DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Without knowing your spouse is running up credit cards doesn't matter in most states. My ex took out $30K in cash advances in the year prior to your divorce (unknown to me), and I was "awarded" half the debt. She said she blew it all at a [censored], which I knew wasn't the truth....she hates gambling. As I figured, a couple years later I found where she had parked the money.....with a relative....preparing for divorce.
|
english7
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/27/09
Posts: 3000
|
|
Ouch!
|
javajunkiee
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/08
Posts: 3153
Loc: SC
|
|
[quote]"She'll probably get a minimum of short term support."
There is absolutely nothing on which to base that opinion I am afraid. [/quote]
You're right - the OP didn't give any kind of income info. My bad. Guess my response is a knee-jerk reaction after years of seeing posts on this board. Although, if she does make less, tells the judge that she couldn't make it without help, and doesn't want to uproot her daughter, well... they cynic in me says she'll get exclusive use of the home and he'll be ordered to pay something until the final hearing.
--------------------
Marriage doesn't come with a money-back guarantee.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2006
|
|
[quote]You have no idea how the judge will rule. You're speculating just like anyone else here. [/quote]
Actually, in a community property state, it's pretty much a given how a judge will rule.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2006
|
|
[quote]"And if it is in a community property state, it will be 50/50. Which it should be."
So you think one party SHOULD be allowed to spend the couple into bankruptcy, then SPLIT the debt with the main wage earner? Why is that? [/quote]
Because it is a JOINT debt. And it would be joint regardless of who did the spending. And as stated, he's going to have a hard time saying he didn't consent since there is a very good possibility (please look up the definition of this before you go and say that I am saying he knew for sure about it) that he KNEW about it. At the very least, a judge is going to want to know WHY he didn't question how she was paying for all of the stuff she was paying.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2006
|
|
[quote][quote]"And if it is in a community property state, it will be 50/50. Which it should be."
So you think one party [WOMAN] SHOULD be allowed to spend the couple into bankruptcy, then SPLIT the debt with the main wage earner?[MAN] Why is that? [/quote]
Edited for accuracy.... [/quote]
To bad your edit for "accuracy" is wrong. The statement was fine just the way it was.
Of course, we don't know who the main wage earner is. It was not posted.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2006
|
|
[quote]So if I get a credit card and put YOUR name on it, thus you did NOT consent, you have knowledge of it? [/quote]
That's called fraud. Where did the original poster say that his stbx got a credit card in his name? From what I read, all of the debt is in her name.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2006
|
|
[quote][quote]"That doesn't mean he's liable for any of it. If the judge finds she was being wanton in her spending, they can assign all the debt to her (which they should)"
I don't think the creditors have to follow a divorce decree. [/quote]
If the debt is in her name, then he wouldn't be worrying about creditors. If my wife opened up a cc in her name and spent huge amounts on it, it's not going to affect my credit rating if she doesn't pay it off. [/quote]
But if he doesn't pay it, he could very well be ordered to pay spousal support,even if the incomes are similar, until his portion is paid. And THAT will have an impact on his ability to get credit.
And his stbx can also go and get a judgement against him and properly record it. Which will have an impact on his credit. And if the OP lives in a state that allows creditors to garnish, then the stbx can also get a garnishment order. Which will have an impact on his ability to get credit.
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Your post is absurd. First, even if what you say is correct in Colorado and there has been an increase in alimony awards, there is nothing in the post that supports any conclusion about spousal support from a factual basis. None of the criteria that the court is required to look at based on Colorado statutes is included in the post other than length of marriage. Moreover, the court cannot ignore the law although it may use the law to support its judgemennts.
Second, the person does not say they are from Colorado which makes the conversation on that state's particular law in consequential to your conclusion that spousal support may be paid.
Perhaps you should put aside whatever individual agenda you have on the issue and look at the law.
Gr8dad - he said that she ran up debts without his consent. That does not mean he did not know about it. In fact, it implies that he did because he did not agree to it. He also does not relate what thopse debts may have been for.
A Judge may certainly assign debt as they feel is equitable, which does not mean equal. However,the presumption is for an equal division. Overriding that presumption is extremely difficult and almost never occurs. Where I have seen it occur is in instances where a person is taking vacations with a paramore, buying gifts for a paramore, incurring gambling debts unknown to the other party and things of that nature.
|
coco
recently joined
Reged: 07/23/10
Posts: 23
|
|
If someone doesn't specify the state, in a question about alimony, they deserve to be warned in case they are in Colorado. People will give advice based on the experiences in their more reasonable states, and if the person happens to be in CO, they are blindsided.
I have looked at and experienced the Colorado law. There are absolutely *no* concrete guidelines for amount or duration of alimony, and absolutely *no* limits. It is left entirely up to the judge.
The only limiting factor for permanent alimony mentioned *anywhere* in Colorado divorce statutes is mentioned under the guidelines for modifications, where it states that a modification is only considered when CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES make the original award "unfair." BTW, this statute was changed a few years ago because originally instead of "unfair" it said "unconscionable." Unfortunately, the judges still cling to unconscionable, which is why modifications are almost *never* made.
Because there is *nothing* in the statutes defining amount or duration, there are absolutely *no* grounds for appeal of an alimony award in Colorado. There is case law covering literally any award a judge can conjure up. Any appeal can be denied based on existing case law showing a similar award.
People who don't live hear can't imagine the reality. Here is a great example: There was a story on the AP wires that went nationwide about a woman who died in childbirth, and whose baby was born without a heartbeat. Both miraculously survived.
In the story it says the father lost his job because he had to stay home to tend to the mother, the baby, and their two other children.
Now, get this, it also says that during the ordeal, HE WAS JAILED for failing to pay alimony to his ex-wife. What judicial system would remove the caretaker and father from a family during a time of dire need, to put him in jail for failure to pay alimony to an ex-wife, when the reason he couldn't pay was that he was tending to his sick wife and newborn? What SOCIETAL purpose was there to do this? Taxpayers had to pay to have him processed and incarcerated, while his family sat at home and suffered? WTF? Someone please tell me how this could happen? Given the financial situation, was the guy supposed to sell one of his kids to get money for the alimony or what?
Oh, of course, this situation took place in COLORADO, the most forked up state for alimony anywhere.
Now, here is an absolutely fascinating element to this story: the original AP story mentions that Mr. Hermanstorfer was jailed for non-payment of alimony during this ordeal. Some of the news outlets reporting this story REMOVED that sentence from the story when they published it. Why do you think this was done?
[censored]://[censored].boston.com/community/stories_to_inspire/articles/2010/12/22/colo_family_still_in_awe_of_mom_babys_recovery/
[censored]://[censored].foxnews.com/health/2010/12/22/colo-family-awe-mom-babys-miracle-recovery/
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
