DH went to the deposition hearing today

Posted by: M5M5

DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:04 AM

And basically what came out of that is...they are wanting to settle with us. I'm not sure if it's because BM no longer has the money or they realize they don't have a strong case.

IMHO, what they are wanting to do sucks on some points. They are claiming we owe her $3200.00 (and surprise they did not know that we had a $900 overrage in cs..not sure how that is going to effect anything yet) and basically...they are wanting us to pay her $100 per month on that. She can't get any more than that out of us outside of CS....HOWEVER...she also has the liberty to keep signing them up for crap, keep taking them to chiro,etc. to run the bills up..so we will never have her paid off. That is the sucky part. But at the same time, she can never ask us to pay her more than $100 per month on that outside of CS.

What do you think?

So..we are trying to come up with our own demands on that. Here is what I have so far:

-no chiro care PERIOD as long as it's not covered by insurance. If it IS covered at some point, then only upon the father's agreement may she take them to the chiro..and only then at a limited number of visits per year.

-No indoor soccer

-No Club soccer

Do you think we should include anything else? Like..the soccer camp, etc.?

See..we will have a hard time paying her $100 a month since we now have to pay for the braces and the lien on our van (we have to get the title back).

I just don't want him to be screwed. DH made it plain to them that he doesn't want all this added to the CS because he doesn't want an arrearage...but we have that $900 overpayment that shoudl be applied to this stuff..plus the stuff we billed her for that she never reimbursed us. So that should be taken out.

Oh yeah..and we do not agree with any part of the uncovered chiro that has already been spent...we are refusing to pay for that..so her $3200.00 figure should drop significantly.

I'm just confused..not feeling good either. Any advice, tips,etc?
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:28 AM

If you and your husband don't agree, don't settle. And, even if you settle, you don't have to take the first offer.

If child support is a stretch, do not agree to $100 more a month if you cannot afford it with the braces. And, medically necessary treatment covered by insurance only as agreed to in advance (in less of emergency) or mom pays entire amount.

I would not agree to pay anything you didn't authorize. I would agree to drop the overpayment and have her drop the $3200 and call it even (that's what my husband and his ex did vs. arguing as she wanted retroactive child support and he had a huge overpayment as he kept paying allimony for years after it was over as child support was low). You pay child support and braces and that is it in less you suddenly win the lottery and can afford more and at that time you renegociate. If mom wants kids in activities she pays via child support. If you can help, great, if not, ok, but don't let it be in the order that you will help.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:40 AM

Well it's already in the order that we are repsonsible for 1/2 of extra curriculars...but it has to be a joint decision. They won't settle with taking out extras entirely. So..basically right now we only agree with them playing middle and hs soccer...and band if they decide to continue with that (right now SD is saying she doesn't like it and won't do it next year...middle ss is saying he will not do it thru high school).
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:44 AM

ANother question while I'm thinking about it..with a 30K a year income..how much would you say is appropriate to be spent on extra curriculars for an entire year? See..we also want to set limits on this stuff...if we take out the no club soccer, etc. and instead having a "not to exceed" figure..then she will have to stick with that and not bill us for more than that figure in a year, whether or not she exceeds it herself or not>
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:46 AM

If your HS's earings are 30,000 yearly...I would say no more than 2,000 a year on EXTRA'S total (all the kids)!!!! Period.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:48 AM

For $30,000 a year and two families - NOTHING. Here you can't afford to live on it so I'm hoping where you live the cost of living is better. For $30,000 a year, you do the sports and activities at school and anything else you can find low cost.

Bottom line, do not agree to anything you cannot afford. If you are paying braces, then you cannot pay activities. Something has got to give. If she is unreasonable, then let a judge decide... at that point what do you have to lose... NOTHING.

Hang in there!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:50 AM

See even that seems high to me. I understand that once the kids get in high school the expenses go up..but even when we had custody of the kids we didn't spend that much on all of them total. Right now we are looking at just a figure for his half only for his 3 kids with BM. I know we won't spend nearly that much on the other two kids.

So..you think...$1000.00 per year for his half total? or less? I can't see it being more.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:51 AM

Given after taxes, child support, medical insurance, the take home on $30,000 isn't much. $2000 for our households is probably reasonable (but probably will not happen in our house as that is a college fund).... but way too much in theirs. $2000 a month is easily 2 months pay. $30,000 = $2500 a month not including taxes, other stuff they take out, child support, health insurance, food, rent, etc. Maybe $500 a year max.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:51 AM

Ok..just trying to get different opinions...and what all we should put on the table to them. If she is really running out of money..and my guess she is..then she may settle for what we ask for...and really..I don't see them continuing with some of the huge expenses if the money is not there anymore. Or even if it's "almost" depleted.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:52 AM

See I was thinking $500 a year too...that's still more than what we spent on all the kids for extras when we had custody.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:54 AM

I know I take the conservative approach with money, but if you are paying child support to me that should cover everything (or at least that is how my husband's works). You have to look at your net income, rent, car insurance, utilities, food, clothing, child support, etc. and decide from there what is left over. They you save for emergencies and then from there decide what you can afford as "extras." If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. It's great to want to give kids everything or what you had, but if you can't afford it, they need to understand it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:57 AM

Well we can afford $500 a year @ $41.67 per month...I think...but no more than that. Not right now anyway. I'm hoping DH finds a better/higher paying job next year and maybe we can afford more then.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:57 AM

Does the $3200 figure include extra curriculars that DH didn't agree to? If so then I would have that deducted from the $3200, otherwise you are setting a precidence that you will pay for anything that she involves the kids in regardless of what DH agrees to or not. Don't agree to $100 a month if you can afford it, I would offer $20 a month and if she says no, tell her you will see her in court because you simply can not afford anymore. I would also get an agreement on the chiro that SD has a second opinion by a Dr of your choice of the medical necessity of the treatment and if the treatment is necessary what activities SD should avoid to not futher injure her back. If the second opinion says that the treatment is medically necessary and soccer should be avoided then refuse to pay for soccer as well as chiro as long as BM continues to involve SD in these activities. If treatment is necessary make sure that there is a limit to the # of visits per year, or what the 2nd opinion Dr states is necessary. Also make sure DH does not agree to the Chiro bills that BM has sent thus far with out receipt from the DR and a copy of SD's medical record from their to be produced in X # of days.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:57 AM

And basically what came out of that is...they are wanting to settle with us. I'm not sure if it's because BM no longer has the money or they realize they don't have a strong case.

---> Probably a little of both.

---> As for what they are offering you...it's bullsh1t! Their ONLY "concession" is repayment...instead of paying each bill in 30 days, you are a constant source of income for the next 10 years.

---> No chiro care unless recommended by two doctors (yours and theirs) and there is a specific therapy plan.

---> No soccer outside of the school's regular athletic program UNLESS father agrees and the cost will be split in proportion to income.

---> Extra-curricular activities are limited to ONE per child at a time. ALL such activities MUST be agreed upon. Cost will be split in proportion to income.

---> You take that $3,200 and you subject the CS overage, bills that she owes you and any expenses that she delibertely incurred over Dad's objections. You then work out a payment schedule of $50 per month.

---> You also make sure that unless it is a medical emergency...she is responsible for any portion of the bill due to do using an "out-of-network" provider.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:00 AM

Keep everything you do based on your current income. If your husband gets a raise, don't automatically spend it. You need to save for emergencies, retirement, legal fund (this will not stop till the kids are grown) and for other reasons... take that raise and pretend like you never have it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:04 AM

We already have a second opnion from an orthopedic specialist. He couldn't find any condition..she is a perfectly healthy 11 yr old girl. So we already have that and BM knows it.

The $3200 figure does include extras and everything we are disputing..and those we want taken out if we are to have a settlment of any kind. We are not going to be responsible for all the uncovered chiro thus far or in the future unless a judge orders it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:09 AM

that sounds great!! I was hoping you would respond to this...you do know your stuff!

Yes all they are offering is a repayment plan for any monies we owe her now and in the future.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:10 AM

Yeah that's true...except..if he gets a big raise..CS will be raised lol.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:10 AM

M5M5, I am sorry because I feel sure you have posted this 100 times, but I have forgotten. Someone above posted that any extracurricular expenses should come out of CS. How much CS does your H pay under the current order without any medical, etc. added to it?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:11 AM

$607 per month...based on income shares...parenting time (we are also due a decrease in CS but have not sought it), both parents incomes, etc.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:11 AM

I like the idea of putting a "cap", but be careful that the kids don't end up getting involved in stuff they don't want to just so she can spend your money.

In addition to a "cap", I would also limit the number of activities. Like one at a time.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:12 AM

That's why you live modestly and don't say anything that can get back to her so she doesn't know if the income changes.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:13 AM

Better question when determining all of this is how much does that leave your family a month (if you don't mind us asking given you've aready said the yearly salary)?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:15 AM

Like one per child per season/year? Right now both SS's are doing club soccer (SD was supposed to but they couldn't get up a team for her age group) and in the spring there will be middle school soccer for SS13 (and possibly SD if she is over being "burnt out" on soccer) and HS soccer for oldest SS. Right now we are only agreeing to the school sports since club soccer is way out of our price range..but if we put a "cap" on it, then it may be better..right now she is spending way over $500 per year on extras alone...more like a couple thousand.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:17 AM

I would ONLY agree to one activity per child. If you start saying the Chiro only after 2 opinions you are going to get stuck with the extra medical.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:17 AM

Well, with his current income that is a lot. But then on the other hand it is not a lot for 3 kids. Is there some part of the year where he makes substantial overtime or something so he could pay a set amount for extracurriculars at that time--like $200 per child for the year.

While I know that it is a wonderful idea to have emergency savings, I doubt that a judge is going to care whether or not you have emergency savings because expenses are not considered are they? Is it customary in Tennessee for CS and extra-curriculars to be ordered? If not, I would not settle at all--I would go to court because it doesn't seem like a judge would order a contribution to extra-curriculars at all taking into consideration his current income level and the number of people he is supporting. I don't think there is any way to get out of the medical, but I would think a judge would say that under ordinary circumstances if insurance won't cover it, then "it" probably isn't medically necessary.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:18 AM

Well with the affidavit of monthly income we filled out it states:

Total Monthly Expenses: 2468.94

Total Gross Income: 2730.00

The expenses includes everything from taxes, rent, insurance to transportation (gas and maintaince).
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:20 AM

Gross and Net are very different...how much is the net?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:21 AM

Well you also have to take into account how many days per year we have the kids...so the amount we pay in CS does cover it since we have them alot. We qualify for a $100 decrease in CS based on how many days we have them a year.

He only gets OT during xmas mostly..and we use that for xmas lol. He was allowed OT for inventory this year but that is not always the case.

Normally..if you have extra ordinary expenses..in TN..they will combine that to the CS amount (which is what we were wanting them to do back in Dec. but our atty was a peace of crap). They don't usually order extras being split 50/50.

Another thing..our insurance doesn't recognize Chiro care as being a medical expense..which is why they do not cover it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:22 AM

huh? that confused me..the part about the chiro
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:23 AM

um...let's see..after all the deductions (taxes and CS) DH brings home about $750 every other week..give or take.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:24 AM

CS is garnished btw.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:28 AM

Total Monthly Expenses: 2468.94

Take home: $1500 + what every you make

Humm... I don't know how to put this nicely, but your expenses are reasonable, but you can't afford anything more than child support and maybe braces... you agree to pay nothing over! It's one thing if you were living lavishly, but it's clear you aren't. Something has got to give and it needs to be the extra!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:30 AM

someone mentioned above that you get 2 chiro opinions...the BM and one of your own. If you ask to have your own "2nd" opinion, who is going to pay for that?
Posted by: Dee78

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:30 AM

The 2nd opinion would be from an actual doctor, and orthopedic specialist so it is covered by insurance. That's what they did before.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:31 AM

lol I don't make much right now.

Lavishly? Um no..we are living in a 3 bedroom trailer (one bedroom the size of my old walk in closet I miss), both cars are broken down (DH is borrowing my mom's beat up truck to go to work while she takes me),etc etc etc. lol. Nope..not lavishly by any means.
Posted by: Dee78

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:32 AM

I agree with JSP. You can't afford anything else. I can't see how the judge could look at your finances and order you to pay. Were these things brought up before, did the judge actually see how little he makes and your expenses, and how much she is demanding that he pay?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:33 AM

Well I wasn't there so I'm not sure..but I don't htink so since it got reset 2 times over.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:47 AM

Wait....wait...wait....

Your husband sees his kids MORE than my ex......earns LESS than my ex....pays MORE than my ex.....and that INCLUDES his ex's income?

Something's just not right about that.

With the amount of CS he pays, based on his income...he's paying for enough of the "extras."

Here....you all would qualify for boat loads of free stuff.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:52 AM

LOL We don't qualify for boat loads here :(
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 03:04 AM

That's why I wanted you to break it out before people jumped and said how you should pay this, that and the other. What you are paying is reasonable given you also have the kids part-time... don't back down as it will burn you in the end.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 03:18 AM

It sounds to me like she's offering you a deal....because she can't legally force you to pay more than a certain percent of your paycheck unless you are in arrears on CS, and even then there's STILL a percentage cap.

$100 a month would put him at almost 50% of his net....and in IL, that would be the max he would have to pay. She's not offering a good "deal," she's putting an "offer" out there that doesn't break the friggin law.

Jeesh.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 03:30 AM

So I explained the situation to DH and he said....

"Gee....that's nice of her....offering to let them bend over and pick-up the soap like that."
Posted by: rocketgirl

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 03:33 AM

LOL... he's got a great sense of humor, doesn't he? I was kind of thinking the same thing... how magnanimous of her...
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 03:35 AM

lol that's how we see it. So we will put our crap on the table...$however much a month, $3200 minus our CS overpayment, minus what she owes us, minus what we dispute, plus the other things dealing with limits, chiro etc. She can take it or leave it. At this point..DH is like..what else do I have to lose?
Posted by: gr8Dad

You don't offer to settle... - 10/17/06 03:47 AM

...unless your position is weakened. My opinion? Don't settl. This MIGHT calm down for a while, that start back up. By settling, you are allowing her to continue her crap. And if she DOES, YOU will be bargaining from a weaker point, because you caved.

I would take this ALL the way.

As for the $3200, I thought she owed YOU guys $12K? Bounce it against that and inform her that she will only owe you 8K.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: You don't offer to settle... - 10/17/06 03:57 AM

no she doesn't owe us 12K...remember? That was settled last year when our atty didn't represent us propery and we came away with only getting $4500.00 (that she paid us) instead of the full 12K.
Posted by: gr8Dad

My bad... - 10/17/06 04:06 AM

But I agree with the poster who said that by agreeing to pay the $3200, you are agreeing to pay for stuff you did NOT agree to, thus setting a precedent for the future.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: My bad... - 10/17/06 04:14 AM

I agree...we are not going to agree to pay for anything we dispute...meaning the stuff we didn't agree to. If they will take our offer then it will save us big $$$ by avoiding going to court and atty fees..all that junk. But if they won't take our offer then I guess we go to court. Like DH said..what else do we have to lose?

In a way I really don't think they will agree to all of our demands. That would mean her losing control. The only way she would do that is if there really IS no money left..she could also be afraid of facing jail time again (I know I would be). DH overheard her atty saying that if she can't come up with the money, he can still do all this stuff for her but he would take a lien out on her property. She will not want that. So i think it's what Gecko said..a combination of her not having a case and her not having the money>
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 11:03 AM

As far as the medical, SIL's order was written that he pays for the medical insurance BUT BM pays the deductibles and co-insurance and then they split 50/50 of in-network expenses.

So, you may ask that your hubby pay the cost of the medical insurance (if he already is doing that), then BM is responsible for the deductibles and co-insurance and they split the balance per family income ratio. Any expenses out of network or not allowed by insurance, would be covered by parent taking child to that doctor and not billable to other parent.

Sports issue - any money spent on sports is the responsibility of the parent signing child up for that sport.

Ask that all previous bills be forgiven.

Also, ask that she pays your attorney fees or that if you have to go back to court within two years because of not obeying the court order, that she pays your attorney fees.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 12:54 PM

Throw in a bunch of stuff and then you can take it out and look like you are cooperating.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:03 PM

[quote]Throw in a bunch of stuff and then you can take it out and look like you are cooperating. [/quote]

That's an excellent idea. But, any ideas of what she can throw in and how the order should look.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:19 PM

Well, one was BM paying for their attorney.

Maybe that you can only go back to court every other year unless then is a substantial change in custody or you have to pay the other parent's attorney fees.

The other one was the parent signing child up for sport, pays the fees. I would still like to stay with this one but if you can't, then I would say maximum per child per year would be $250 (or pick a number).

Child may only pay one sport at a time.

That if both parents don't agree on the medical, sports, etc., that the parent that wants the item pays for it.

You might even want to mention that you will pay part on braces for one child at a time.

That any medical bills like braces are paid directly to the doctor or that if one parent pays for the entire amount, you have 12/24 months (or whatever number you would like) to pay the balance.

Maybe something along the lines that one parent can't continually spend on sports, unneeded medical care, uncovered medical care in order to bankrupt the other parent.

These are just suggestions and I'm sure there is a way to word them so that they are more paletable and legal.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 01:50 PM

Tread lightly. No indoor soccer, no soccer club, no soccer camp? Are you serious about that, or do you just mean that you arne't willing to share in the cost of those things?

Same with Chiro? If he isn't hurting her and it isn't costing you anything, do you want to say "no Chiro" or rather "we won't pay for Chiro?"

I think it's unreasonable for you to say things like "no soccer camp." The kids might love soccer camp and have a great time there. I'd hate to you see you deny your kids that opportunity if BM is willing to pay for it.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 02:09 PM

Same with Chiro? If he isn't hurting her and it isn't costing you anything, do you want to say "no Chiro" or rather "we won't pay for Chiro?"

---> First of all, I can't believe that you are condoning unnecessary medical treatments. Second, it can hurt her. Third, it does cost them in higher insurance rates.

I think it's unreasonable for you to say things like "no soccer camp." The kids might love soccer camp and have a great time there. I'd hate to you see you deny your kids that opportunity if BM is willing to pay for it.

---> It's NOT that they object to soccer clubs and camps, it that THEY cannot afford it. It's one thing to sacrifice a few luxuries to give your child things, it's another thing to bankrupt yourself to do so...that is irresponsible, not too mention just plan stupid!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Susan, with that, I have come to the conclusion... - 10/17/06 02:16 PM

...that you are a complete and total IDIOT.

HOW IN THE WORLD can you condone lasting and frequent chiropractic care for some condition that simply does NOT exist (per a REAL doctor), but then ALSO argue for ALL kinds of SOCCER and soccer CAMP, etc.

If the child is injured to the point that they need multiple visits to the chiro WEEKLY, they have NO business playing soccer, and if they ARE capable af playing all kinds of soccer, they don't NEED to see the chiro that often, if at all.

We all know you don't like M5, but for Christ sake, to act like a moron in order to criticize her situation is going above and beyond.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: Susan, with that, I have come to the conclusion... - 10/17/06 03:04 PM

I know a lot of people who go to Chrios for "massage" like therapy. They love it and say it makes them feel better. If BM is paying and the daughter likes going, why would they want to stop that?
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Susan, with that, I have come to the conclusion... - 10/17/06 03:21 PM

how about she can still take them but she pays for 100% of the bill.......

I would not want to stop the soccer and stuff either.. but if I couldn't pay for it.. then I couldn't... so the mother is going to have to pick up 100% of that bill too....
Posted by: gr8Dad

And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 03:34 PM

...you would have my support. But you, like EVERYONE ELSE on this board, KNOWS that BM in this case has told the BD that it is because of an ISSUE, and that teh child has migraines, and that the child has a muscle problem.

I am ALL for massages (started out my wedding day with one in 2005, made the WHOLE day SO much less stessful), but 2-4 times a WEEK? Then bill Dad for half of it? BS, you know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it.

And each time you defend this POS BM, you slip further and further down the credibility list.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 03:37 PM

LOL Gr8dad, I'm not defending BM. I'm just asking M5 what she means when she said "no sports, not chiro." Does she really mean that they are not PERMITTING the kids from participating in sports/chiro, or are they saying that they just aren't willing to pay.

Big difference between the two.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 03:50 PM

well... I think if you bothered to read further, you will see a post that Gecko did.. which M5 liked.. it was that father AGREED on the soccer and it was split portioned based in income....So.. if Bm makes more.. she will be, of course, paying more.. which shouldn't bother you.. since you want all your stuff split based on income.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 04:19 PM

Well that's the point. BM will not be willing to pay for it. If they play club soccer, indoor,etc then we are not paying for it. We can word it that way. And no..DH absolutely doen't want his kids seeing the chiro.

ANyhow we are going to try and put a "cap" on the amount she can bill us for extras per year..if we do the cap thing then she can sign them up for whatever she wants but we only have to pay what the cap is set at.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Susan, with that, I have come to the conclusio - 10/17/06 04:21 PM

Because for one..both the chiro and BM had her CONVINCED that she had a "condition" in her neck/back! She thought she had some kind of disease! That's why.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 04:26 PM

One of the other reasons DH not liking his kids seeing a chiro is his cousin died of a stroke right after being manipulated by a chiro..and since then, no one in his family has had anything to do with Chiros.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 06:06 PM

How about you increase CS by $100 a month and NO extras to be paid for by dad? Dad pays half of braces and hallf of any hospitalizations, but NO co-pays or prescriptions.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 06:19 PM

I don't think that the no copays or prescriptions will fly. It's standard in TN that each parent pays 1/2 of those..or at least proportion to income.

See...thing is..we are due a $100 decrease in CS based on the amount of time DH has the kids (maybe more since she no longer carries insurance). As it stands now, since we don't have that decrease..we can't afford an increase even by $100 a month.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 06:27 PM

You can put it in anyway and let the attorneys/judge throw it out.

Put in that you will keep CS at the current amount but will no longer pay for sports, etc., and BM pays co-pays.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 06:31 PM

Something to talk to DH about anyway..see what he thinks.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 06:35 PM

In my SIL's CO, he pays for the insurance and BM has to pay for the deductibles and co-insurance. That makes it more like 50/50.

Maybe you should ask her to pay 50/50 on the insurance since she isn't covering the kids and then billing you for every little thing.
Posted by: Gecko

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 08:43 PM

Does she really mean that they are not PERMITTING the kids from participating in sports/chiro, or are they saying that they just aren't willing to pay.

---> As I told you...the issue is that the father cannot afford the expensive soccer clubs. They have no objection to the children in playing on the school soccer teams, WHICH they did PRIOR to Mom's husband receiving a substantial financial settlement. It was ALSO at this time that the child started seeing the Chiro...who is turns it is a personal friend on the family...who was recommending that the child see him 2 to 3 times a week. Dad took the child to see a specialist who can finding to indicate that the child has ANY condition, including the one the chiro says necessitates the multiple weekly visits.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 09:41 PM

Well, any doctor would say that that most people don't "need" massage therapy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make people feel better...muscle relaxing.

As long as BM is paying and D seems to like what the Chiro does for her, I don't see a need to force her to quit.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/17/06 09:44 PM

Read myother posts..even if BM is paying for all of it, it's not healthy for her to go under the guise (sp) that she has a disease or condition in her neck/back. NOR should it be 2-3 times a week.
Posted by: Gecko

SUSAN - 10/17/06 10:27 PM

...read the posts.

This is NOT, I repeat NOT..."MASSAGE" THERAPY!

Mom is NOT footing the entire bill!

Again...you are condoning unnessary medical care. And what the hell does a CHILD know what is or is not good for them?!?
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/17/06 11:16 PM

Suggest that since DH pays for all of insurance that she be responsible for first $300 per year per child in uncovered medical expenses, anything above that will be split in proportion to income, since BM doesn't work ask that it be based on her highest yearly income prior to becoming unemployed.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 12:58 AM

How much is the insurance to cover the 3 children? Does it cost more to have them on his plan, since he already has a family plan?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 01:15 AM

I'm not really sure if it costs him more. I'm thinking it doesn't but I'm going to check in his benefits book tonight or tomorrow to be sure. You would think I'd know this lol.

Another thing...DH just told me this today because he forgot to mention it to me yesterday...but they asked him about me in the deposition hearing...they asked if I worked..and if I worked during the time we had custody and if so who was at the house when the kids got off the school bus. Weird..DH just answered "I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but my wife worked third shift for 6 months of us having custody and was home with the children when they got off the bus and yes she does work now."

Weird huh? What does 2 years ago have anything to do with what is going on now? They asked alot of weird..seemingly off topic things...alot of which DH refused to respond to because it had nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Oh..and they told him that we did not want to go and have CS reviewed because it may not look good for us since BM doesn't have a job and will base it on her past earnings. DH said "Yes but they ALSO base it on ASSETS". They shut up real fast then.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 01:24 AM

I think it's totally important. I think the fact that your H was fully supporting you and your child while refusing to pay for things for his own children would matter to the courts.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 01:35 AM

Wrong. It's not important whether or not I worked 2 years ago or not! We had custody, we paid 100% of ALL extras then and MOST of the medical because she refused to pay half of their COURT ORDERED THERAPY. And who WAS there to watch the kids when I was working IS NOT IMPORTANT. That was 2 years ago! So no..it's not important nor are they related to the issues at hand.

Another thing..you don't see MY CHILD..either one of them..doing or having the same things that my stepkids do. So how are my STEPKIDS recieving the short end of the stick in regards to finances, etxrras, etc.?

SOmetimes talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:09 AM

Susan,

Why on earth are you jumping on M5? She cannot afford to work. With her income/3 kids it doesn't pay for her to work as they'd pay more in child care than they would in what she earned. With one child, for us it technically doesn't pay for me to work given how much child care and I have what most people would consider a decent income.

Bottom line: mom is getting a reasonable amount of child support base on dad's % of income, which is how child support is caculated. If you don't like how it is caculated, talk to your gov't. But, it doesn't matter what expenses there are as it goes by %. Given it goes by % that should cover so called "extra's" and if she wants to do things like Chiro care, then go for it and pay for it out of her money or the child support as child support is the NCP share.

Do you understand they aren't living lavishly? They live in a three bedroom (if you want to call it that as I also lovingly describe my home) and have to go to food pantries some months because of the ex's spending habits. What do you want from them??? To live in a cardboard box and had over everything to mom - even then, doesn't that hurt the kids given they have visitation - you want the kids visiting them in a cardboard box?

Enough is enough. They are providing for his kids and if it isn't good enough... TUFF! The kids have their basic needs and that is all kids are "entitled" to.

You compare everyone's lifestyle as to how you live - even at your income level, not everyone can afford all that given cost of living differences and parent who aren't as lavish as yours. If parents can't afford it or don't want to provide it, they have that right to say no. And, I'd have to worry more about a parent who cannot say no than one who does say no regardless the reason.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:14 AM

Who said the kid is getting massage therapy? Where do you get this crap?

It stinks that the people you side/identify with always get your best case scenario, imaginary circumstances, benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:25 AM

I do have a job btw lol. I'm able to be at home when my son gets out of school..my mom watches them when I need her to for free.

But I'm making min. wage..so it's not bringing much right now.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:27 AM

Yeah chiro's manipulate..not give massage therapy. I wonder..if BM does anything with her "massage therapist" degree she will charge us for giving massaged to her own kids?
Posted by: AnneB

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:28 AM

Tell her you want one so you can relax after the stress she has caused you! But you probably coudn't relax with her hands that close to your neck!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:35 AM

When I went to the chiro last summer, I would not let her minipulate me. The deep tissue rub was all that I agreed to. It felt good, so good that I went back 3 days in a row. But at 120.00 a day and no improvement in my fingers I stopped going.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:35 AM

I wouldn't let her touch me! Don't want to be ugly..but if she was standing on the side of the road on fire i wouldn't pee to put her out! wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole!
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:43 AM

[quote]I do have a job btw lol. I'm able to be at home when my son gets out of school..my mom watches them when I need her to for free.

But I'm making min. wage..so it's not bringing much right now. [/quote]

:) I know, but your income shouldn't be included to care for his kids. Of course, you'll do for the kids with your money in your home, but it shouldn't be included in all this drama. I'm sure your income helps with basics, but it isn't going to be as much as others make it sound like.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:47 AM

Yeah we are doing good keeping toilet paper around and..bread and milk lol.
Posted by: jsp

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:48 AM

[quote]Yeah chiro's manipulate..not give massage therapy. I wonder..if BM does anything with her "massage therapist" degree she will charge us for giving massaged to her own kids? [/quote]

Thanks for sharing - I got a gift certificate from my husband's boss (he got best buy, I got to a spa place) and I was going get us both the mini massages (something we'd never pay for) - now your making me have second thoughts.

P.S. your husband's ex will find any way to bill you.... so just wait.. the kids daily massages will be billed to you daily.
Posted by: jsp

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:52 AM

[quote]Yeah we are doing good keeping toilet paper around and..bread and milk lol. [/quote]

Then you are doing better than us - I usually stockpile and I can't believe I'm running out of TP and other basics - I'm slacking in my couponing. Walmart will not let you, but some Targets will let you get trial sizes with the $1 off coupons.. makes it free except tax.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:52 AM

I'm not sure i would ever want to be seen by a chiro because of what happened to my DH's cousin. =/
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:53 AM

maybe you have said this before and I missed it. On another post last week, you said that you went to college and said your brother was a college drop out and what a loser he was for be so. Why is it, with a college degree you are only able to make mim wage. I am not suggesting that your income go towards the stepkid's at all. I just don't understand how you are struggling so much. The CS isn't outrageous for three kids. The extras maybe!
Posted by: jsp

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 02:56 AM

[quote]I'm not sure i would ever want to be seen by a chiro because of what happened to my DH's cousin. =/ [/quote]

I'd never go either!!!

If you want a massage, that's what you have a husband for :) (or at least that's why I do).
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 02:59 AM

You might want to rethink the cap as a monthly obligation. If you cap the year at say $3000, what's to stop her from charging you $1500 of it in one month?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:05 AM

good point!!!! She could charge 3,000 in one month for a years activities and they would not be able to pay and back to court they go for contempt
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:19 AM

I don't have a degree...I dropped out like an idiot. I plan on going back though.

The CS..we don't have a problem with the amount it's set at..it's everything else.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:21 AM

well there would be a yearly cap..but she can only charge us $whatever per month for anything.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:22 AM

Can you just say NO EXTRAS!!!!?????
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And if THAT was the reason... - 10/18/06 03:23 AM

I don't like massages..go figure..but I give them to DH all the time! LOL!

I could never be a massage therapist...I have a thing about touching ppl..my luck I would have some big hairy guy with a pelt on his back wants me to massage him and (no offense to anyone with hairy backs) but I just couldn't do it!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:26 AM

well all extras are supposed to be joint decisions and she hasn't been doing that..she's just been signing them up left and right without discussing it with him...and when she does mention it (not discuss but mentioning what she will or might do) and he disagrees with it..she does it anyway and bills us for it. So we have to get that taken care of.

I think that is one reason why they are wanting to settle..they know they are wrong...they know they don't have a strong case and we more than likely will win if represented properly.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 12:54 PM

M5,

Have you heard anything from your Attorney... Can you win without representation? That is my only concern... the troubles you are having with $$ and finding an Attorney.... So.. I would do what you are doing.. continue down the "Settle" path... stall it as long as possible.... Give her outrageous negotations that you know she will never agree too... and work your way back.. don't counter with something you feel she will take... counter with something SHE WON'T take... keep putting money to the side... and then pay the attorney and go to court..... OR maybe with your outrageous counters.. she might finally give.... who knows...

BUT start BIG and work yourself back....
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:10 PM

Good idea Runs....

So, M5, how about you ask her for CS because her household has more money than your household and everyone knows we have to "even" the playing field.

Then, because she wants to take the kids to all these quack doctors, have her carry all the insurance on the kids, plus she has to pay the deductibles and co-insurance, etc., because her household has more money than your household.

She has to pay for all extra activities the kids are in because her household has more money than your household.

Etc., etc., etc.

:-)
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:38 PM

You know.. they could win that... LOL...

If BM's income is greater than dads... While I had custody.. due to difference in income.. I had to pay CS to the NCP.... LOL

While it's rare.. it can happen!
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:45 PM

I don't see where M5 has ever proven that BM has more income than her H does. I also don't see where they've ever done a formal discovery to see what assets are in BM's name. Until that is done, M5 has no way of knowing anything other than what BM is capable of making.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 03:57 PM

Susan...

Hence my word for "if".
Posted by: Tweeby

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 04:56 PM

I do remember reading that the ex wanted to know what M5 was making 2 years ago and what she is making now.

M5, why not have your husband tell the court they have no problem with including all of your income and all of both of your assets as long as they also include all of her husband's income and all of their assets.

Since his ex is so intent on what YOU contribute than it is only fair that they disclose what her husband contributes.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 06:10 PM

OMG I almost burst a rib laughing so hard!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 06:12 PM

Wrong..while I don't know what "all" her assets are..the ones I do know are over 400K. If her name is on the other stuff...jump it another 200K or more. And knowing her...her name is on everything except maybe her husband's suburban.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 06:13 PM

Very true! :)
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 06:45 PM

600k, assuming it's all in cash, invested at 5% is $30,000 a year. I don't think she's making more than your H.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:00 PM

Susan,

it doesn't matter.. the POINT is... and WILL BE.. that they can request it...to stall out the negoiations.... in order to PAY for an attorney...

We can sit here ALL day long and try to guess %..and $$.. but that is NOT the point.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:09 PM

It's called assets...which what they base CS on too.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:21 PM

Just curious--do they base CS on non-incoming producing assets? In Texas they only consider the income from assets and not the assets themselves. I know you have already said they include assets, but does that mean all assets? In case I am not being clear, you can have a house work $500K and it doesn't help you pay anything--it just costs money. But if you have $500K in the bank that is a whole different deal--or $500K in stocks. Maybe the simple way they do it in Texas is better after all!

I am so surprised every day to learn how different divorce and custody laws are from state to state.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:25 PM

It doesn't really say..so i'm not sure. All it says that if one parent is living a lifestyle greater than claimed and they don't have a job, then CS can be based on assets.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:30 PM

Well, I guess you could say that if they had money to pay cash for the "asset" outright, then you could say that "asset" is "cash money".

So, if I got a hold of $1,000,000 and I put it in the bank, I would have to include the interest I would be receiving as an asset for CS. BUT, if I take that $1,000,000 and pay cash for a house, then it isn't an asset? Doesn't sound right to me?

How many NCP have been told, sell the house, sell the car, sell the boat, sell the trailer, then you would have the money to take care of things? Wouldn't that be the same here?
Posted by: AnneB

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:43 PM

But that is how it works in Texas. Isn't that amazing? If it makes income for you, then you pay CS out of it. If it doesn't make any money for you, then you don't pay! Now if someone tried to invest every penny they had and tried to say they have zero income but they have all those assets, I am sure there is some way to impute income. Assets like that still require money to maintain so you would have to be getting money from somewhere. That is probably similar to what M5 is alluding to. If you say you have no money, but you have all this stuff, then the court's question is where did you get it, how did you pay for it and how are you maintaining it...
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:44 PM

Yeah..and all property is paid off...all she has to pay is the yearly taxes. I believe her other assets are paid off too (boat, RV, 3 vehicles, etc.)
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:49 PM

Yes BUT, are they income producing???? I have a paid off car, boat and RV. They COST me money, they do not produce me any money.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:52 PM

Well in the CS guidelines it doesn't specify whether they have to be income producing or not..and i'm thinking they don't because those assets could be sold.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:55 PM

if they are joint assets, they can not be ordered sold. They can not be ordered sold because she does not have a judgement against her.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: DH went to the deposition hearing today - 10/18/06 07:59 PM

I don't know, but I am ready for this to be over with. This is like a soap opera that cuts off at the critical moment and you have to wait until next month or next season to see the outcome. We all want to know how this ends!!! Hurry up and go to court and get it over with so our curiousity can be satisfied. It has become such a convoluted mess and involves so many issues that I don't know how a judge can sort through it all. Look how much time we spend on it and we stay confused!
Posted by: Melody

Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:18 PM

the cash in the bank will produce a monthly income that is added to other sources of income to determine total income. The value of a home does NOT produce an income until it is sold and cannot be added to other income to calculate child support. Besides, did they pay cash for the house and own it outright? Most likely not...they probably made a down payment and have a mortgage like the rest of the world. The only actual asset is the equity...which does not earn income and is not guaranteed in any way.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:36 PM

Actually...they did pay cash for the house and own it outright. They DID have a morgage on their rental home when they were living there, but that is now paid off too.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:39 PM

so what if the house is paid off???? The courts wont care. A paid off is only a cash cow if it is sold. If they still own the rental AND it is producing a "Positive" income can it be considered income.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:43 PM

I thought homes and ownership is an asset. Educate me on why would it not be counted?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:59 PM

It is an asset..I just think some on here wants to see us lose bad lol
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 08:59 PM

When you fill out stuff for loans, you have to list all your assets and what they are worth.

Now I am aware that this is a little different but if BM's name is on any assets that new hubby paid for with his windfall, it could be said that her standard of living and availability to cash is much more than M5's.

Besides, some states do include household income, not just parent income. Some states will impute income too.

I believe it was Anne that said, just ask for the moon for right now and hope you get enough time to pay for your attorney when you go to court.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:00 PM

Why didn't you respond to my suggestion about getting this over with!!! J/K
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:00 PM

Trust me we are trying..but we don't want to get screwed because we rushed thru it lol
Posted by: Melody

My understanding is - 10/18/06 09:02 PM

that unless it is "INCOME PRODUCING", then it's not used to determine monthly or annual income for child support purposes. So...a primary residence, whether paid off or not, is merely a place to live. It cannot produce income until it is sold, a single one-time event. A rental property can produce income if the rent received exceeds the mortgage and expenses of the property. THIS net income would be considered in additional to normal sources of income for calculation of child support. A boat, car, or other physical asset does not produce income....but they can be sole for a one time influx of cash. THAT does not represent new income though....as the funds that were originally earned to purchase those items were income at the time they were earned. The funds were merely used to purchase a physical asset which depreciates in value. They might as well have lit the cash on fire in some cases. You can't be taxed twice on income and it isn't used twice to determine child support obligation.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:02 PM

Well we are waiting for her atty to contact us with their offer in writting...then we can counter offer with all kinds of stuff lol.

The big assets...are all in her name too btw.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:02 PM

Well, I am tired of waiting for the conclusion to this soap opera!!!
Posted by: Melody

One might suggest - 10/18/06 09:03 PM

that you change the channel....Just kidding with you!!! ;)
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Well, how about this idea.... - 10/18/06 09:04 PM

hubby got the windfall and purchased assets in BM's name. So, technically, that is an income to her - it just isn't a cash income. Example, if you win a car, you still have to pay taxes, etc. on it because it is "income". So, I think these other assets should be counted the same way.

Well, my final idea is we go half's on a hit man for the BM's! LOL Anyone else want to join?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: My understanding is - 10/18/06 09:04 PM

All I know that is if one parent doesn't work and is living a lifestyle greater than claimed they can base her portion of CS on assets. That's all it says. It doesn't say "income producing" or anything like that. Her rental isnt' even in the CS equation at this time either.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Well, how about this idea.... - 10/18/06 09:05 PM

oooooooh I'm in!! lol
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:12 PM

They are only assest when they are sold, otherwise they are liabilities. Income goes in each month and NOTHING comes out each month.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:14 PM

How is it a liability if it is paid for? I know that on my new loan for a home (rental) my house was considered an asset.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, how about this idea.... - 10/18/06 09:14 PM

if you win a car, you pay sales tax. If you take the "Cash" value then you pay income tax
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: My understanding is - 10/18/06 09:15 PM

that would make sense! Thanks!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:17 PM

No it's not..it's an asset whether it's sold or not.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:23 PM

Yes and No...

A house is an asset... but the mortage is a liability- this has been a recent arguement in the fiancial world... however... you said that the house was paid for.. so... it is NOT a liability.... But, I am trying to figure out why Katie said it was.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:42 PM

I have no idea...the house..both of them..are owned free and clear. They keep updating the one they live in..they have added 2 garages and a few other things...so when it is reappriased it will be highter than the 350K it was worth before.
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 09:58 PM

It doesn't matter if their primary residence is owned free and clear or not.

NOBODY pays CS based on the value of their primary residence. It's NOT INCOME. Income from a rental? Yes, that can be taken into consideration. But a primary residence doesn't not produce an income and it's not cash in the bank that's earning interest and therefore, will not be considering in a CS calculation.

Can you imagine if all of our homes were subject to CS. How would that work? "Susan, your house is worth $200k, you owe $150k, so you pay child support on $50k?" That's not income. That's not money I see or ever touches my hands. IRS doesn't tax that money to me as income.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 10:05 PM

Well I guess you are right and the CS guidelines are wrong huh?
Posted by: Susanf31

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 10:08 PM

Has anyone ever heard of CS being based on the value of your primary residence as M5 is asserting?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 10:28 PM

Like I said..all the CS guidelines state is assets. Doesn't specify what kind of assets it has to be. Doesn't matter what you think or ever heard of before. Guess we will find out eventually.
Posted by: Melody

Yes, it's an asset - 10/18/06 10:52 PM

and in special circumstances such as your H's ex living beyond her means as a result of the windfall, yes, I'm sure the courts have some way of assigning some corresponding income to their assets....BUT, for us normal folks who don't win the lottery or get insurance settlements with 6 or 7 digits, a house is a PAPER asset which is offset by the liability (loan) that is payable on it. The net asset/equity/income, is the equity...the difference between what it's worth and what is owed, and that can only be realized with a sale of the property.
Posted by: Melody

Hey, my ex's CS would be SOOOO much - 10/18/06 10:53 PM

higher....because his home is currently worth about $800K and I don't own a home, so mine is $0!!!!! What would THAT do to his blood pressure??????
Posted by: AnneB

Re: One might suggest - 10/18/06 11:20 PM

I can't find my remote...how do you change the channel without it!!! I know my ex never knew how, LOL.
Posted by: Melody

Dang it! - 10/18/06 11:25 PM

I came home from work early today to find son in his room with three friends playing music. Not a problem...son had permission and cleaned the entire house yesterday as an incentive for me to say yes. BUT...the remnants of their lunch was on the living room table....and the tv was left on. I couldn't find the dang remote to turn everything off!!! it's ridiculous! Plus I like to turn on the TV sometimes when I'm in my office on the computer....just so I can keep track of some of my shows while I'm working....like CSI, Without a Trace, etc. I couldn't find the stinking remote last night and I wanted to change channels! It drove me nuts!!!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/18/06 11:31 PM

How do you know that the homes are free and clear? If they were paid for upfront, it depends where all that money came from orginally. If it was an inhert. it doesn't count.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Dang it! - 10/18/06 11:46 PM

Yeah, it was kind of in jest, but when you have 1000 channels on digital TV no remote is a real pain. But then, I can remember when there were no remotes! What is it with boys and losing remotes...he misplaces the one in his room so he takes the one out of the living room.... grrrr....

I can't believe your son and friends ate and didn't clean up the mess--I wouldn't put up with that for one second--I have put up with it for almost 18 years, LOL. I have told him he will have to give the cleaning fairy and laundry fairy his address when he goes to college...I won't know what to do without messes in my kitchen.
Posted by: Melody

Well....I went out - 10/18/06 11:55 PM

to a doctors appointment...and when I came back home, one of the friends had left....and all of the mess was cleaned up...so it wa just distracted boy-mind! The two of them are watching some movie now...so the novelty of playing their music wore off and they came to their senses and picked up.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Well....I went out - 10/18/06 11:57 PM

Great job. Have you ever noticed that the messes are greater when certain friends are around? It is like some friends help clean up and some friends help mess up!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 12:10 AM

omg Katie..how many times have we been thru this? It was NOT inhereted...they BOUGHT IT CASH, according to the county deeds office (they do keep all that on file ya know). There are no liens/morgages on either property.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 12:21 AM

OMG M5 where did the ORGINAL money come from? That makes all the difference
Posted by: Melody

I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:32 AM

over some injury???? I could be wrong. But it was something that the biomom's husband received.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:35 AM

if it was paid for out of an insurance settlement it probably is exempt.
Posted by: Sadie

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:44 AM

But I would think that if he put HER name on the house also, then it would open it up to fair game
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:49 AM

The insurance settlement is exempt BUT what you buy with it isn't.
Posted by: Melody

Sure, that would make the asset half hers - 10/19/06 12:50 AM

but again....how to translate that into an income for CS purposes I don't know.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:50 AM

I'm thinking that it would be co-mingling of funds.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:54 AM

co-mingling has zero to do with CS
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 12:56 AM

But he took his money and mingled it with BM by the means of assets, which, apparently, in M5's state, is considered income.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 01:04 AM

Really? It does? Can you show me where it says that in the CS guidelines? It doesn't MATTER. It is HER assets too because HER name is on them! Oh who in the world do you think supported her H when he refused to work for 4 years? HER. It wasn't until he got his settlement that she quit. OH! And if they were to divorce...EVERYTHING he got in his settlement would be split 50/50.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:05 AM

It is..it doesn't matter where the money came from..what matters is it was bought and her name placed on it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:06 AM

Correct
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:08 AM

It's kind of pointless to argue with Katie..she doesn't seem to comprehend the situation (intentionally I expect). It's crazy to keep explaining something over and over and over and over to her and others like her.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:10 AM

I'm wondering if they ask the question about assets just for situations like this - where someone has no "income" but has lots of "things" in their name.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:17 AM

No what is crazy is to expect that their home value has any impact on CS. Sorry it doesn't and it will not matter to the courts. If it did, I expect that your attorney would have "thought of that" before. Co-mingling of money is somethingthat most remarried couples do, either intentional or by accident. What the courts care about is INCOME of the parents. I am sure that they will impute income. But to consider assests that do not generate income is absurd! Can you just imagine the divorce courts???? Ok...everyone pull out all your belongings to the driveway and the courts will be by to assign value to each item. You are hoping that their boat, trailor home and rental will benefit your case. BS, BUT, if their rental income produces INCOME then it will be considered. BUT, it is very easy to show a rental in the red.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:20 AM

I also think it could depend on exactly when the assets were purchased.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: M5.... - 10/19/06 01:20 AM

Can I flip to the end of this "book" and see what the outcome is going to be??? LOL
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:20 AM

All the courts will consider is your H's income and her imputed income, if they do that. They will look at your H's income and decide what he can afford to raise his 4 children plus himself. So basically, he paying for himself and his 4 children ONLY
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:21 AM

Actually our now ex atty agreed with us. Her assets WILL come into play if we go in that direction. In fact...her H's settlement and all assets will come into play anyway if this sees the inside of a court room, per our atty, because it's what is allowing her to do what she is doing.

I think I'll trust the CS guidelines and our atty rather than you and those like you.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:21 AM

"I also think it could depend on exactly when the assets were purchased." AND how!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: M5.... - 10/19/06 01:21 AM

Sure! LOL!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:22 AM

Doesn't matter what you think...it's what the CS guidelines says that matters. Not you.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:23 AM

Gee..so you are right and the CS guidelines for our state are wrong? I'll have to gloat and rub it in your face if her assets and her H's settlement come into play.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:25 AM

YOU are wrong. It is their PRIMARY residence. You can't touch it! Unless you know of a secret law and the secret handshake you are sadly mistaken and are setting yourself up for dissapointment. Otherwise all deadbeats would quick claim property and be done!
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:26 AM

How - we all are pretty sure on the how - it was his settlement but once he purchased something either in her name only or jointly, it allowed it to come into play.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:27 AM

"Gee..so you are right and the CS guidelines for our state are wrong? I'll have to gloat and rub it in your face if her assets and her H's settlement come into play." No you said it was fact and law. So start gloating!! I can't wait to see the law.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:29 AM

Well, they had another house first - so it COULD be argued that the now "rental" property was their primary residence.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:30 AM

If the assets don't come into play, why does the CS form request it?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:30 AM

So..you are right and our cs guidelines are wrong right? Is that what you are saying?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:33 AM

W/E DIdn't know you were an expert on TN cs laws.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:34 AM

LOL! She can't tell you that because she is wrong. And what she FAILS to realize is that it will only come into play if a). she is unemployed AND b). she is living a lifestyle greater than claimed (which she is).
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:40 AM

"If the assets don't come into play, why does the CS form request it?" They ask it because it is ALL used to determine tax liability. Even though I was owed CS I had to fill out the paperwork and asked the same question. Why did it matter what my husband made and what my assests were. It is used for tax purposes. The higher ones taxes, the lower the yearly income ACTUALLY is despite what one earned.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:43 AM

"LOL! She can't tell you that because she is wrong. And what she FAILS to realize is that it will only come into play if a). she is unemployed AND b). she is living a lifestyle greater than claimed (which she is)." I am just suprised that the COURTS in YOUR state didn't know of this law all along. Just think this could have all been settled a long time ago if YOU had just told them about the cs guidelines!!! lol
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:52 AM

These are new guidelines Katie...they went into effect in June 2006, and we have not went to court for CS since December of 2005. At that time, this was not part of the CS guidelines..idiot.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 01:56 AM

Wait Wait Wait, before you call ME an idiot.... Your husband is the NCP. He was asked for HIS assests. How do you know what her paperwork is? Surly your H's paperwork didn't ask for her information. Is the BM and your Husband swaping notes now?
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:02 AM

Sounds to me like the State of Tennessee is realizing that some CP's "play games" with hiding "income" by way of buying assets and are trying to close the doors.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:06 AM

Katie, I think you are wrong here. How can it be an asset if it is no longer owned? By defination from my accounting textbook, assets are the resources of the company, and Liabilities are what is owed.
When using assets to determine income they use the value of the asset. In M5's case the 2 homes BM owns are assets, since they own the homes outright. Even if they weren't owned outright the equity that is built is as asset and only the remaining principle balance of the mortgage is the liability.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:07 AM

I just looked up the New TN guidelines. TN has switched to parenting time percentages. They do take into consideration who pays for health insurance for the said dependents, that otherwise would not have a cost value. Reoccuring medical expenses is also addressed.

http://www.state.tn.us/humanserv/is/isdocuments.htm
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:10 AM

Yes but if they are "owned" outright, they are not making payments. Therefore, not living above their means. Home equity is not used to determine CS.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:11 AM

Katie now what are you talking about? We didn't get anything asking us to list our assets..not in a long time. We have ZERO assets. I know exactly what some of her assets are because we made it our business to know. Most of what we found out is PUBLIC record and can be gotten down at the City County building.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:13 AM

Also...she is living a lifestyler greater than what she CLAIMS. She is claiming a 24K a year lifestyle. It was exceeds that.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:16 AM

Ok you are right and I am wrong. Thankfully, the way you have interrepted the law will put an end to all of your troubles soon. File the paper work and be done with it. Go get her! I guess your discovery will let you sleep better now. Your worries are over. Don't be disappointed if the judge/courts read the same words differently.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:18 AM

If she has everything paid for 24,000 is a lot.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:18 AM

You are such a tard. Did you mean "interpreted? Right now we are not concerned about the CS side of things. We just want everything to be fair and to put a stop to all this nonesense.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:18 AM

Never said they were living above their means. I am sure if all of us won a $2.5million settlement we would all buy a new home, but the point with M5's case is the BM DOESN'T work and is living off of the settlement. In the mean time BM is trying to milk DH dry, because she has a windfall of cash. IF this settlement was never won BM wouldn't have all of this money to be burning, BM is using the settlement $$ to take advantage of DH and trying her best to force him into bankruptcy or contempt for failure to pay, because his income doesn't come close to the settlement. Even if the settlement was paid in an annuity over 20 years the yearly income from that would be $125,000 or 4X what DH makes per year. Any moron could figure out who has the financial advantage here and who is getting the screws put to them.BM has the means to pay for the extras, DH obviously does not, but BM still thinks DH should pay 50/50 for ALL of the extras that BM wants the kids to participate in regardless if DH agrees. To BM DH is just a cash cow that is running low on milk.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:19 AM

=/ She still has bills. And she is on a seemingly never end spending spree. I figure she will be in the hole sooner rather than later.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:20 AM

Thanks..that pretty much sums it up :)_
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:21 AM

I agree...the issue is not her assests. The true issue is what is reasonable based on M5's h's income to raise 4 children...3 not living with him and one that does.
Posted by: Melody

A primary residence - 10/19/06 02:22 AM

is whatever property you are living in.....it doesn't matter if you had one first...that may have been your primary at one them, then you got another one which became primary. If the first one is the rental now, then it lost its primary status as soon as they moved into the other place and it became an income property.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:24 AM

going to the dr. 3 times a week is probably not reasonable. Playing sports, probably is reasonable considering their ages.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:27 AM

Not playing the amount of sports they are is not reasonable with our income.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

THIS IS NUTS... - 10/19/06 02:30 AM

Hopefully I might be able to clear this up......

M5, honestly... and don't shoot me... I do not believe that their home will be counted in for CS. If that was the case... I assure you... we would have MORE here that are aware of it.... and could offer advice.... We are talking about the avg. Joe family here.. not a millionare... NOT filthy rich... so... I wouldn't waste another breath even going into "what ifs". I know it's on your form... "assets" as it's on ALL of our forms... trust me.. I went through a very nasty divorce... with a money hungry ex... who wanted me to pay every dime that he could get.. FOR Me... paying over 1K for ONE child... if my home could had been used.. HE would had done it....

NOW.. I did read the TN guidelines.. and I DID find that a HOME could be considered "IF" (and this is verbatim) Extravagent lifestyles, including ownership of valuable assest and resources such AS (home and auto) that appears inappropriate.

In what you have said about the BM.. I do NOT think they fall into this catagory....
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:31 AM

It has a lot to do with CS when the settlement has afforded BM the ability to not produce an income because she no longer works. This is the exact reason why many states have a clause in CS laws that refers to other spouses or household members incomes can be considered when computing income. On paper it would look like BM and her husband were bums, if they had to prove their income, that is why assets,401k, stocks, bonds and bank account balances,etc. are discoverable. When I went to my CS hearing all of this was asked for as well as any liabilities that I have, as well as monthly expenses.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:32 AM

Then THAT is the issue. Why can't your H just say NO. Unless the sports are free no sports? What is so hard about that? I tell my daughter no all the time.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:34 AM

Maybe playing school sports, but not club sports that cost several hundred dollars per child, DH simply can not afford that, BM can.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:37 AM

He has said NO many times and BM keeps signing them up and billing DH for them.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:39 AM

So why doesn't he spend his time fighting that instead of figuring out how much her homes are worth? I think a lot of wasted time is spent on tracking the BM's spending sprees which are not M5's business.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:40 AM

Actual Caroline...they could not afford a 350K house based on what she made before the settlement. She made about 24K a year. Her H did not work before then and when he did manage to work, he made less than that. Yes, they are living extravagenly.

Katie..we HAVE said no to some of the sports..but BM signs them up anyway and bills us...I thought you understood that months ago?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:42 AM

Katie...omg what is your problem? We have been fighting this for over a YEAR!! It's EASY to track BM's spending spreesj as the MJORITY of that are BILLED TO US! And it's a simple matter of looking online to see how much her home is worth and yeah..it may come into play. Or it may not..right now I don't care about that part of it.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:42 AM

Why do you pay any attention to the bills IF they are not court ordered? They would have lasted 10 minutes in my house before they went into the shreader.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:44 AM

oh my gosh. Well..we said no the bills since DH was not part of the decision making process..and some he didn't agree to..and it was ignored after that...then she files contempt because we didn't pay them. so now we are defending ourselves and all this other crap. Sheesh..keep up!
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:45 AM

You know M5... I am not going to debate this issue with you.
If you feel you are correct.. so be it... I can say this would be one of the first cases I've heard of... I would LOVE Maury's input on this.... Hopefully he will chime in. I just did about 30 minutes research and I don't find any case law in TN for this.... Maybe you will be the first and your case will make the books.

I feel you are going down the wrong road and you are wasting resources on this.... but.. you are gonna do what you are gonna do. Good luck.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:47 AM

Wait a minute..I never said we were going down the road concerning the CS issue and trying to get her assets included in CS. It COULD happen, but we are not concerned about that right now. We are concerned with these other issues.

And..these new laws went into effect in June..alot of ppl probably don't know about them yet.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:48 AM

Why have not the courts accepted all of the copies of the denials and comformation of mail receipts? She asked and you said no.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:49 AM

She didn't ask she demanded. She is taking advantage of everything. Judge has not had a chance to look at all the evidence yet as it hasn't went to trial yet...it's been reset 3 times so far.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:50 AM

Katie are you as stupid as you make yourself sound? Have you ever really sat down and read the CS laws of any state? The courts could care less what your tax liabilities are, they do care about what the value of these things are to see if you are 1)hiding income 2)living outside of your means. If someone shows that they have zero income a year and are living in a $350,000 home the figures just don't add up, and the courts will want to know how you can afford that.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:50 AM

Maury has chimmed in and said that M5's husband would probably be liable for 50% of the activity fees.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:52 AM

And he also said he doesn't know the dinamics of the case, but that was just his opinion. Personally..atties we have talked to in OUR state have agreed with US. That's all that matters.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:53 AM

Mommyof2boys. Please!!!! I live a $850,000 condo. I could never buy or afford it. The courts do not consider your primary home. How much clearer can people make that for you? "The courts could care less what your tax liabilities are..." REALLY????? then why is tax liability used when calculating CS or SS??????
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:55 AM

My dec sheets showed me WAY better off then my ex. Didn't change a thing. Income to income was all that they cared about. In the end his was imputed.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:55 AM

850K? That would be considered rich here. An average 3 bedroom home costs about 80K here
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:57 AM

M5,

I've read the "new"... it does NOT, mention anything other then what I wrote.... it's 67 pages and it was revised June 2006. It's off the www.state.tn.us site.. so I am sure it's the most recent.

As I stated, I truly believe you are incorrect on this...
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 02:58 AM

Yes...it mentions exactly what I said originally...they base it on assets if the unemployed parent is living a lifestyle greater than cliamed etc. Not concerned about that right now though.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 02:59 AM

Rich, here nor there. Doesn't matter, in the end it is my primary home and does not generate income. However on the books I guess one could say that we live above our means. Come on we live in a condo, the next step down is a box.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:00 AM

No it's not..the next step is apartment then trailer..then a box. We are a step above a box.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Yes, but - 10/19/06 03:03 AM

I guess what you are not understanding is that you cannot prove she is living a greater lifestlye beyond her means.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:04 AM

Wrong, in my area apartment rates are more than my mortage and we don't have trailors because of flooding and mud slides. La Conchita ring a bell?
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:06 AM

According to the TN site.. it's a % of the income.... depending on children..

I've looked over Page 36-48 giving instructions for the worksheet and I don't see Assests anywhere mentioned.. then I looked at the actual forms page 49-51 and don't see it mentioned there either.. This is off the TN website... so you must have some really special form there... who knows.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:09 AM



Run, were you talking to me?I looked at the same website, and all the forms. TN has moved to a % based calculation. M5 is in denial.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:26 AM

No i'm just telling you what it says. When we got the cs reveiw stuff last year it asked us to list all our assets..and the same thing was sent to BM. She never filled it out and neither did we.

I've never seen the forms online though. I've never looked. We just get them in the mail from CSE whenever one or both us asks for a review.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

M5- - 10/19/06 03:26 AM

Help me here.. this might solve the whole thing...
Show me or tell me where I can find "they base it on assets" too.... I have read this thing front and back... read the proposed admendment.. etc.. I just can't find it...

You seem to be sure about this, so I am sure you can point me right too it.... I would like to read what it says.

Oh.. the part about the homes/auto's..I read it further and that was showing that the person could pay MORE. Not that if the other parent has the things... they are paid less.....it's rather "gray" on that...

I found this:

The guidelines define net income as gross pay less taxes, social security, and medicare payments using one deduction. In addition, the person paying child support is presumed to be providing medical insurance for the child. Gross income includes all in- come from any source (before taxes and other deductions), whether earned or unearned, and includes but is not limited to, the following: wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, overtime payments, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust in- come, annuities, capital gains, benefits received from the Social Security Administration, workers compensation benefits, whether temporary or permanent, judgments recovered for personal in- juries, unemployment insurance benefits, gifts, prizes, lottery winnings, alimony or maintenance, and income from self- employment. Income from self-employment includes income from business operations and rental properties, etc., less reasonable expenses necessary to produce such income.

SO the rental homes are a no brainer.... but that was already determined..

Here is the part on valuable assests:

Valuable assets (expensive home or automobile which seem inappropriate for the income claimed by the person paying support) will be considered for increasing support if the court finds that fairness requires it. Deviation from the guidelines to reduce support may occur if the court finds it is in the best interest of the children
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:27 AM

Ah! Odd... I would figure they would have all forms online....
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:30 AM

Are you now saying that you are basing all of this on the forms from last year that you and the BM never filled out or returned????? Why in the world did you point us in the direction of the new June reforms when it totally contridicts your cause? Ok start gloating about your misdirected insight! Also, don't hire your expensive attorney whom is still basing his advice on the "old" guidelines that you willingly explained to us.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:33 AM

Here is a copy and paste from the CS guidelines gotten off of the state website:


2. Imputed Income.
(i) Imputing additional gross income to a parent is appropriate in the following
situations:
(I) If a parent has been determined by a tribunal to be willfully and/or
voluntarily underemployed or unemployed; or
(II) When there is no reliable evidence of income; or
(III) When the parent owns substantial non-income producing assets, the court
may impute income based upon a reasonable rate of return upon the assets.
(ii) Determination of Willful and/or Voluntary Underemployment or Unemployment.
The Guidelines do not presume that any parent is willfully and/or voluntarily
under or unemployed. The purpose of the determination is to ascertain the reasons
for the parentís occupational choices, and to assess the reasonableness of these
choices in light of the parentís obligation to support his or her child(ren) and to
determine whether such choices benefit the children.
(I) A determination of willful and/or voluntary under or unemployment is not
limited to occupational choices motivated only by an intent to avoid or
reduce the payment of child support. The determination may be based on
any intentional choice or act that affects a parentís income.
(II) Once a parent that has been found to be willfully and/or voluntarily under or
unemployed, additional income can be allocated to that parent to increase
the parentís gross income to an amount which reflects the parentís income
potential or earning capacity, and the increased amount shall be used for
child support calculation purposes. The additional income allocated to the
parent shall be determined using the following criteria:
I. The parentís past and present employment; and
II. The parentís education and training.
(III) A determination of willful and voluntary unemployment or
underemployment shall not be made when an individual enlists, is drafted,
or is activated from a Reserve or National Guard unit, for full-time service
in the Armed Forces of the United States.
(iii) Factors to be Considered When Determining Willful and Voluntary
Unemployment or Underemployment.
The following factors may be considered by a tribunal when making a
determination of willful and voluntary underemployment or unemployment:
(I) The parentís past and present employment;
(II) The parentís education, training, and ability to work;
(III) The State of Tennessee recognizes the role of a stay-at-home parent as an
important and valuable factor in a childís life. In considering whether there
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES CHAPTER 1240-2-4
(Rule 1240-2-4-.04, continued)
June, 2006 (Revised) 15
should be any imputation of income to a stay-at-home parent, the tribunal
shall consider:
I. Whether the parent acted in the role of full-time caretaker while the
parents were living in the same household;
II. The length of time the parent staying at home has remained out of the
workforce for this purpose; and
III. The age of the minor children.
(IV) A parentís extravagant lifestyle, including ownership of valuable assets and
resources (such as an expensive home or automobile), that appears
inappropriate or unreasonable for the income claimed by the parent;
(V) The parentís role as caretaker of a handicapped or seriously ill child of that
parent, or any other handicapped or seriously ill relative for whom that
parent has assumed the role of caretaker which eliminates or substantially
reduces the parentís ability to work outside the home, and the need of that
parent to continue in that role in the future;
(VI) Whether unemployment or underemployment for the purpose of pursuing
additional training or education is reasonable in light of the parentís
obligation to support his/her children and, to this end, whether the training
or education will ultimately benefit the child in the case immediately under
consideration by increasing the parentís level of support for that child in the
future;
(VII) Any additional factors deemed relevant to the particular circumstances of
the case.
(iv) Imputing Income When There is No Reliable Evidence of Income.
(I) When Establishing an Initial Order.
I. If a parent fails to produce reliable evidence of income (such as tax
returns for prior years, check stubs, or other information for
determining current ability to support or ability to support in prior
years for calculating retroactive support); and
II. The tribunal has no reliable evidence of the parentís income or
income potential;
III. Then, in such cases, gross income for the current and prior years
shall be determined by imputing annual gross income of thirty-six
thousand three hundred sixty-nine dollars ($36,369) for male parents
and twenty-six thousand nine hundred eighty-nine dollars ($26,989)
for female parents. These figures represent the full time, year round
workersí median gross income, for the Tennessee population only,
from the American Community Survey of 2004 from the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:35 AM

No katie..I'm not saying that at all..I'm basing it on the new guidelines.

I didn't realize you were speaking of the forms they had online, but the forms for review..which are slightly ..ok alot...different.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:36 AM

Starts on page 14 caroline
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:38 AM

So they do say non-income producing assets...my bad on that one ;)
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:39 AM

The on line forms are the offical ones from the state. If I were you I would look at thoes! Usually the court decides on the offical guidelines.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:40 AM

Mommyof2boys piped up when she should not have....her bad
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:41 AM

No she didn't. And we used those forms online to determine CS..but its not the same thing as what CSE sends out for a "review". They send those out every 3 yrs btw...those forms online are used only when determining CS.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:41 AM

And um..hello..they are saying non income producing assets CAN be included.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:42 AM

) When the parent owns substantial non-income producing assets, the court
may impute income based upon a reasonable rate of return upon the assets.


So YOU were wrong on that one Katie..you said they wouldn't count nonincome producing.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:47 AM

REASONABLE RETURN....... Do you understand that term?????????????????????????? The last time you sold property, you must have had a dec sheet that explained what your "Reasonable return" was. One does not get a return unless the item is sold. M5, I know that you are young, but please tell me you understand Econ 101?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:50 AM

It simply means.... if you own a house and it is valued at $10, and you sell it for $2 you will be imputed on the "reasonable return" of $10. Is that simple enough for you. The BM has not recieved ANY return!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:50 AM

Katie..it's not telling them to sell the assets but it bases it on a reasonable return of them IF they are sold correct? Gee..if she were to sell her home..she would make more than what she paid for it more than likely.

All I'm saying is that they do include that in some cases. I never said that I understood HOW they would do it,but they would do it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:51 AM

Again, they don't care if she has a return or not, but they would base it on that as if she were receiving a return.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:53 AM

In most places apartments are more than mortgages, however not everyone can afford a downpayment for a house and must live in an apartment. What does flooding or mud slides have to do with trailors? That is about as intelligent as saying they shouldn't allow trailors in Oklahoma, Nebraska because of tornados. Thier are trailors in New Orleans and we all know it floods here, we are below sea level for Christ sake.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:53 AM

I am sure the courts will rule in your favor based on the guidelines from BEFORE they were reformed. The guidelines that you nor the BM filled out or returned. Sorry, TN does not have a "Grandfather" clause.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:54 AM

Econ Katie? More like Finance and Accounting!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 03:54 AM

I guess Santa Barbara County has better safety codes...Sorry. Besides, I don't think there is a big market/need for trailor living in my area


"Thier are trailors in New Orleans and we all know it floods here, we are below sea level for Christ sake."

And, how did that work out for ya all?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:00 AM

Katie that made no sense whatsoever. CS was calculated months AFTER we got the review forms for it.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:03 AM

M5...

two things...

ONE is the word "substantial".... owning a home is NOT substantial.. OWNING two homes is NOT substantial... NOW.. if she owns TWO Homes, LOTS of gold and art work.. then sure.. this could apply.... this falls in under the "extravagant lifestyle" we talked about...

TWO-I believe.. and I can research it tomorrow.. but I believe Katie is correct on her example.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:03 AM

M5 please request the new forms or download them yourself. I am done with this. You will win. Go get em'
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:06 AM

She is.. it's on page 14.. I found it.. but as I pointed out... the key word is "substantial". which means "fairly large". two homes in todays world is not "substantial".
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:06 AM

uuuuuummmmmmmm her 2 properties is not the only assets she has...I could go on and on.

But I'm tired of arguing about this. If I'm right then great..if you guys are right then that's fine too. Like I said before...it's not the CS we are dealing with right now. We have other issues to resolve and whether or not we go have CS recalculated is iffy. If the income for both of them stays the same (based on her last job and DH's jobs now) then we still qualify for more than $100 decrease a month in CS based on number of days we have them (that changed too) and BM no longer carrying insurance. I could really care less right now if it's based on her assets or not.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:07 AM

"Econ Katie? More like Finance and Accounting!"

Nope it is Econ. Finance and accounting would refer to the way one manges money. Econ is used to explain the way in which the "whole" spends or saves money
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:07 AM

Katie.. it's the new guideline.. I found it... it's under "imputed income".
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:08 AM

But it is susbstantial here..for us...and even for BM. Compared to how they were living before.

Katie..for the last time we don't need any forms. We have all we need ok? You don't get the new forms until you have CS calculated or recalculated. They use the "asset" form when sending out the review..but its' not used to calculate CS.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:09 AM

I would have to wonder then... *if* she has all these assets then she is NOT out of money... she could sell them to pay an attorney... Maybe holding out could hurt you.... I didn't realize she was bank rolling in "non-producing assets". You will need to think this out....
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:09 AM

I also want to add that I don't know about all of her assets..She could very well have other properties in other counties that I don't know about. I only know of the two in our county and the other things. She could have alot socked away somewhere else.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:10 AM

Well I don't think she would want her atty having a lien on any of her propeties or assets...which is one of the reasons why I think she is wanting to settle. The assets are still there but she doesn't want to touch them unless she has to.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:14 AM

okay... I would just find it odd... for someone to go this far.... to fight this long.. and as much as she has... to just roll over and "settle" knowing she had all those assets.

You feel that she has "substantial" assets.... if she has a home that is paid for... she can do simple home equity loan to pay for an attorney.... if she has two homes,, PAID for, which you claim.. banks would be happy to lend her money... Something isn't adding up... but.. none-the-less...... hopefully you all will come to an agreement.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:17 AM

why would her attorney put a lien on her assests. So far you have not said that she has a judgement against her. Liens can only be placed against property if there is a judgement against one. So far, it sounds like the judgement is going to be against you.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:18 AM

Well I know if I were in her shoes, and the only steady income I had coming in was CS...and EVERYTHING was paid off...I wouldn't want to take out a morgage or equity on my property or take out a loan to pay an atty over this piddly crap when I know I'm more than likely going to lose.

She has assets..she just doesn't want to touch them unless she HAS to. I don't blame her for that, but she should have thought about that before she started this crap with us. She just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone. I have a feeling that sooner or later those assets will be touched.

They just bought a brand spanking new RV..so I don't know if she's running out of money or not (not including her assets).
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:19 AM

Because her atty will take out a lien on her property if she has no other way of paying him..this coming from HIS mouth! She will have no judgement against us dear. Can squeeze blood from a turnip and all that jazz. She won't win in court, although I know you are hoping she will.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:23 AM

And Caroline...there is no way you can understand this woman. She is not a "good" person or even a person with good common sense. ALl she can think about is revenge. She wants nothing more than to see us suffer and in financial ruins. She should love her kids more than she hates us but she doesn't.

This woman is truely "evil" in alot of respects. She has done alot of stupid things and you would think she had learned her lesson (and some of them were hard lessons when she had to do jail time) but she hasn't. She just keeps on and on and on..she will NEVER stop. This woman will be taking us to court over anything and everything she can (be it based on lies and trumped up allegations or whatever) for the next 7 years. The ONLY thing we can do is defend ourselves and make the CO more tight...more wordy so she can't do the things she is doing now.

If DH doesn't agree with her on all things..it's back to court we go with her filings.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:25 AM

Her attorney told You that she put up her property as collatral against her unpaid attorney fees? I find this unbelievable! What the hell is going on in TN?
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:25 AM

Okay honey.. I'm done on this subject... this speculation is just that.. speculation...issue a discovery.. see what you can find... try to drag it out.. and settle or go to court if you can come up with the $$.

One breath she is running out of money.. next breath she has two homes... next breath.. she could have more in other counties... next her attorney has said he would take a lien, next she has a RV....

I can't keep up with this.... I'm too old...
I don't know why her attorney would had said he would take a lien.... especially to you or your DH... that isn't his business... and I would had fired him on the spot...
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:30 AM

He didn't say that to DH...DH over heard him...and he also told that to our now ex atty. lol. Amazing the info attys share with each other sometimes, huh?

No I am hoping she is running out of money and will then have to start selling off their assets. This is what has confused me. They bought an RV in August...and now the kids are saying they are going to sell their boat because they need the money. Their properties that I know of are still owned free and clear...how much longer that lasts, I don't know. Her H is not bringing in much money right now..that I know...and she isn't either.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:30 AM

M5,

Hey.. I am with you...I am the one that suggested you drag it out... as long as you can to come up with the $$....

but.. I don't think you are being honest or realistic on this....

First, she wants to settle.. next you are saying she was "evil". I just find it very hard.... and I am sorry to say this.. very hard to believe that a person that will stop at nothing would NOT sell off assets or bank roll an attorney and continue this.... This is not adding up....for you to go as far as saying she could have properties in other counties.. but yet.. she's running out of money.... I am just very confused on it all.....

She's out of money, but yet she bought an RV? I mean.. come on... it's either/or.. but not both....

I don't want to fight with ya.. I know you are doing your best... but this just isn't making sense.....
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:30 AM

Well, this is a long thread and far to much for my meager mind to take in.

I understand that the NCP has two homes. They do not get calculated into income for child support unless they are income producing. The exception would be if this was some sort of business acquisition that could artificially decerase income by being called a business expense. Certainly assets may be considered in a child support calculation. In practice, they get little attention.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:32 AM

WEll I am just as confused as you are Caroline. I don't know for sure if she is running out of money or not...I hope so. But she also has to deal with her H...those are his assets too so maybe that s why they haven't touched them yet
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:35 AM

The court will not touch his assets or include them unless it is sheltered income.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:37 AM

ok..what is sheltered income?

And I don't want them to touch his assets..
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:37 AM

That is what we have been telling her. She has called us stupid and a "Tard's" M5 has a secret law up her sleeve that the courts do not know about yet
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:40 AM

M5,

this is exactly what I have been telling you.. but what do I know... remember the part about extravagent lifestyle including ownership of valuable assets and resources, such as exp. houses/cars.. that appears "inappropriate"?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:40 AM

Katie you shouldn't act stupid. And it's "tard" not a tards. lol. No I NEVER said that they would include her H's income or whatever. NEVER. But it will come into play since its' affording her to do all this stuff. It will NOT be part of ANY CS calculations dear!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:41 AM

ugh...I don't think I'm getting my point across. We shall see in the end I guess. IF DH decides to go that route with CS calculations (and i'm not so sure he will..like I said..we have no problems with the CS right now..it's the other issues).
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:44 AM

Sheltered income means that a person is artificially reducing their income by writing off investments that would otherwise be counted as income for support. So,if a person owned their own busuiness and bought the corporate cottage or the corportae boat, that would be a suspect expenditure. If the person is paying guideline support and can still afford to invest, it will not be income. If it is a rental property, the rent would.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:45 AM

"And I don't want them to touch his assets.. " WTF...what are you talking about????????? All you bi0tched and moaned about was his settlement! Hence...his, his, his
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:47 AM

"Katie you shouldn't act stupid. And it's "tard" not a tards. lol. No I NEVER said that they would include her H's income or whatever. NEVER. But it will come into play since its' affording her to do all this stuff. It will NOT be part of ANY CS calculations dear!"


M5 does that even make sense to YOU?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:48 AM

NOT FOR CS KATIE!!!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:48 AM

And yes it does Katie..makes alot of sense.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:49 AM

I am totally confused now....

HE won the insurance settlement.. due to this.. HE was able to purchase a home.. or two.. or three... with this settlement... SHE didn't... according to you..

So.. what is it you are after....

It's late.. I must be a "tard".
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:51 AM

Here is how child support guidelines work. If your earn "X" (net or gross depending on your state) - you pay "y." That is the rebuttable preumption. All child support laws include language that alows the court to consider the standard of living of the chilid had teh marriage continued and all financial resources. 99 times out of 100, the guidelines will reflect the income. The new house won't matter much unless it is a way to reduce income. For example, another way to shelter income would be if someone reduced their income and, instead, took stock, stock options or some other "in kind" payments. They restructured their income to avoid the child support consequence.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:51 AM

but am I wrong.. these things she has is because of a settlement... of HIS. So how could they even be remotely considered as assets of HERS.. she can show how they purchased the homes.. *with his gains*.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:52 AM

We are just wanting the amount of money she has available to her come into play during the court proceeding...dealing with how we can not afford all these extras and chiros and she can (thats why she can) when before they got the settlement, she didn't do this crap. Does that make sense? We are not wanting to do anything with the CS right now...and if CS eventually does get reveiwed again...we are not going to demand they base it on her assets or his settlement (that would be dumb).

We ONLY want the settlement/assets mentioned for this other crap we have to deal with. If a judge knows what she is doing and how she is able to do it, then he will surely rule in our favor since it's not REASONABLE to expect we can afford all this stuff just because SHE now can. Make sense?
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:53 AM

Insurance settlements are a financial resource that may be considered. States may differ on this, but around here, if it is not a regular structured payment and the unless the person is not paying guideline support, it gets little attention.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:53 AM

and I've seen it sheltered through insurance....
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:55 AM

I guess this nothing to do with CS!!!! Isn't extra's included in CS "stuff" TN is way to advanced for us simple people in California. I guess the extra activities falls into a legal category that hasn't made itself out west yet. Damn, I hate that! We are always the last to get the latest fashions, and now apparently the laws!
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:55 AM

A court may certainly determine responsibility for uninsured expenses based on ability to pay. It is fair game in that area. It is not the strongest argument and I would not file a Motion based on that. But if you are going to court already, I would raise it.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:57 AM

Katie...we have been thru this months ago. No...extras are not part of CS calulations...you can dieviate and add them though (which was what we were wanting to do last year but crappy atty) Extras are split 50/50 in his CO right now.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:58 AM

well hell... I am so far in the woods.. excuse me for pointing out some major descrepancies.... but.. I was basing it off this comment.. which was about CS.

"Oh..and they told him that we did not want to go and have CS reviewed because it may not look good for us since BM doesn't have a job and will base it on her past earnings. DH said "Yes but they ALSO base it on ASSETS". They shut up real fast then. "
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:59 AM

Yes that was what was said. But we are not seeking a CS review at this time. She hasn't yet either...not sure if she will or not..but I thought she was going to.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 04:59 AM

It seems to me the hurdle is proving that there has been a substantial change in circumstance since the last order. If there was a disparity in earnings then and now, I think it may be an uphill battle. Generally, you are stuck with the benefit of your bargain.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:01 AM

I don't know...whe had a HORRIBLE atty last year..she let herself be bullied by BM's atty waaaaaaaay too much an she didn't do half the crap we asked her to..one of which was very simple..get the extras put in CS caluclations..and she didn't even do that.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:01 AM

well [censored].. that is what prompted these 20 some odd pages.... it's nuts.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:02 AM

EXACTLY!!! Your Dear Husband AGREED to pay 50/50 on the "extra's" It is now up to your dear husband to prove to the court that is not what he really meant. Also, he has paid for the medical (Chiro) in the past. It will/ is hard now to prove that he doesn't believe in it. Good Luck! When you are in your 30's or 40's you will have a better handle on the reality of what the situation is> When I was 25 I also thought I knew or could explain everything the way I wanted it to be!
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:02 AM

If that is the case, you don't get two bites at the apple. In other words, you cannot litigate a matter that should have been litigated previously unless there is some substantial (and I do mean substantial) change.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:03 AM

LOL! Ok..I realllllllllllly need to go to bed or something...can we continue this tomorrow or just leave off it now?
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:05 AM

The BM has come up with another settlement... I told M5 to throw something outrageous out there in their counter.. and continue negotiations as long as they could.. while they save up for an Attorney....either A) she will settle and they will get what they want.. or B) it will go to court and they will have the $$ to pay for it.....
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:05 AM

Katie..DH agreed to a 50/50 split in extras when he gave her custody..based on they were doing AYSO soccer and THAT"S IT. Who would have thunk it would go this far and get so expensive? I know I didn't. Then again, I never believed they would get 2.3 mill settlment. Go figure.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:07 AM

Based on the limited amount I have read, I would not file a Motion. If someone else filed, your counter punch is as you have stated. It is weak, but, then again, predicting Jugdes is like predicting the weather. You can give only a probability of cloudy skies.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:07 AM

The BM brought on the case.. I think because M5's husband was not able to pay for the extra's.. however.. it was suppose to be agreed upon... (I think). So.. BM ran a muck and has around 3K of stuff that she has dumped on them.. and they can't pay.....

She seems to feel, they can negoiate/change it... when it was orginally agreed upon.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:08 AM

Sometimes you have better luck in VEGAS baby!
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:09 AM

Anything incurred previously must be paid. There is no retroactive modification. If they share legal custody and the expense was agreed upon -- I suppose you have no choice but to argue the point prospectively. I would not have high hopes.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:15 AM

I agree.. and we've tried to explain that... but we are the bad guys.... LOL....as I said.. what do I know... nuttin baby.. nuttin.

Katie has tried to explain that to M5 for a few weeks now... and she keeps saying they have a case.. I hope they do because BM has really raked up some $$.

M5- I don't see Katie "wishing" you would loose.. I think.. really.. she's tried to explain to you exactly what Maury has said.... Your husband did an agreement on these charges.. now.. of course.. they were excessive.. and the agreement did not specify "which" soccer club.... or how much.... so he is held responsible for these expenses.. SUCKS.. I know.. but Katie is not the bad guy for trying to get you to understand.. I realize you don't like what she is saying.. but she has said the same thing Maury has just said.....
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:18 AM

"Who would have thunk it would go this far and get so expensive?"

Anybody with half a brain knows the older kids get the more their activities cost! When my d was 12 I hated paying 10 bucks for the rollerdome every Friday! Ahhhh, I wish for the 10 dollar weekend to return!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:20 AM

Caroline is right...BM is the one that filed and started this because DH refused to pay for things that he didn't agree to (yes it is supposed to be joint decisions) and couldn't afford.

Oh and Katie...we never agreed with the chiro stuff and we have never paid any uncovered chiro expenses. That would be stupid since we dispute it and can't afford it.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:21 AM

I guess, when you are placed in a position of having to make an argument, any argument is better than none. In that sense, I can't fault the argument so long as its limitations are understood. Think of it like football, (Since my Packers stink, it is the only football argument I have), sometimes you challenge a call and hope to get lucky.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:22 AM

Ok we are not talking about $10 Katie..we are talking thousands (added up). Point is..all decisons are supposed to be joint...that hasn't happened. SHe signs them up and bills us thank you very much. Nice present. There has to be limits and caps on it. If she wants to go into debt because of the kids activities that is her perrogative. She shouldn't drag us down with her though.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:26 AM

I would agree that there are limits. It would depend on whether the activities are excessive. If you are paying for activities, that is one thing. If you are paying for olympic training....need an agent?
Posted by: Melody

IF AND WHEN - 10/19/06 05:27 AM

they are sold....not IF they did someday in the future! The wording of those forms addresses a situation where a parent sells a non-income producing property, such as a residence, and gets a large capital gain....a one time windfall of profit. That would normally not be considered REGULAR income, since it happens only the one time...not weekly or bi monthly like a paycheck. So...the courts can impute an income based on the reasonable return on the sale of that asset....but ONLY if that asset is actually sold....not COULD be sold. There's a huge difference!!!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:29 AM

LOL! No olympics here! We are not saying no to all the activites...just the ones we can't afford. Club soccer is a big one. We want them to continue with middle and HS soccer.

The activities are so excessive that SD is burnt out on soccer...she even refuses to go to any of the boys games because she can't stand it and she is dreading when her mother signs her up for the next round. And that is sad.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:29 AM

"There has to be limits and caps on it." But so far there has not been. Like Maury has said, Your H's is liable for the past due money! Period! Try and get it changed. But, like Maury as pointed out, there has not been a drastic change in cirumstance, other then you are sick of it!
Posted by: Maury

Re: IF AND WHEN - 10/19/06 05:29 AM

Look. I hate to state the obvious, but I think we agree here. It is an argument. One that should be made if there is a hearing. Is it a great one --no. I think we got that. M5 may have thought it was a bit better earlier. Nonetheless, at this stage, you make it. What is the downside? There is a hearing scheduled. No need to beat her up for trying. We can all aspire and try. Sometimes it is a matter of necessity.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:30 AM

HEY... they might win this weekend against the Dolphins!! LOL.... I am an official Cheese head myself... love my packers!!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:31 AM

WEll Katie I'm just glad you are not a judge.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:32 AM

The big question is why can't your husband afford them now? Did he lose a job? What is the change in circumstance?
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:32 AM

And all I can say...you can squeeze blood from a turnip. We just don't have it.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:32 AM

I have four tickets a year. I love going to Lambeau. I love the Pack. I even think this team is very close. Perhaps that is the optimism of a Packer fan. As long as the Vikings and Bears lose, all is well. I tell people I moved to MN to get away from pro football. Our office is three doors down from the Vikes. As long as they keep hiring criminals, I have business.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:33 AM

Katie you are really getting on my nerves. Is that intentional? Because we hvae been over this. My DH has NOT lost a job. He has 2 jobs. My DH couldn't afford all this then or now!! But it wasn't happening then,...it's happening NOW!!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:34 AM

Maybe the judge will read the law differently then the rest of us and read it the way you do! Doubtful but one can hope.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:35 AM

what law are you talking about? Are you still stuck on the CS matter? Thought we got past that as we are not going to court over CS.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:35 AM

LOL. This thread now is just poking at each other. M5--you have a hearing. Make the argument. I wish you well and you never know. Katie- I understand your frustration. Nonetheless, at this point it is an argument and nothing more. I do get where you are coming from, I felt that frustration before with M5. Not so much lately.

M5, if I may, you seem very young. I know that sounds like a slight. It is not meant as such. But I get the drift that you are sticking up for your spouse and may not have a great grip on the legal issue. I understand that you are focused on one side of the case. Many probably feel, you are well, rather unilaterally motivated. I understand that, but if you seek information, accept it and ask questions. You get far too defensive--almost blindly so. You don't have to defend here. Alternate opinions are your friend. You will encounter them in court.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:37 AM

M5....the biggest problem you have here is the legal aspect...YOUR husband agreed to it! I don't wish you harm. I really don't! I just hate to see you hope for something that isn't going to happen! You misread the law and tried to make it "fit" into your world.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:40 AM

M5.....

I went back through all freaking 30+ pages... and I can understand her frustration here.... there are so many contridictions.. it's crazy... I don't know how anyone kept up!

I would tell anyone to go back and re-read it all... it's there.. black and white.

The frustration lies in the fact that when you are told that something wasn't correct.. you start calling names... you called Katie and Idiot.. and a tard.. when she again.. has said exactly what Maury has said... I realize you don't like her.. but in all honesty..if you remove your personal feelings.. you will see.. she was right.... I can't make that any more clear.

1/2 way through this.. you were saying how the assest would go towards the CS.. you made many references to it many times.. but now.. that isn't the issue?

You kept mentioning Assets... ANNE even asked you if it was none-income producing.. and you said you didn't know... that all it said was "assets". when it was mentioned several more times, you kept saying. it just said "assets". Which after me pressing.. we find out.. it IS None-income producing....

Then when we try to explain to you what "non-producing" and returns were.. you again...told us we didn't know anything.....

Then.. when I try to explain to you what it meant.. by the extravagent lifestyle.. you didn't listen... and to mention.. I threw in "appears inappropriate"... you disagreed.....

It's just so frustrating....

My heart goes out to you and your husband... I wish I could offer some type of advice.. but I can't sit here and say you are right.. and she (BM) is wrong.. that is not fair to you.... I hate setting up improper expectations.... I can only go on experience... and it's gonna be rough....
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:43 AM

As with anything -- particularly in court --it is not what you say that is objectionable, it is how you say it. One key in court, is if a Judge says something, agree, and then offer an alternate factual basis. It is all about perception.

Example-- never say "but Judge..."
Instead say, "Judge, that is correct, but the statute says ____ and, in this case ....."

Same holds true on this board. Give credibility where it is due and then offer an alternate opinion. Things are swallowed easier with some lubricant.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:48 AM

I'm not as young as some seem to think I am. And there are alot who agree with me. I've been thru the court wringer numerous times. I think Katie has only been...once? Twice? Something like that. I know what I"m dealing with and I know who and what kind of judge we have. I certainly do hope we win but i know there is a chance we won't.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:49 AM

ROFL.. you are awesome! I love your commentary.. always so right.. and so easy to understand!
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:51 AM

That was a good example. You separated the posts into them and your posse. Moreover, you have never been in court. Your spouse has. You are support and a spectator. All I am saying is listen and pick the fruit that looks ripe.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:52 AM

I said assets can be included in CS calulations. I never said that that was what we were seeking but whatever. I'm tired and going to bed.

It's funny...some of you have changed sides here lol. Alot thought we had a strong case and some still do..but all of a sudden it's not so strong..why is that? Nothing has changed.

And another thing..attornies who practice here think we have a strong case. Our now "ex' atty (don't ya love that) said that we do have a strong case because of how our CO is worded in certain areas...but he suggested we shouldn't try and get her assets included in CS calculations.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:54 AM

May as well speak to a wall, I guess. You are absolutely correct. It is a slam dunk. I don't suppose you considered lawyers are competing for business.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:55 AM

Maury you are wrong. I have been in court. Not just as support and spectator. I have my own ex to deal with also, along with DH's crap. I've been a witness on the stand in front of BM's atty more times that I care to think about.

I don't have a possee on here. I think most on here has called names before...so I'm not the only one...and alot who has are not "young".

I thought, at one point, that Caroline felt we had a good case considering the dynamics here. Katie at one time agreed..but she flip flops alot.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:57 AM

Fine. I am not here to argue. Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in for whatever it is worth. Good luck.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 05:59 AM

Yes I've considered that lol Who wouldn't? I do trust our "ex" atty though. He is just awesome..but a pain in the arse!!

No...offer honest opinions and I'll accept it..may not like it but I'll accept it. But when someone says something that is not true or is not understanding the situation, then I will explain further or try to. We ARE NOT wanting to include any assets or her H's settlement in any CS calculations. We just want the judge (who knows the case file well and has a strong dislike for BM) to understand why she is able to afford these things and why simply can't. That's all.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:02 AM

I understand. I would simply suggest that black and white opinions tend to generate a malestrom of equally strong opinions. The Columbo (for a young 'un--he is a bumbling detective -or so it seems) approach may be preferred where you ask what people think. Again, it is not the messge, but the delivery. I also understand that there is history here that precludes some of that.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:06 AM

No...offer honest opinions and I'll accept it..may not like it but I'll accept it. But when someone says something that is not true or is not understanding the situation, then I will explain further or try to. We ARE NOT wanting to include any assets or her H's settlement in any CS calculations. We just want the judge (who knows the case file well and has a strong dislike for BM) to understand why she is able to afford these things and why simply can't. That's all.

-------------->THIS is a contridication to WHAT you orginially said... I've already pointed that out too you.. it was around page 22/25 that you said you were not reviewing CS.... what are WE to think up until then... YOU said it.... NOT us.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:06 AM

Thanks Maury for you honest opinions :) You may just be right ;)
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:08 AM

We get it. Now --something more important--GO PACKERS! I never said I was right. I was just assessing strength of argument based on my limited experience in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Heck, Another state could be completely different. They tend to be somewhat similar. Never totally. I learn alot here about other states.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:08 AM

Caroline...I'm sorry I confused you and whoever else. That was not my intention. To be honest..I don't remember how the issue of CS got started and I'm too beat to go back and reread. It was not my intention to confuse anyone or to have anyone think we were going back for a cs review..such is not the case at this time.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:09 AM

I do not know who the reference is to that "a lot have changed sides here".... but I have stressed my concern all along..... AND.. when the story or case gets deeper... sometimes other things come out.. that can change opinion or sway thoughts...... I think that is what has happened.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:09 AM

<---Not into football O.O
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:10 AM

ok.......so.....what has came out that changed opinions? I posted nothing new except that BM wants to settle out of court =/ See now I'm confused.
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:11 AM

If you are not into football, we will immediate initiate you as a Packer fan. I call dibs! ( I wonder if there is a commission).

After 36 pages, who would not be confused.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:11 AM

um ok...guess I'm a Packers fan now...do I get anything cool out of it?
Posted by: Maury

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:13 AM

I will send you a number 4 Brett Favre jersey. Just give me an IM with the address. Of course, you must immediately hate the Chicago Bears. And love brats and cheese. If you are a vegan --you are a patriots fan.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: I believe it was an insurance settlement - 10/19/06 06:23 AM

Ok I hate the bears and whatever else...where's my free stuff? lol
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 11:29 AM

M5's husband makes $30,000 a year. Out of that, he has to pay all Federal, state, local, etc. taxes. Then, he also has to pay CS along with medical insurance.

So, lets say after all of that, he has $22,000 a year to support M5 and their child.

According to the CO, M5's husband has agreed to pay extra activities that are MUTUALLY agreed upon.

Now we have BM, who at one point was working and making $24,000 a year. Her new hubby was not working, so no income was coming in.

New hubby got a $2.3 million settlement. Let's say that after taxes, attorney fees, etc., that the amount is now $1.5 million. Yes, it is new hubby's money BUT BM is now benefiting also by way of new house, RV, boat and LOTS of extra money available to do what she wants, assuming new hubby is allowing it (and it appears he is allowing it). It is so much money, that now she can quit working. It also allows her to sign children up for anything and everything.

And, she does because she knows that is one way to bankrupt her ex and "punish" him. So, we sign kids up for every expensive sport available and bill ex half without asking permission. When we ask permission, he says no, I can't afford it. We take kids to chiroquack 3 days a week, even though there is NO insurance coverage or apparently any need (do normal people do that)???

So, now, instead of having $22,000 to support his family, we may be down to $18,000 or even less to support 3 people.

So, BM decides to throw a little fit and take ex to court because he isn't paying 1/2 for sports and chiro - even though per their CO, they have to MUTUALLY agree.

Then, we get to the braces - BM pays the entire bill (remember she has no income) and bills ex for 1/2 and wants payment in 30 days.

Very easy to sign children up for all sports, medical stuff, dental stuff - BM, who has NO INCOME, pays for these in cash and then expects payment in 30 days.

Tell me how any of that sounds fair or that part of hubby's assets and BM assets, shouldn't be counted for this part only.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 11:36 AM

Then, we have the original house that BM owns and she calls it rental property but it is sitting there vacant.

Why can't we imput income on what it would earning if it was being rented.

BM is also required by the CO to carry insurance on the children but she isn't, so that is why M5's husband is being billed for more things.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 11:39 AM

If this hasn't been explained enough... well.. dunno what else we can do....
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 05:50 PM

Thanks Buckeye...that sums it up pretty much..in a nutshell lol
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:01 PM

"Why can't we imput income on what it would earning if it was being rented."

What if she doesn't want to rent it? Maybe she wants it to rot away. Her house, her business? What if the courts imputed your income because you didn't rent out your garage or a bedroom to a complete stranger? For the last time, owning a house is not considered extravagant (exceeding the limits of reason)
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:04 PM

Maybe not on the coasts, but here in fly over country, people think differently. The average joe doesn't have two houses and if they did, they don't let one fall to rack and ruin. They would have to rent it out because of taxes, insurance, etc.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:10 PM

Her rental...they just updated the heck out of it...not sure why she hasn't rented it out yet...it's been vacant for at least 6 months but they have been finished with the updates since July.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:12 PM

who said that the BM has let her house fall to rack and ruin???
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:16 PM

"Maybe she wants it to rot away". You were the one.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Wow, are you really THAT biased? - 10/19/06 06:16 PM

There is another poster on here who's ex claims to make 16K a year and she wants the court to base it on what SHE thinks he COULD make (not what he HAS made, what he COULD make, if he did what SHE suggested), and you are ALL for that. But not for this MOMMY...hmmm...interesting.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:20 PM

Ok, according to our standards...ppl in this area of the country making less than 25K a year (per the current CS calculations)and living the lifestyle she does is considered extravagent. How can someone making 24K a year buy and pay off a 350K house? And that's not even touching the other things. Don't even include her H' income since he had none before and makes less than 20K per year now.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:21 PM

M5 - is it an RV or a trailer? I can't remember. If it is an RV, is it like a Bluebird or something that big???
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:29 PM

It's an RV...not sure what brand but it's really big and really nice. It was bought new too. I think the kids said it sleeps 8...not sure on that though.
Posted by: gr8Dad

MS, you're wasting your breath... - 10/19/06 06:32 PM

There are a few on here that believe that if an NCP finds a penny on the ground, they should cut it in half and give half to the CP, but the CP can do WHATEVER they want, make as MUCH as they want, and NCP should just shut up and pay half.
Posted by: Maury

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:32 PM

No offense intended here, but if the settlement was the spouse's, he has no obligation for support in this matter. Moreover, with regard to the arguments that M5's husband does not have the money to pay all that support and support his existing family, the question can be raised as to why both household members aren't working so there is more financcial help.

In my opinion, the argument that a non-parties money should be used to modify support is not a strong one. However, I imagine it is better than no argument at all.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:39 PM

I do work Maury and i am supporting financially...not that it's saying much.

We don't want to modify support at this time and if we do, it would not be based upon the settlement.

I'm just pointing out that they are living an extravagent lifestyle compared to what their income is.
Posted by: Maury

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 06:47 PM

It is certainly something that is worth pointing out.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:04 PM

Just so I am clear....Do you think the BM was/is actually making more than 25,000 a year? Since her assets are not included in the CS calculation, is it her income that you are questioning? Last night you said that you did not want to have the new husband's income or settlemnet considered in the hearing.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:05 PM

I'm not saying that the newly rich hubby has an obligation to support the kids BUT he is giving BM money (can we say income) and she is using it to bankrupt M5's hubby. This didn't happen before the windfall - it has only occurred after and because of the windfall.

Quite often, we see SAHM's being imputed their salary and new hubby paying it for their benefit to the CP for CS. Well, this isn't about the CS, it is about all the extra's that BM has signed the kids up for, even when ex says no, I can't pay, and she does it anyway.

I think since she has all this "extra" money, she should just pay for it herself for the good of the kids.

She was CO'd to also carry medical insurance on the kids, which she hasn't done. Maybe, some of what she is billing ex would have been covered by her insurance, if she had continued carrying it. Since the cost of insurance for 3-4 kids (I can't remember the number), would be at least $250/300 per month for a policy on just them, she should apply that amount of money toward any "extra" medical bills she has.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:21 PM

No I don't question what she was making before. She isn't working now so the only income she has is her H and the CS we pay. We are not looking to modify CS at this time,and when we do, it will be based on what she is capable of earning..we qualify for a reduction based on the number of days we have the kids and the fact that BM no longer has insurance on them.

It's what Buckeye is saying...that's what we are doing now. It's not about CS..but about the extras. That is more than likely the ONLY time her H's settlement will be mentioned...because it affords her to bill us for stuff we never agreed to nor authorized. Let me refresh your memory Katie..in September alone she billed us over $900 for stuff we didn't agree on (club soccer and chiro) and it was due within 30 days. In June and July...both months were just like September...and due within 30 days. We do not have that much money to blow. We don't have that much period..and to expect it in 30 days is ludicrous. How does one barely making ends meet do that? The only reason why she can is because of her H's money. And she KNOWS we can't afford that..we have told her over and over again and she doesn't care...she just keeps doing what SHE wants to do and ignores the CO.
Posted by: Maury

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:24 PM

The first person to post on the 50th page of this thread, wins a prize!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Is it a fez? - 10/19/06 07:40 PM

Are you giving one of your up?
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:42 PM

How many times has a high earning NCP come in here and said he is paying his CS but now BM wants more for this, that and the other?

How many times have people told him to just pay it because he makes bunches of money?

That is all M5 is asking - that BM just pay the darn bills that she didn't get the OK on because the household is better off because of the windfall.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:49 PM

everyone, including me, has told her to IGNORE the bills if they go against the court order. She has said that the CO states that the parents must agree on activities. They didn't. When Mr. M5 goes to court I am sure he will have all the proper documentation that is required of him, copies of all his written denials and certified letter receipts. One cannot argue the signed CO
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:50 PM

You are just trying to get that prize Maury talked about, Katie. I want it, I want it!!!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:53 PM

only 21 more pages to go
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:53 PM

And I have told you, Katie, that we have ignored them,after stating once that we were not repsonsible for them...and now she has filed contempt and now we are going to defend ourselves.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:54 PM

she has ignored the bills and now BM is taking her to court.

I think this is why BM is now asking for it to be settled.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:55 PM

Seems like a simple defense. You have the court order which your husband did agree to and I assume he has the rest of the paper work. Does he??????
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 07:57 PM

I thought you were going to ask the attorney to represent you again if he could wait for the money--since there was a continuance. Maybe I missed the sequel to the original post! It would be really good--because then you could get all the issues addressed and hopefully avoid the next episode of this drama.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 08:16 PM

Well that was the plane Anne...but he hasn't returned our calls or anything. So, DH may be stuck representing himself again. I just hope I can get him to study the case and know it as well as I do so he can be prepared in court. I can do all the research for him, but I can't stand up and represent him. KWIM?

Katie..yes we have all the paperwork we need. I have copies of all the bills, receipts, letters etc. I just have a fear that Bm's atty will run over DH in court and DH not knowing how to properly defend himself. That wasn't a worry when we had the atty, but now it is again.

Then again, DH has been standing up for himself more to them lately because he is getting tired of the crap..all these trips to court and all her lies and B.S. He really stood up for himself well in the deposition hearing from what he says.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 08:19 PM

M5 - take the CO and underline where it says they have to mutually agree to medical, dental and extra activities.

Also, underline where it says BM has to carry health insurance.

Then, I would ask that BM have to pay all current and future medical and dental bills. Then, because she is not carrying health and dental insurance, and ex is, that she has to pay all deductibles, co-insurance and out of pocket payments in lieu of having the insurance.

Next, I would say that CS is to cover all extra activities.

Then, I would ask that your attorney bills be paid by BM because she is in contempt of the court order.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/19/06 08:23 PM

Maybe you can make notes for him and help him to get ready. Try to get everything very organized for him. I think your former attorney sounds like a jerk. He could at least have his legal assistant return your calls or have the decency to write you a letter and tell you that he is not willing to work with you regarding money--anything except ignore you.
Posted by: gr8Dad

You need to PRACTICE with him... - 10/19/06 08:43 PM

I know it was only a MOVIE, but have you ever seen My Cousin Vinny? See how they did the back and forth banter? They were, essentially, PRACTICING for court. So, do the same thing. YOU be HER, make yourself as IGNORANT and IRRITATING as possible. Caricature her, exagerate her body motions and voice quality.

This accomplishes two things. It prepares him for court, and when she DOES act like a PITA, instead of being INTIMIDATED, he will picture YOU doing the same thing, and it will put him at ease.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: You need to PRACTICE with him... - 10/19/06 09:00 PM

We have practiced like that before except I was her atty (she's had the same atty since the divorce so we know what he will do and say pretty well) and I was cross examining him lol. I need for him to study the whole case stuff i have put together and it's hard for him to have the time to do it because of work...but he HAS to do it and be familiar with our files/paperwork he will be taking. And knowing exactly where everythign is that he needs.
Posted by: NancyD

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 12:37 AM

[quote] Her rental...they just updated the heck out of it...not sure why she hasn't rented it out yet...it's been vacant for at least 6 months but they have been finished with the updates since July. [/quote]

Maybe they need a Certificate of Occupancy before it can be rented, and maybe there's a hold-up with that (only one overworked inspector...shoddy workmanship...never made an appointment for inspection). Or, they're just asking too much rent for the neighborhood.
Posted by: triple

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 01:10 AM

The reason it has not been rented is because they are waiting for this hearing to end...I'm not so sure it will work. In fact, I think you should bring this up in court. When I went, my income was imputed based on the rental property I have, which had not been rented for months at the time. There is no reason this should not work for an NCP, although everything depends on the judge. You should do this despite what the feminist/Marxist contingent on this board tells you...

In short, I would concentrate on the element of the CO that mandates the agreement between parents for extra-curriculars, the fact that she is in contempt for not providing insurance, and the unpaid debt she has to DH. She is clearly in violation of all of these elements.

Also, does she have access to insurance through an employer? If not, as I said, PRESS THE ISSUE OF THE UNFULFILLED OBLIGATION SHE HAS TO INSURE THE KIDS. People who have to pay insurance themselves often find themselves suddenly less willing to take their kids to wannabe doctors/chiros.........
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 01:20 AM

ummmmm, she doesn't have a job so no insurance. I think that is a "Dead" issue since M5 DOES have insurance and is covering the children at no additional cost to him. He already has a family plan. I would concentrate on the reasonable cost of sports for each child.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 01:25 AM

No insurance could depend on the fact that maybe she quit her job because of new hubby's windfall.

The fact is that BM was and is currently ordered to carry a policy for health insurance on kids.

M5 - was your hubby ordered to carry insurance also or he picked it up on his kids because BM didn't have insurance anymore?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 01:38 AM

I think, and I may be wrong, the CO reads whom ever has the most comprehensive policy carries it. Maybe at the time the BM did???? But, since Mr. M5 isn't out any additional monies, he would look petty to even argue that!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:48 AM

Ok what is a certificate of occupancy? I didn't know you needed soemthing like that to rent out a home that you owned to ppl.

Triple..I agree with you...I can't think of any other reason why it's not rented out yet except to wait until after court. But..we are not going to court for CS at this time. Maybe she has plans to file for an increase in CS and thus postponing renting out her property so it wouldn't be counted towards her income.

No, she does not have an employer at this time. So no insurance available to her unless she gets it on her own. Her husband is the one that had insurance on the kids and it was dropped when he quit his job to start his landscaping business.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:50 AM

10 more pages to go... YOU can do it....

: )

Hugs... got to give you credit... you gonna battle this one out.... good for court!! Makes you grow hair on your chest!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:52 AM

Actually it is in the CO that they both carry and maintain insurance on the kids. DH has carried insurance on the kids since the divorce. He has job stability and she doesn't. But she made a HUGE deal about putting in the CO that she carries insurance on them too..that was her bright idea not ours...because it would lower her portion of CS and raise ours...now that her H quit his job back in April..they hvae no insurance now and she has no intentions of getting any.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:53 AM

OMG thanks Caroline!! chocked on my darn seirra mist..came out my nose and everything after I read that! ROFL!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:54 AM

M5 the BM is not in contemp for the health insurance....Moot! Find something else. As far as the rental...any moron knows that one can ALWAYS show a loss on it, especially since they "Upgraded" it. It will probably take years to show a profit.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:55 AM

DOESN' matter M5!!!! You will have to prove that your H has paid money to incress the coverage!
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 02:55 AM

They could.... and taxes, insurance added too it.... it could be a loss today..... don't know if that would change anything... only a Judge could tell us.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 03:35 AM

it would bring her income down. We have a rental at the beach that has not showed a profit in years. We break even almost to the penny after cost....we bill every light bulb and "Screw" that we buy. But, it is a cost on the rental.
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 04:21 AM

Katie what are you talking about? Yes, BM is in contempt for not carrying insurance on the kids. What part of it being in the CO don't you understand?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 04:36 AM

M5, ok bring it up in court. I am sure the judge would love to hear about it! Your husband has not suffered any loss because of it? You are being petty! Does your CO really say that she will carry health insurance no matter what and under all and any circumstance? If I were you I would stick to the non agreed upon activities. Afterall, last night, you said that was your only concern. Like Maury told you last night, stick to the obvious and make sure the delivery is professional! Judges do not like to bothered with irrelavent issues. The insurance issue has not caused Mr. M5 any damages or costs. While you are wasting the courts/judge's time remind him of the new law in your state about her "assests!" I am sure he will be amused. By the way in my ORGINAL CO my ex had insurance at the time and was CO to maintain it. The courts gave a ratz ass when he quit his job, because I was able to pick it up, at my expense!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 05:01 AM

Actually Katie...DH has suffered because she no longer carries insurance. Her insurance WAS primary and it actually covered the chiro stuff..and it was only $20 copays for everything. Our insurance SUCKS! And doesn't have a copay but a HUGE deductible we have to meet...which has yet to happen and the year is almost up...and chiro isn't covered at all!
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 10:45 AM

M5, if BM were a man, Katie would be telling you that there was no excuse not to have insurance on your children. Live in a box but get the insurance.

Since when is it OK to ignore some parts of the CO but not other parts. Oh, yeah, I know, when it is the man getting s c r e w e d.
Posted by: NancyD

Re: Here's the way I see it.... - 10/20/06 03:59 PM

A C of O is needed (at least in my area of the country) any time renovations are made. The way it goes is first you have to get a permit to do the renovation, then you have to have an inspector come and check the work to see that it is up to code, and then the C of O is issued.

It's to protect people from shoddy work...say you turned your garage into a rental apartment and did the electrical work yourself to save money, and did a sub-standard job. It could be the cause of a fire that injures or kills your tenant.

It doesn't mean that there aren't people who still go ahead and do illegal renovations. However, in my area, you also have to have the C of O on record for any renovations before you can sell your house. That's a whole 'nother problem for people who inherit property and want to put it on the market. Suddenly, the basement finished off by your uncle Harry has to be torn out because it's not up to code. If a C of O had been issued originally based on older codes, it would have been grandfathered in. But an inspection of previously unapproved work is held up to the current codes, which in many cases are much stricter.

For example, one of my brother's was purchasing a house that had some wooden steps built to replace some older cement steps. There were more than 3 steps and the current code calls for a railing in that case. When the steps were built, that was not the code, but the owners did not get a permit or C of O when they did the work. Now, in order to sell the house to my brother, they needed a C of O for the work done on the stairs, but they had to bring it up to the current code by adding railings, first.

We had to get a permit and then a C of O when we redid our kitchen. Also when we erected a large storage shed in the backyard. They also make sure people follow any local building ordinances, such as minimum set-backs from the property line, or height restrictions.