00 a month is not sh#t for two kids, which tell me this. The ex does not make nearly anything for income. So it comes down to this. MOST people who do receive sums of money like that at once always blow it within a year. The second year they are pawning everything off at half the retail price for cash.

So the ex is gonna run out buy a big house, a couple of nice cars, a Bermuda vacation, and piss away what ever else he can on stupid things . So by the time this woman does file for modification he will be selling the new BMW and looking to buy a Stratus. There is a saying for people that come in money like this, though I really cant repeat it. LOL. OP dont waste your time whinning and blatting about it. If your SO worried about your kids missing out, send them over to Dads for awhile.
Some people never get it.

First of all for all the idiots who think they know what they are talking about, show me the Iowa statute stipulating grounds to modify child support. THEN maybe you have something to talk about.

Then come back here and give me the inheritance tax liability that must be first paid before any award is made.

and lastly, show me the Iowa Child support calculator and where it provides for more than is awarded in this case for two children.

Oh, and all of you geniuses tell me WHY the court has awarded the amount it did? IT will be based on information that the poster never submitted and guess why? Because she knows it's relevant and doesn't want to muddy the waters with facts.

Geeez is there an idiot competition tonight? :rolleyes:
 

genivieve

Member
Maybe you should learn to read. I never stated anything about GETTING a modification. Who the hell says she cant march her ass down to court and file for one? Oh the judge will listen to her, sure any judge would. BUT I NEVER SAID SHE WOULD RECEIVE A MODIFICATION DUE TO HER EX'S TINY LITTLE INHERITANCE. Illiterate.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
genivieve said:
Maybe you should learn to read. I never stated anything about GETTING a modification. Who the hell says she cant march her ass down to court and file for one? Oh the judge will listen to her, sure any judge would. BUT I NEVER SAID SHE WOULD RECEIVE A MODIFICATION DUE TO HER EX'S TINY LITTLE INHERITANCE. Illiterate.
Hey bitch, go back and read this ENTIRE thread then don't bother replying to anything else.

You have neither the understanding nor background to give legal advice.
 
BelizeBreeze said:
Oh, and all of you geniuses tell me WHY the court has awarded the amount it did? IT will be based on information that the poster never submitted and guess why? Because she knows it's relevant and doesn't want to muddy the waters with facts.
Oh, I guess your a mind reader and can divine the motivations of the OP?

BelizeBreeze said:
Geeez is there an idiot competition tonight?
Yep, and you were the first one in line to enter!

By the way, the ability to use curse words does not prove your expertise in anything nor disprove anyone's elses expertise. It just futher underscores your inanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top