mike67
recently joined
Reged: 03/12/11
Posts: 3
|
|
Hello. Here is the background. Separated (not formerly) for 18 months, during which I continued to direct-deposit my paycheck into the joint checking account so that there was never any interruption in paying bills, mortgage, etc. My job has been in jeopardy due to lack of billable work since June, so I've been looking for a new job. After 7 months of diligently looking, I finally got an offer, but it involves moving cross-country AND it is at a significant pay-cut. After much deliberation, I decided that these things were preferable to the unemployment that I knew was coming in the next couple months. Within a week of discussing the new employment and move with my estranged spouse, she sets up an appointment with a divorce mediator, which is something she always found an excuse as to why it wasn't a good time to do so before.
So now, my question:
I am being told that spousal support and child support will be based on my previous higher paying job rather than my new lower paying job. Is this true?
I was advised on another part of this forum that my only possible approach is if I could get a statement from my boss that he did indeed advise me that a layoff was imminent and also provide proof that I searched for and did not turn-down offers of employment that would have provided the same income level. I can do both of these things, but wanted to hear advice about whether or not it will make much difference.
I want to do everything possible to support my children, and yes...my eventual ex-wife, but I took this new job in an honest attempt to remain reasonably employed in the face of being laid-off. I can't help but feel like I'm being penalized for being proactive and realistic in a hard economic time.
Thanks in-advance for any advice/information.
|
d2njti
member
Reged: 03/05/08
Posts: 187
|
|
Regardless of what written statements you produce, she's going to argue (with good cause) that you have established an ability to earn a certain level of income. You are going to argue that the economy and job market is now different and you are no longer have the same earning potential now or in the near future. Both are probably good arguments, so you can see where this is going - who has the best attorney and experts.
|
hanzblinx
enthusiast
Reged: 08/13/10
Posts: 380
|
|
Indeed, she will argue that she is a helpless worthless woman and cannot make it on her own. Then when she steps out of the courtroom will boast about how independent and strong she is. Women are funny that way.
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Speaking of helpless and worthless, meet hanz
|
yregna
veteran
Reged: 07/25/06
Posts: 1265
Loc: Oregon
|
|
Maury,
Your jabs would have more impact if you didn't have to pay for a woman's company, jack(a$$). How in God's name can you continue to defend the parade of gold-digging pond scum females posting on her over and over and over looking for their ticket on the alimony gravy train ? You are seriously desperate for female company.
Mike67,
Quote " I can't help but feel like I'm being penalized for being proactive and realistic in a hard economic time. "
Mike, the marriage contract is all about penalizing the person with the penis. Whatever your legal training, obviously it didn't cover contract law. I wouldn't give her another cent without a court order, in her eyes ( AND THE COURTS I MIGHT ADD ) you are NOTHING. Not the kids father, not a person, NOTHING except a check writing machine.
In fact they are not your children. If you were smart, you'd never work again. Why work when it isn't your money ? Its her money, remember ? Quit your job and never work except cash under the table again. EVER !
--------------------
"Anything free is worth what you pay for it..."
"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get"
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Yregna --- you lost any credibility you had a long time ago with your misogynistic diatribes. I am sure you create your own misery in that regard.
There is a reason that spousal support is provided for in law. It is part of investing in a marital partnership. Certainly, not all people who would like to have it qualify, nor should they. However, it is appropriate in many cases.
Calling it being a gold digger across the board exposes your ignorance.
|
yregna
veteran
Reged: 07/25/06
Posts: 1265
Loc: Oregon
|
|
Perhaps you could clarify where alimony is fair ?
" investing in the marital partnership " Is that what man does when he pays a prostitute ? Please clarify your thinking on this issue:
--------------------
"Anything free is worth what you pay for it..."
"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get"
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
Now I support alimony in LIMITED cases. For example, if a person puts their spouse through medical school, then the spouse divorces them and takes the high income away with them, well, yes, the losing spouse is entitled to alimony.
I also feel that ANY cheating spouse should have to PAY alimony, regardless of the situation.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
I am not sure why you believe I need to clarify my thinking on anything to an angry jackarse like you.
Regardless, I believe the law sets out factors that define when a court considers and when it uis likely to award support. I clarify those in my responses to people faced with that situation.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
I assume you quick replied...
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
