How do you stop a Minnesota COLA?

[sandtrap]

I have been divorced here in Minnesota since 1996 and paying alimony and medical insurance premiums for my former wife against my will since 1997. She recently filed for a COLA (cost of living adjustment) and I want to stop it. My income has been reduced due to unemployment since 2009 and unemployment compensation ran out last year. I have other sources of income from inheritance that caused a slight increase from 2011 to 2012, but it is still substancially less than it was in the divorce decree of 1996. Should not the overall decrease override the short-term increase to justify stopping the COLA?

I filed a motion to stop the COLA and it failed, but the decision seems to have been made with focus only on the recent short-term increase that still is much less than the 1996 amount on which the spousal maintenance was based. I am considering an appeal for a new hearing because the decision is not justified by the evidence. I have until Jan. 4 to file.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It sounds like you are attempting to stop a hemorrhage with a band-aid. I suggest you motion the court for a child support recalculation based on your reduced income.

 

[ecmst12]

What child support?

 

[TheGeekess]

I have been divorced here in Minnesota since 1996 and paying alimony and medical insurance premiums for my former wife against my will since 1997. She recently filed for a COLA (cost of living adjustment) and I want to stop it. My income has been reduced due to unemployment since 2009 and unemployment compensation ran out last year. I have other sources of income from inheritance that caused a slight increase from 2011 to 2012, but it is still substancially less than it was in the divorce decree of 1996. Should not the overall decrease override the short-term increase to justify stopping the COLA?

I filed a motion to stop the COLA and it failed, but the decision seems to have been made with focus only on the recent short-term increase that still is much less than the 1996 amount on which the spousal maintenance was based. I am considering an appeal for a new hearing because the decision is not justified by the evidence. I have until Jan. 4 to file.

It sounds like you are attempting to stop a hemorrhage with a band-aid. I suggest you motion the court for a child support recalculation based on your reduced income.

Where do you see CS in that OP?

 

[Proserpina]

I have been divorced here in Minnesota since 1996 and paying alimony and medical insurance premiums for my former wife against my will since 1997. She recently filed for a COLA (cost of living adjustment) and I want to stop it. My income has been reduced due to unemployment since 2009 and unemployment compensation ran out last year. I have other sources of income from inheritance that caused a slight increase from 2011 to 2012, but it is still substancially less than it was in the divorce decree of 1996. Should not the overall decrease override the short-term increase to justify stopping the COLA?

I filed a motion to stop the COLA and it failed, but the decision seems to have been made with focus only on the recent short-term increase that still is much less than the 1996 amount on which the spousal maintenance was based. I am considering an appeal for a new hearing because the decision is not justified by the evidence. I have until Jan. 4 to file.

You really need to take out your court order and run the numbers.

What's the COLA from 1997-today, dollar-wise?

Is it lesser or greater than the overall change in income?

 

[Doreen]

If you are considering seeking a rehearing or appealing the decision, you should first research how the following (and any other) case law may (or may not) apply to the facts in your case.

In Minnesota, child support and spousal maintenance obligations are subject to biennial cost-of-living adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.75 Subd. 1. Generally, the implementation of a cost-of-living adjustment, “attempts to prevent an award of child support or maintenance that was determined to be appropriate at the time it was set…from becoming inequitable due to an inflation-based degradation of its relative value.” Grachek v. Grachek, 750 N.W. 2d 328, 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) review denied.

Notably, cost-of-living adjustments are distinct from a modification of spousal maintenance, and no burden exists on the obligee to show that the current maintenance award is unreasonable and unfair. Id. At 331. Instead, the obligor has the burden of demonstrating why the cost-of-living adjustment should be reduced or eliminated. See Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W. 2d 262 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) review denied.

In order to maintain the continuing integrity of spousal maintenance and child support awards against the effects of inflation, Minnesota law states that a cost-of-living adjustment shall take effect unless the obligor establishes an insufficient increase in income to support the adjustment. Minn. Stat. 518A.75 Subd. 3. In contrast, the waiver or reduction of the cost-of-living adjustment by the Court is merely permissive, and a court is not required to reduce or eliminate a cost-of-living adjustment except where the clear facts support that an obligor’s only present source of income does not provide for a COLA. See Mower County Human Services v. Meyer, 543 N.W. 2d 682, 685 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that a district court abused its discretion in applying a cost-of-living adjustment to a child support award where the award was based on income derived solely from fixed annuity payments).

Further, the court has broad discretion in implementing cost-of-living adjustments and is not limited only to a consideration of whether or not an obligor’s income specifically provides for a cost-of-living adjustment. Rather, the court may look to any other “increase in income” as well as considering the obligor’s “total financial situation.” McClenahan v. Warner, 461 N.W. 2d 509, 511 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).

http://ffdavislaw.com/cost-living-adjustment/

 

[sandtrap]

courts are insane

There have been several increases in the obligation since 1996. It has changed from 600 per month to 783. My income, however, has decreased about 24%. Last spring I filed a motion to reduce the obligation and it was denied. The court has the insane idea that a woman has no obligation to support herself. This may have been true 75 years ago, but it certainly is not today.

My duty to provide for my wife stopped at the divorce. I only agreed to help support her until she would become self-supporting. I only agreed to pay health insurance premiums until she would get it from an employer. She has an obligation to support herself just as we all do.

Since I have not comitted a crime, why am I being punished more severely than most criminals? She was the one that was abusive and unfaithful, yet I am being forced to support her.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Where do you see CS in that OP?

Misread the thread at the time. I was having an anxiety attack. Sorry OP, my response was not much help.

 

[Proserpina]

There have been several increases in the obligation since 1996. It has changed from 600 per month to 783. My income, however, has decreased about 24%. Last spring I filed a motion to reduce the obligation and it was denied. The court has the insane idea that a woman has no obligation to support herself. This may have been true 75 years ago, but it certainly is not today.

My duty to provide for my wife stopped at the divorce. I only agreed to help support her until she would become self-supporting. I only agreed to pay health insurance premiums until she would get it from an employer. She has an obligation to support herself just as we all do.

Since I have not comitted a crime, why am I being punished more severely than most criminals? She was the one that was abusive and unfaithful, yet I am being forced to support her.

I'm sorry, but you have just said yourself - you AGREED to certain things.

The court is not punishing you. You agreed to do X, Y and/or Z. The court expects you to uphold your end of the bargain. That's about the long and short of it, unfortunately.

 

[Bali Hai]

There have been several increases in the obligation since 1996. It has changed from 600 per month to 783. My income, however, has decreased about 24%. Last spring I filed a motion to reduce the obligation and it was denied. The court has the insane idea that a woman has no obligation to support herself. This may have been true 75 years ago, but it certainly is not today.

My duty to provide for my wife stopped at the divorce. I only agreed to help support her until she would become self-supporting. I only agreed to pay health insurance premiums until she would get it from an employer. She has an obligation to support herself just as we all do.

Since I have not comitted a crime, why am I being punished more severely than most criminals? She was the one that was abusive and unfaithful, yet I am being forced to support her.

Never agree to pay alimony for any reason. Too late in your case.

 

[CSO286]

There have been several increases in the obligation since 1996. It has changed from 600 per month to 783. My income, however, has decreased about 24%. Last spring I filed a motion to reduce the obligation and it was denied. The court has the insane idea that a woman has no obligation to support herself. This may have been true 75 years ago, but it certainly is not today.

My duty to provide for my wife stopped at the divorce. I only agreed to help support her until she would become self-supporting. I only agreed to pay health insurance premiums until she would get it from an employer. She has an obligation to support herself just as we all do.

Since I have not comitted a crime, why am I being punished more severely than most criminals? She was the one that was abusive and unfaithful, yet I am being forced to support her.

Your income has decreased 24% of what? The income you had when the order was established? Or 24% of what you were making a year ago?

How much has your income changed from 1996?

Define punished? What is the punishment you are experiencing? The alimony you agreed to pay?
(Tip: I work in MN and enforcing child support and spousal support is my job.)

 

[nextwife]

Did you not have any time limit in your alimony agreement, or did you actually agree to permanent alimony?

Personally, I think not pursuing an indepent living is moronic on her part. If you drop dead tomorrow of a heart attack or whatever, she's up a creek financially. And, statistically, the odds are much greater that you will predecese her, than the reverse. So, at some point it is likely she will suddenly find herself with no income, if she has not used this time to learn to support herself.

Heck, in 16 years, one can complete an undergrad degree AND medical school! I started a different career at 52, and my sib went back to school on their own at 40 and did so. This whole notion that a woman of 40 or 50 is presumed no longer capable of learning and growing is an insult to women.

 

[sandtrap]

I did not agree to pay at this time. I agreed in 1996 and my understanding was it was always for the purpose of helping the divorcing spouse rehabilitate. That is what I agreed to. For anyone to assume a life-long commitment to it is insane.

My income is now reduced from what it was in 1996 by 24% of what it was in 1996.

I didn't know it had to be specified as temporary or permanent. I did not know there was such a thing as permanent spousal maintenance until 6 months after the divorce while talking to the first lawyer I had ever retained in my life. He and I filed a motion to vacate.on the grounds of fraud. I think it would have succeeded, but he took too long and the hearing was 1 day past the 1 year mark so it failed.

At the time I signed the agreement I did not know divorce was a court order. I thought it was between me and my wife and the court just made it legal and recorded. I also thought the courts would make it fair. I had faith in my Xwife and faith in the courts to make it fair. I also trusted in the one paralegal that my wife and I hired together. I did not know the system was adversarial.

I'm 59 and my Xwife is 55.

 

[ecmst12]

You signed the agreement, apparently without reading it, so you SHOULD have known what you were agreeing to. That you didn't read the agreement and understand what it said before signing it, that you didn't hire a professional to advocate for you or at least explain things to you if you didn't understand it, that's all on you and it's also irrelevent. The only thing that is relevant is what your court order says. If the agreement is not modifiable, then it can't be changed no matter what happens to your income.

 

[sandtrap]

You signed the agreement, apparently without reading it, so you SHOULD have known what you were agreeing to. That you didn't read the agreement and understand what it said before signing it, that you didn't hire a professional to advocate for you or at least explain things to you if you didn't understand it, that's all on you and it's also irrelevent. The only thing that is relevant is what your court order says. If the agreement is not modifiable, then it can't be changed no matter what happens to your income.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You don't have an inkling what is relevant to me. The court order is based on false assumptions and misconceptions of what divorce is. You are on a different plane of reasoning than I, and nobody has answered my first question.

This could go on and on. You haven't heard half of it yet.

But, all I really needed was an answer to my first question, "Should not the overall decrease override the short-term increase to justify stopping the COLA?"
In the legal evaluation that is done by a judge regarding a motion to stop a COLA, if there is a substantial decrease in income over the long term, doesn't that take precedence over a short term increase?
My income a year ago was less than now, but my income now is still less than the decree amount on which the maintenance was supposed to be based.