waive to recieve maintence

[621kl]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?WI
If you have to pay family support, do you also have to waive your right to recieve maintenance?
Such as "Maintenance to Jeff is permenantly waived and shall be denied by WI stat 767.59 (1c)(b). Maintenance to Sara is held open until the expiration of Jeff's family support obligation."
If in the future, Jeff's income drops below Sara's income, Jeff can go back to court and ask for modification (reduction) of the family support, but can Jeff request to recieve maintenance from Sara?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?WI
If you have to pay family support, do you also have to waive your right to recieve maintenance?
Such as "Maintenance to Jeff is permenantly waived and shall be denied by WI stat 767.59 (1c)(b). Maintenance to Sara is held open until the expiration of Jeff's family support obligation."
If in the future, Jeff's income drops below Sara's income, Jeff can go back to court and ask for modification (reduction) of the family support, but can Jeff request to recieve maintenance from Sara?

Permanently waived means permanently waived, so no.

Also, the whole "family support obligation" bit is a serious problem, tax wise. Maintenance (ie alimony) is normally taxable income to the receiver and tax deductible to the payer. However, when maintenance and child support are combined into the "family support obligation" and tied to the children becoming legal adults, then its no longer deductible. The IRS treats it all as child support.

 

[621kl]

Will the court approve the decee if the payer (Jeff) does not waiver the right to maintenance and wants it held open until the family support obligation is complete?

Thank you for your comments. I will review the tax issues.

 

[Bali Hai]

Will the court approve the decee if the payer (Jeff) does not waiver the right to maintenance and wants it held open until the family support obligation is complete?

Thank you for your comments. I will review the tax issues.

It sounds like Jeff wants to keep the door open if future circumstances might result in the court ordering Sara to pay him maintenance (alimony).

In my opinion, Jeff has a better chance of being struck by lightning.

 

[tuffbrk]

This is rather confusing. How can a payer ever waive maintenance? Maintenance for themselves?! Folks don't realize how difficult it is to obtain a modification. Typically, if it is known at the time of the divorce that circumstances are expected to change in the immediate future, it eliminates the ability to file for a change in circumstances.

That's only pertinent if I'm understanding the question being asked in the first place.

 

[LdiJ]

Will the court approve the decee if the payer (Jeff) does not waiver the right to maintenance and wants it held open until the family support obligation is complete?

Thank you for your comments. I will review the tax issues.

Why do you want it held open? Are you thinking that waiving the right to maintenance (spousal support/alimony) will somehow waive the right to child support if you ever end up with custody of the children? Or are you thinking that somehow 10 years down the road if something changes that you will be able to get maintenance? Where are you going with this?, because it seems as though you are focusing on something that is largely irrelevant to the future.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Why do you want it held open? Are you thinking that waiving the right to maintenance (spousal support/alimony) will somehow waive the right to child support if you ever end up with custody of the children? Or are you thinking that somehow 10 years down the road if something changes that you will be able to get maintenance? Where are you going with this?, because it seems as though you are focusing on something that is largely irrelevant to the future.

Perhaps OP thinks "Sarah" is going to get a MacArthur grant... Or win a Nobel prize for work done during the marriage... or Fields Medal?

 

[621kl]

Waiver when payers continued income is in question

Situation: Jeff is afraid he will lose his job and/or settle for a lower paying job (to stay close to his kids, 50-50 placement) with in the next 3 years. If he loses his job, Sara now makes more than Jeff. If Jeff agrees (signs the MSA) ""Maintenance to Jeff is permanently waived and shall be denied by WI stat 767.59 (1c)(b)." then he is SOL for being able to collect maintenance from Sara. Is this a correct interpretation?

 

[LdiJ]

Situation: Jeff is afraid he will lose his job and/or settle for a lower paying job (to stay close to his kids, 50-50 placement) with in the next 3 years. If he loses his job, Sara now makes more than Jeff. If Jeff agrees (signs the MSA) ""Maintenance to Jeff is permanently waived and shall be denied by WI stat 767.59 (1c)(b)." then he is SOL for being able to collect maintenance from Sara. Is this a correct interpretation?

Yes, but even without that phrase being included it would be virtually impossible for him to get a maintenance award from Sara three years after the divorce is final. Maintenance is something that you either get ordered as part of the divorce decree, or you are basically SOL. Maintenance is based on what happened during the marriage. Neither one of you are responsible for the other's choices after the divorce is final.

 

[Bali Hai]

Situation: Jeff is afraid he will lose his job and/or settle for a lower paying job (to stay close to his kids, 50-50 placement) with in the next 3 years. If he loses his job, Sara now makes more than Jeff. If Jeff agrees (signs the MSA) ""Maintenance to Jeff is permanently waived and shall be denied by WI stat 767.59 (1c)(b)." then he is SOL for being able to collect maintenance from Sara. Is this a correct interpretation?

Jeff will never (now or ever) "collect" maintenance from Sara. That just ain't going to happen in this life or the next.

Jeff should instead be resisting the "Maintenance to Sara is held open until the expiration of Jeff's family support obligation"part of the clause. This is important because a court will have the option of awarding Sara maintenance perhaps for life.

Sara in the meantime will no doubt work as hard as she can to ensure Jeff will continue paying the maintenance for as long as possible into the future.

 

[LdiJ]

Jeff will never (now or ever) "collect" maintenance from Sara. That just ain't going to happen in this life or the next.

Jeff should instead be resisting the "Maintenance to Sara is held open until the expiration of Jeff's family support obligation"part of the clause. This is important because a court will have the option of awarding Sara maintenance perhaps for life.

Sara in the meantime will no doubt work as hard as she can to ensure Jeff will continue paying the maintenance for as long as possible into the future.

Bali, that clause is NOT putting Jeff at risk for paying lifetime maintenance. "Family Support" is a combination of maintenance and child support. Therefore its only be held open until the child(ren) age out of child support.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali, that clause is NOT putting Jeff at risk for paying lifetime maintenance. "Family Support" is a combination of maintenance and child support. Therefore its only be held open until the child(ren) age out of child support.

Maintenance to Sara has a three year duration? If that is what that clause means, then say it that way.

 

[LdiJ]

Maintenance to Sara has a three year duration? If that is what that clause means, then say it that way.

We don't know how old the children are, therefore we have no idea how long it will be until they age out.

 

[Bali Hai]

We don't know how old the children are, therefore we have no idea how long it will be until they age out.

I miss interpreted OP's three year statement. My apology.

If maintenance ends when the children age out, then say it that way. To me that clause means when the children age out the court will review whether the maintenance should continue. Am I wrong?

Or does "held open" mean that Sara can go back to court and ask for more whenever she wants?

Either way, I don't like it.

 

[621kl]

Non-modifiable family support?

Family support is for 7 years, the child ages out in 6 years. Jeff's employment is contract work. The contract ends in three years, that's why the speculation that his income may be reduced.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the family support non-modifiable?

Again, thank you for your information. Enen though this had been confusing, the information is helpful.