How do you stop a Minnesota COLA?

[stealth2]

You haven't heard half of it yet.

Sweetheart - we go by the info YOU provide. And you really haven't provided much. So you're getting as good as you give.

 

[ecmst12]

It's not relevent to the court. The court does not give a hoot that you didn't understand what you were agreeing to. So might as well forget that angle since it's not going to help you.

So, go get your court order and type out exactly what it says about modifications and adjustments to spousal support (without names).

 

[sandtrap]

None of the orders ever said anything about modification. That's in the rules and laws of Minnesota. I thought this forum would be able to provide some quick advice based on your knowledge of the law. The question is one of law, not specific to my case. Perhaps nobody on here has any legal knowledge, so I am wasting my time.

By the way, truth always helps me. Even if the courts don't care about it, I do.

So here's the question one more time:
If someone's income is lower than it was in the divorce decree of many years ago on which the spousal maintenance obligation was based, but higher than a year ago, does that justify stopping a cost of living increase in the obligation?

 

[CSO286]

None of the orders ever said anything about modification. That's in the rules and laws of Minnesota. I thought this forum would be able to provide some quick advice based on your knowledge of the law. The question is one of law, not specific to my case. Perhaps nobody on here has any legal knowledge, so I am wasting my time.

By the way, truth always helps me. Even if the courts don't care about it, I do.

So here's the question one more time:
If someone's income is lower than it was in the divorce decree of many years ago on which the spousal maintenance obligation was based, but higher than a year ago, does that justify stopping a cost of living increase in the obligation?

Not usually when you're talking about spousal support.

 

[Bali Hai]

None of the orders ever said anything about modification. That's in the rules and laws of Minnesota. I thought this forum would be able to provide some quick advice based on your knowledge of the law. The question is one of law, not specific to my case. Perhaps nobody on here has any legal knowledge, so I am wasting my time.

By the way, truth always helps me. Even if the courts don't care about it, I do.

So here's the question one more time:
If someone's income is lower than it was in the divorce decree of many years ago on which the spousal maintenance obligation was based, but higher than a year ago, does that justify stopping a cost of living increase in the obligation?

The answer lies within the sound and unlimited discretion of the unbias and unsuseptible to human flaws of the almighty judge who has no power over your spirit, but definately power over your ass.

You of all people should know the answer to that question having been the victim of the family court system for years.

You should know that the answers you're getting here come from a long standing premise that women should be given a free ride in life after they are married.

Now how about asking a question that you don't know the answer to.

 

[ecmst12]

OP did not get "screwed by the judge", he AGREED to the arrangement. That's not the fault of the judge or the court or the system and it has nothing to do with discretion.

 

[nextwife]

OP did not get "screwed by the judge", he AGREED to the arrangement. That's not the fault of the judge or the court or the system and it has nothing to do with discretion.

No, he did not agree to forever alimony- he likely thought he'd be a nice guy and agree to give her a hand of X dollars a month for some period of time so she could learn to be self supportive. Age 39 is plenty young enough to do that. Who'd imagine that a 38 or 39 year old woman would never want to do anything to learn how to support themselves and instead wish to be forever dependent?

He WAS very foolish for doing this without an attorney, the little he "saved" in legal costs he paid many times over. I sincerly doubt that he ever signed an agreement that stated alimony would be permanent. Did he "agree" to COLA increases? Likely not - we who WORK for a living don't get granted COLA increases just because life is costlier. Many of us have had DECREASES and income freezes. Why should scarfing off someone else ENTITLE one to increases they wouldn't get if they were out there working like the rest of us?

 

[ecmst12]

Perhaps he did not realize that he was agreeing to permanent alimony, but he has no one to blame for that but himself.

 

[Bali Hai]

Perhaps he did not realize that he was agreeing to permanent alimony, but he has no one to blame for that but himself.

I'm certain that another person in the same circumstances with no legal representation would be advised differently.

He also had faith in his Xwife and faith in the courts to make it fair. Now there was someone just asking for it, don't you agree?

Hopefully he has not remarried.

 

[Bali Hai]

No, he did not agree to forever alimony- he likely thought he'd be a nice guy and agree to give her a hand of X dollars a month for some period of time so she could learn to be self supportive. Age 39 is plenty young enough to do that. Who'd imagine that a 38 or 39 year old woman would never want to do anything to learn how to support themselves and instead wish to be forever dependent?

He WAS very foolish for doing this without an attorney, the little he "saved" in legal costs he paid many times over. I sincerly doubt that he ever signed an agreement that stated alimony would be permanent. Did he "agree" to COLA increases? Likely not - we who WORK for a living don't get granted COLA increases just because life is costlier. Many of us have had DECREASES and income freezes. Why should scarfing off someone else ENTITLE one to increases they wouldn't get if they were out there working like the rest of us?

I agree. It just goes to show that the alimony laws were conceived in lala land. When the family court gets to Oz, hopefully the Wizard has enough spare brains for them all.