• 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.

What are the New Wife's Rights? (Me)

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

D

DJLWF

Guest
What is the name of your state? California

My husband's ex-wife, whom he divorced in July 2001, had recently served him to give her copies of OUR 2002 income tax return. His ex-attorney said she has the right to do this every year and he can do it back. He pays her spousal support is why I guess. Well no secret she plans to never remarry so she'll be able to do this forever!!! I'm not crazy about her knowing what I earn. Right now, not much, I work temp jobs and am job hunting, but if I want to attain a good-paying job, she'll chase for more. See this is how it works: The court says she isn't entitled to any of my income, mine is irrelavent. But then they say, when I'm earning money, it lessens my husbands burdens, so she can try to chase for more. Well maybe I want a good paying job, and don't want to sit home all day. Maybe I'd like to have nice things, but without everything of mine being her right to know, or her business too. I didn't marry her, or sleep with her. What are my rights????:mad:
 


H

hexeliebe

Guest
As long as you file Married returns then she has a right to the information. However, ask your attorney if filing separate returns will require only that hubby submit HIS return.

I'm not up on that issue.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
YOU are not a party to the divorce or any agreements. Black out YOUR info on the tax returns. She has a right to his info.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
nextwife said:
YOU are not a party to the divorce or any agreements. Black out YOUR info on the tax returns. She has a right to his info.

My response:

Not a good idea. In fact, it's a costly idea. Real bad advice, Nextwife. Even filing "separately" won't help. This is the unfortunate "cross" our writer must bear for having married someone with court ordered obligations.

Specifically (apart from new spouse income reported on a joint tax return for purposes of applying the § 4059(a) deduction, third party income is "relevant" in a child support proceeding only to the extent it reduces the obligor parent's basic living expenses, thus increasing his or her "disposable income" available to spend on the children. Consequently, the party seeking compelled disclosure of third party financial information in a child support proceeding must meet the threshold burden of showing the third party actually contributes to the other parent's living expenses. [Harris v. Super.Ct. (Smets), supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at 668, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d at 569--third party's wage statements and tax returns not subject to discovery in child support case on mere showing she rented a room to obligor parent]

Family Code Section 4059(a) "clearly evidences [a legislative] intent to ensure that the deduction for tax liability accurately reflects the actual taxes due and payable by a parent." Therefore, when a parent is remarried to a wage-earning spouse with whom the parent is filing a joint tax return, the couple's combined gross income must be considered; otherwise, accurate calculation of the parent's actual tax liability is not possible. [County of Tulare v. Campbell (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 847, 854, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 906 (brackets added); Marriage of Carlsen (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 212, 219, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 630, 634; see also Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1163, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 482--considering new spouse income only to facilitate obligor's income tax computation "was proper"]

Ca Fam § 4057.5 no bar:
As will be discussed, the Family Code prohibits consideration of a new spouse's income in calculating child support except in certain "extraordinary circumstances" (Ca Fam § 4057.5).

However, this statute has been interpreted as barring only direct consideration of new mate income in the child support computation--i.e., courts cannot raise or lower child support because a parent has remarried. [County of Tulare v. Campbell, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 854, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 906]

By contrast, § 4057.5 is no bar to a determination of a parent's actual tax liability based on combined gross income of the parent and his or her new spouse when they file a joint tax return. [County of Tulare v. Campbell, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 856, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 907; Marriage of Carlsen, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 219, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 634]

"The plain language of section 4059 demonstrates that the purpose of the section is to ensure accurate calculation of an obligor parent's actual net disposable income, a determination which must take into account the fact of remarriage and subsequent change in net income and number of dependents when the parent and new spouse file a joint income tax return." To hold otherwise would be to punish the parent for remarrying and "unfairly burden[ ] the second family, an effect obviously not intended by the Legislature when it enacted section 4057.5." [County of Tulare v. Campbell, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 855-856, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 906-907 (emphasis in original); see also Marriage of Carlsen, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 219, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 634--§ 4057.5 not violated because new spouse's income "is not being used to subsidize the parents' expenses in any way"]

Calculation method:
All taxes payable on the combined income are not deducted from the obligor parent's income. Rather, the two incomes are combined to result in an adjusted gross income from which the couple's tax liability is calculated. The taxes are then apportioned between the parent and new spouse in direct proportion to their respective gross incomes. The obligor parent's actual tax liability is then deducted from his or her gross income to accurately determine his or her real net disposable income. [County of Tulare v. Campbell, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 854, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 906]

Comment:
Considering combined income of a parent and new spouse under § 4059(a) can have a significant practical effect in many cases. If a new spouse's earnings push the obligor parent into a higher income tax bracket, the parent clearly has an economic incentive to put that information before the court . . . because the higher the bracket, the greater the reduction in net disposable income, yielding more favorable formula support. Nonetheless, counsel should also note that Ca Fam § 4057.5 permits direct consideration of a new spouse's income in computing the amount of child support where failure to do so would cause a child to suffer severe and extreme hardship. [See County of Tulare v. Campbell, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at 855, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d at 906-907]


IAAL
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Ok, guess I'm wrong. Out of curiousity, my prenup, the terms under which our WI marriage was entered into specifically lists our incomes as individual, and very specifically EXCLUDES me from any responsibilty for DH's premarital obligations or debts. WE do not co-mingle individual property. AS my marriage was established under the specific terms that I have no obligations in his CS case, and I have never lived in CA, if my husband's divorce were CA, would their divorce laws trump my prenup?

AS CS, for example, is, as we are constantly told, uncaring of the obligors debts or other financial obligations, I'm uncertain, why a reduction in them is relevant.
 
H

hexeliebe

Guest
Point of order O' Captain my Captain.

He pays her spousal support is why I guess.
As to the original post, I read it to stipulate that spousal support, not child support, is the issue. Now, I am not versed enough to suppose this would make a difference in the statutory relevance, so I yield the floor.
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
nextwife said:
Ok, guess I'm wrong. Out of curiousity, my prenup, the terms under which our WI marriage was entered into specifically lists our incomes as individual, and very specifically EXCLUDES me from any responsibilty for DH's premarital obligations or debts. WE do not co-mingle individual property. AS my marriage was established under the specific terms that I have no obligations in his CS case, and I have never lived in CA, if my husband's divorce were CA, would their divorce laws trump my prenup?

AS CS, for example, is, as we are constantly told, uncaring of the obligors debts or other financial obligations, I'm uncertain, why a reduction in them is relevant.

My response:

Your Prenuptial Agreement is only good as between you and your husband. It has no force of law as to third parties, or exemption from a court order for your husband to prove all household income. While your husband CANNOT cause you to pay any of his court-ordered obligations, and while a court cannot order you to contribute to his obligations, opposing counsel and the court can put a "world of pressure" on your husband to cough up the "household income" paperwork - - including YOUR Federal and State taxes.

No, the court has NO jurisdiction over you, and cannot order YOU to directly do anything. The court in California HAS jurisdiction over your husband - - and therein lies the rub. It's called "indirect pressure" on you. The court can pit his freedom against YOUR decision to maintain your income privacy for purposes of the court enforcing its own orders.

IAAL
 

nextwife

Senior Member
And I couldn't counter by having my attorney provide my prenup as evidence that he has no authority over me to allow him to provide it to her?
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
nextwife said:
And I couldn't counter by having my attorney provide my prenup as evidence that he has no authority over me to allow him to provide it to her?

My response:

Sweetheart, I love you, but you're just not getting it. Your prenup is USELESS as to third-parties and/or the court! You can waive that pre-nup around like a red flag, but it still would have NO legal force or effect on his ex-wife, or upon the court orders imposed on your husband!

Except as between YOU and your HUSBAND, it has no force or affect on ANYONE ELSE. A private agreement does NOT trump the jurisdiction of a court.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

IAAL
 
Last edited:
H

hexeliebe

Guest
O.K. Kids time to watch Donald Trump fire someone. But I'll be back to see if anyone has an answer to MY question.

Gawd, I feel like the odd man out. :confused:
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
hexeliebe said:
Point of order O' Captain my Captain.



As to the original post, I read it to stipulate that spousal support, not child support, is the issue. Now, I am not versed enough to suppose this would make a difference in the statutory relevance, so I yield the floor.

My response:

No, it doesn't make any difference - - IF it was an open-ended spousal support agreement; i.e., allowing upward and downward modifications.

IAAL
 

nextwife

Senior Member
No, I understand what you are saying.

But here's the thing. Theoretically. If I have a very good year, and worked my backside off a few years to make enough to pay for our adoption and take some time off when my kid came here, and MY income is used to readjust his payments, then aren't I being obligated to continue to provide that income, since his payment amount is now dependent upon my temporarily higher income? If I want to cut back, aren't the courts who utilized my income obligating ME to subsidize his payments and continue working full time, even if I would have the savings that would have allowed me the time off?

So wouldn't including my income in calculating DHS payment create an OBLIGATION for me to continue to provide that income, even though I had only planned on working those extra hours until I saved enough to pay for the adoption and time off?
 
Last edited:
D

DJLWF

Guest
Even though there is no child support involved, they were both grown and gone when he moved out. The ex-spouse works, when she feels like it and has to prove that her needs were not being met with original judgement, correct?

So even though she can try to modify, if she has gotten herself into a financial mess, it should not be his problem, he was re-married when she created the mess.

As far as the income tax return, we've been told she has a right to his, but he also has a right to hers. Do you know if he didn't request hers until February, due to her requesting his in January, does he have to wait until December to request her 2003 income tax return? Is there a limit of yearly request(s) only, or can he request it in June 2004, she should have her taxes filed by then.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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