IS this calculated..

Posted by: myangels

IS this calculated.. - 06/10/06 02:38 AM

I was wondering if you buy a building and rent 3apts and live in one of them if the rent money is calculated into the child support money? If the building is in my name? Or if I should just put it in my wifes.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/10/06 03:25 AM

it is income and needs to be reported.
Posted by: Melody

All sources of income - 06/10/06 03:43 AM

are calculated. Even if the property is in your wife's name, half of the income from it is yours if you're in a community property state. The only way to avoid this would be if the funds to purchase the building were solely from your wife with no contribution whatsoever from your funds...like if she had an inheritance. If the paper trail could show that community funds were used to purchase the property, then the income derived from the property would be considered community.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: All sources of income - 06/10/06 03:55 AM

I am still curious why he wants to hide assests. When his new wife divorces him or dies (God forbid) he is out in the cold.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: All sources of income - 06/10/06 03:59 AM

I didn't realize that Home Depot was paying that much for a person to buy an apartment building. Why are you still renting if you have that much in reserves? Your best bet is to buy a home for your family instead of moving them into an apartment again.
Posted by: almostheaven

Depends on your state... - 06/10/06 04:02 AM

Most states include it. But of the few states that will only take one full-time salary, you might skate by without it getting included. If it's included, putting it in your wife's name won't always keep it from being included. The judge could always consider it as still part of your income and that you're trying to hide the income.
Posted by: Melody

Oh come now....you know the answer - 06/10/06 04:27 AM

to THAT question. Of course he wants to shelter income from his ex and the child support obligation. But you're definitely right about how he could end up setting himself up for a surprise if his current marriage were to come to an end. I also had the same thought about the payscales at the local home improvement center....perhaps I've been in the wrong line of work....or perhaps those apartment buildings are mighty cheap in some areas.
Posted by: Cinder2

Re: All sources of income - 06/10/06 04:55 AM

Thank you Katie. I also was wondering how myangels is going to buy an apt building on his Home Depot income. I can't wait to hear his answer.

Cinder
Posted by: Melody

And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 06:10 AM

available to purchase an apartment building, perhaps he needn't ORDER his ex to bring groceries over.
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 03:10 PM

Ive always wondered something, since CS is supposedly for the NCP's portion of the child's needs - why is it that extra $ like an inheritance or insurance settlement is considered income and added to the calculated amount? Do the child's needs suddenly increase?
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, since... - 06/10/06 03:43 PM

...you can get a MORTGAGE, and you don't have to buy it RIGHT OUT, maybe he is contemplating investing some "sweat equity".

You know, I have watched the posts over the last few months against myangels, and I have to say that there are a lot of people on here who complain about their ex's not seeing the kids, about the ex not paying support, about the ex not getting anything for the kids, about the ex not feeding the kids properly.

Well, here you have a guy who DOES all of those things, REGULARLY, yet you are harping on him because he makes his ex, who is the CP, do HER responsibilities, but is STILL going above and beyond what the court orders for him as the NCP.

While I have NO doubt that there will ALWAYS be deadbeat parents, both male and female, one has to wonder if SOME deadbeats are CREATED by piss poor attitudes such as this. The idea that you CANNOT do enough for SOME people to say, "Hey, good job..."
Posted by: youngatheart

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 03:51 PM

It is based upon the likelyhood of what you would have spent on the child if you were married. The problem with the word "likelyhood" is that it isn't specific, it is general. The premise is that the more money you make/have at your disposal, the more money you will spend upon your child's lifestyle.

For example, at my $25K a year, I spend MUCH less on my children than the Hilton's spend/spent on their children. While the Hilton children could have survived with what I provide for my children, it isn't LIKELY to happen at their parent's income(s).
Posted by: Gecko

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/10/06 04:05 PM

Unless you can show that it was your wife's money that paid for the acquision of the building AND that you receive NO benefit from the rent money collected, then no, it would not be included in child support. BUT, since you are living in one of the units "rent free", at least 50% of what the anticipated value of the rent for that unit would be included.
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 04:56 PM

While I understand the premise - I still do not agree with it. I have never expected and never will go after anything extra from that my ex-husband has or would earn - over and above NEEDS of our children. Due to the fact that I am an able-bodied, reasonably intelligent person - it is just as much my responsibility as his. If he and his new wife are capable of building a new house due to their own extra effort, that's wonderful - just gives our children a nicer place to stay when they're with them. His working overtime does not increase the financial needs of our children and therefore should not be taken into consideration.

Additionally, in the case of a settlement or significant inheritance, wouldn't it be expected that rather than spending it as it comes in, that the money be put away either for college for the children or for a rainy day? In the case of a friend at work, her husband came into an inheritance of slightly over 250K. CSE grabbed 1/3 of the total (not the part left over after taxes and lawyers) within 2 weeks (about 90K) and handed it over to his ex-wife. Rather than banking the windfall which would have made a significant contribution to the children's college funds, she's enjoying new furniture which the children are not allowed to sit upon. My friend and her husband have put 1/2 of what was left away towards retirement and the children's schooling and paid towards their mortgage with the balance - as most people would do.

*edited to correct typo*
Posted by: youngatheart

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:10 PM

That's great, if you want to look at it that way. However, some people don't. Further, different people view the child's "needs" as different things. Some people view it as the bare necessities of feeding and clothing and housing a child (food staples only, thrift store clothing, and a one bedroom apartment with CP on the couch). Some people view it as what the child would be provided with in an intact family. Some people view it as something in the middle.
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:17 PM

I look at it that way because I am a mature adult. Further, I know many people who agree with this point of view. Unfortunately, I also know people at the other end of the spectrum. They feel entitled to and go after anything and everything they can possibly get - whether its needed or not, simply for the "thrill" of getting it.
Posted by: youngatheart

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:18 PM

IC...so only people who agree with you are right, and anyone else is just greedy for the "thrill" of it?
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:20 PM

Well, I shouldve expected that. Actually, I was referring to individuals I personally know, who've actually stated such things - they go after more and more simply because it's there and they dont want the ex to have it.
Posted by: youngatheart

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:22 PM

hmmm, I can honestly say that I have never seen that from anyone I know.
Posted by: Dee78

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:23 PM

Um, you might want to recheck your math. 1/3 of $250,000 would be $83,333, so he was lucky if that's all they took.

I don't expect my ex to pay much, just the court ordered amount which is low but sufficient right now. He is ordered to provide insurance but he doesn't. He is ordered to pay for half of medical but I've never enforced it.
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 05:24 PM

Thank you Dee - typo on my part. Im sure if it had been my $ I wouldve been more careful lol
Posted by: gr8Dad

Yeah, I bet he feels SO lucky... - 06/10/06 05:37 PM

HE inheirits 250K. SHE gets 83,000, he gets the remaining 170K, out of which HE mst now pay the TAXES on the WHOLE thing (inheirtance tax at about 38%, is 95K), leaving him 75K left over. Yeah, CP gets MORE than HE does, TAX FREE, and and isn't even forced to spend it on the kids. Yeah, WHAT a LUCKY guy!

It is poeple like YOU that CREATE deadbeats and those that hide income.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: Yeah, I bet he feels SO lucky... - 06/10/06 05:42 PM

I did not think that inheritance was included...isn't it off limits unless it creates income?
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/10/06 05:55 PM

In Illinois, all net income is counted. I'd put the building in your wife's name.

Also, if I were in your postion, I would be keeping track of any additional things your or your wife pay for (groceries, clothes, etc), and ask for them to applied toward reducing your net.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/10/06 06:14 PM

he doesn't provide clothes, food or even baths for that matter.
Posted by: Melody

Child support is not expense driven - 06/10/06 06:18 PM

but income driven. The child's expenses are irrelevant to the calculations. If the NCP increases their income base, then so does their ability to provide for their child.
Posted by: Melody

Yes, that's what I took from that comment - 06/10/06 06:20 PM

Also, those who don't agree AREN't mature adults. Nice, huh?
Posted by: gr8Dad

In the situation given.... - 06/10/06 06:42 PM

...the inheiritance WAS taken, one third of the TOTAL amount, with HIM paying taxes on the whole thing. And Dee thinks he should feel "lucky" he got anything.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: In the situation given.... - 06/10/06 07:02 PM

If CSE took 30% within 2 weeks I would expect that the NCP was signficantly behind in his support, otherwise CSE would not have learned about it. Inher. money can only be considered if it generates income.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: In the situation given.... - 06/10/06 07:04 PM

I doubt the timeline or the story even is 100% correct. How would CSE know about an inheritance and then be able to garnish it within 2 weeks? Inheritance is usually off limits. That makes no sense as CSE does NOTHING in a timely matter, and that is just a bit too timely.
Posted by: StrayAngel

Re: In the situation given.... - 06/10/06 07:45 PM

Yes, he was behind due to a layoff. I do not know the amount.
It wasnt 2 weeks from the news that he was getting the $ it was about 2 weeks after actually receiving it - which was some time down the road.
Basically, what it comes down to is that once he knew what the amount was to be, he made the mistake of offering to deposit a portion into an account for the children's schooling. This apparently set things rolling. I was not privy to the minute details, but suffice to say, what happened happened and all they hope is that the children benefit from it somehow.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: In the situation given.... - 06/10/06 07:56 PM

it sounds like he paid off the adrears. What the CP does with the money it is their business. In theory, the CP loaned the NCP that money. He simply paid it back. She can burn it if she wants to. Adrears money has ZERO to do with the children since the CP already used that money while the NCP didn't pay. It's like when I borrow money from the bank and then pay it back. It would be absured for me to say something like, I hope they give it to a charity.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, that is SIGNIFICANTLY different than... - 06/10/06 08:05 PM

...what you said. They didn't take a third of it for child support, they took what he owed in child support.
Posted by: Dee78

UMMMMMMMMM - 06/10/06 09:08 PM

She corrected a typo!!!
Posted by: M5M5

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/10/06 09:16 PM

Wish more parents were like you!
Posted by: myangels

Re: All sources of income - 06/11/06 12:14 AM

Katie, I am still curious why he wants to hide assests. When his new wife divorces him or dies (God forbid) he is out in the cold.****

Its not hiding from anyone just protecting my familys assests.. If W and I get a divorce I want her to keep everything..
Posted by: myangels

Re: All sources of income - 06/11/06 12:17 AM

Katie. didn't realize that Home Depot was paying that much for a person to buy an apartment building. Why are you still renting if you have that much in reserves? Your best bet is to buy a home for your family instead of moving them into an apartment again.*** We having been saving for about three years plus the income taxes that we have gotten we haven't touched them for the past 3 years and W saves from her own check about 400 a mth, and I try to save about 200 a mth from mine. So we have money saved up. Plus I got a raise and I might be going into another job that has better benefits. And we are thinking of single family homes. We dont know yet.
Posted by: myangels

Re: Oh come now....you know the answer - 06/11/06 12:18 AM

Melody, Well we are going to talk to an atty. If they would count it than her mom is willing to put it in her name.
Posted by: myangels

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/11/06 12:19 AM

Melody, available to purchase an apartment building, perhaps he needn't ORDER his ex to bring groceries over.***

Its all about principle. She HAS to do her part financially.
Posted by: myangels

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 12:22 AM

Katie. he doesn't provide clothes, food or even baths for that matter.****

Actually I do provide it with the CS check that she gets every two wks. And she hasn't sent food yet that starts when they both are here 24/7 in the summer. Baths of course I do they bathe here daily. So I should get credit on the water, light, gas that they use here just like you CP always want to include that in your monthly CS obligations huh?
Posted by: AnneB

"Principle"... - 06/11/06 01:07 AM

What a joke. You are talking about hiding YOUR assets in your mother-in-law's name and talking about your ex's "principles"?...While what your ex does may not be right, do you fail to see the irony of that statement of yours?
Posted by: myangels

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 01:27 AM

Actually, Im doing it for My WIFE which it's her money as well.. Actually it's not fair for my Wife to have to share her income with my X. It's mostly her money. And X isnt entitled to my wifes money/
Posted by: myangels

Also - 06/11/06 01:37 AM

...the courts WILL NOT care if my Wife worked for that money they will still add it for X. And I wont let that finacial hit for my wife.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:01 AM

actually you are wrong, very wrong! If your wife earned and saved the money while you are married it is not HER money. It is commuty money.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:04 AM

Depends on what state you are in. In my state, whatever I earn is MY money. Once I mingle it with hubby's money, then it is OUR money.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:06 AM

Yes, that is true. But since that mingle their money already, there is no way to say I mingle everything except the 400.00 a month I save. I guess if it was automatically taken from her check and put into a long term CD with some substantial history before the mariage, it might fly. But, since they seem to live my the seat of their pants, I assume they have co-mingled, at one point or another.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:09 AM

also, since they have a child together, it would be very difficult to prove that they never comingled their money. They would have to have very detailed receipts for the cost of raising the baby, independetly of each others income.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:10 AM

If both of their names are on the lease of their apartment, that theory goes out the door. If they have ANY joint accounts, that arguement is over!
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:19 AM

If she has a "single" account, that she puts her paycheck into, then that is her money. From there, she can write a check into their joint account. Then, only that money is community money.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: "Principle"... - 06/11/06 02:24 AM

forensics would have a feild day with that one. My husband do not comingle at all. It takes a lot of work and energy and careful spending to ensure that we do it. We are starting to believe that it isn't worth it now. We don't have any children together so it makes it a lot easier. If her bank account was opened after marriage then it does not matter.
Posted by: myangels

Well, - 06/11/06 02:31 AM

Her account has been opened since her mother opened it for her and used to deposit the CS check that her father used to send for her. So yes its been opened for a long time.

However, I can't and won't take the chance that they will considered our property into CS payments. It doesn't make any sense, and it isn't fair to her or our daughter.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:40 AM

then the question is.....whoes account is it? The account that I opened for my daughter is MY and HER account. Bank accounts can not be "Gifted."
Posted by: myangels

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:41 AM

Okay, she has a bank account. I have a bank account, then we have a joint account which is just to pay the bills threw. But it wouldn't matter because when we buy the house all the savings hers and mine are coming together so what does it matter whos account it is?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:42 AM

****I can't and won't take the chance that they will considered our property into CS payments. It doesn't make any sense, and it isn't fair to her or our daughter.**** Don't you have 2 other children to consider as well? They will not consider "Property" to calculate child support unless it generates an income!
Posted by: myangels

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:44 AM

Yes, the income that it takes to cover our housing expenses. Which are waayy more than renting.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:44 AM

it matters 100% if you are trying to hide assests as you orginally posted. But, it sounds like you have already comingled your monies, so the point is mute.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:48 AM

I'd be careful with that train of thinking. Usually (at least in my state) owning is cheaper then renting after the orginal downpayment....tax deductions accross the board. Your 1040 will most likely reflect a greater yearly positive cash flow generating
Posted by: myangels

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:51 AM

I dont know about that..

Heat in my apt is free. In apt building I would have to cover every ones heat which is a lot here. Usually can run up to 200 a mth just an apt. Tenants usually pay their own light, but I would still have to cover water as well.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, - 06/11/06 02:58 AM

yes I understand all of that...But, that would all be considered a business expense since own and renting is a business. That would all be a write off on a seperate return. You would still file a personal income tax return. If you are smart, you would incorporate your business...i.e.. property rentals. Otherwise anyone can come after everything you have including your ex
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/11/06 03:02 AM

>>>>>While I understand the premise<<<<<

Your response suggests to me that you don't really understand it. The premise of CS is to INSURE that the child will have a similar SOL to what they'd have had if their parents stayed together. It does not assume that the NCP will willingly provide the same level, that the child will ever get to enjoy the NCP's nice home, or that the CP is able-bodied enough to now provided the same SOL that it previously took two to provide.

It instead assumes that both should still be responsible for providing that SOL according to how they would have provided previously (ie: NCP was making $100K and CP $30k, NCP would previously have paid a higher percentage into the SOL of the household), that the children should not suffer further than they already do from a divorce (ie: be forced to cut back on extras they previously enjoyed), and that the NCP isn't going to do this unless forced, or that the NCP may decide to stop doing this later...come up with excuses not to time and time again. So they seek to prevent that from happening up front.

>>>>>Due to the fact that I am an able-bodied, reasonably intelligent person - it is just as much my responsibility as his.<<<<<

Ahhhhh..."as his". And if he decides it's not his, it ends up entirely yours because you won't go after him for it if he decides to let you be 100% responsible.

>>>>>If he and his new wife are capable of building a new house due to their own extra effort, that's wonderful - just gives our children a nicer place to stay when they're with them.<<<<<

Must be nice to have an ex who wants their children and who would ever allow them in their home.
Posted by: almostheaven

He SHOULD feel lucky... - 06/11/06 03:09 AM

He should feel lucky that they hadn't put a lien on his house earlier to collect PAST DUE CS. CSE does NOT snatch inheritance money and give a portion to an ex. The court has to make a ruling on that and that happens AFTER someone has already received an inheritance. But generally, as has been mentioned, an inheritance is not considered income for CS purposes. So what they took was money he OWED as an ARREARS. They COULD have taken 100% of it if he were behind far enough. But they only took what he was behind on. Now he's caught up. I'd call it luck.
Posted by: almostheaven

Gee Dee... - 06/11/06 03:10 AM

I would think he'd owe you an apology right about now: "It is poeple like YOU that CREATE deadbeats and those that hide income."

Don't hold your breath, eh? ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

It isn't your wife's money... - 06/11/06 03:15 AM

Unless you can prove that you are not affected by it in any way, shape or form. Does the income she derives go into the household you share? Does it help to buy groceries, thereby lowering your portion of the expense of groceries. Does it affect your SOL at all. It's very difficult to prove that it wouldn't. Unless all income derived was placed solely into an IRA in her name or something, so that it wasn't being spend, but hoarded, and without your name attached to it. Then the court would believe you weren't benefitting from it.
Posted by: myangels

Re: It isn't your wife's money... - 06/11/06 03:17 AM

Sure her income does help provide for the home, however there are more then just ME to feed, she also eats I eat the kids eat. So sure our income is higher however so are our expenses.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: It isn't your wife's money... - 06/11/06 03:23 AM

like I said earlier it is very time consuming to maintain seperate monies after marriage. My husband and I do it and it is exhausting. Once he paid a doctor's bill that came in for my daughter without thinking about it. Some quick phone calls fixed it. Once I had to take my husband to the ER when he seriously cut his leg and foot open. He went without his wallet. The ER wanted the deductable paid at the time of service. That posed a problem. Once I was out of the country when MY property taxes came due. He could have easily paid it for me. But, I was advised to wire the money instead. EXHAUSTING!
Posted by: almostheaven

You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:27 AM

If she did not have such an income, would you be living in a one bedroom hovel with a leaking roof, eating beans and potatoes nightly? Or do you enjoy a better SOL because of what she's bringing in? Is what she's paying towards expenses enabling you to pay less than you would if you were alone?

If yes, then she's contributing to your expenses. That means you're benefitting from that income.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: It isn't your wife's money... - 06/11/06 03:30 AM

it doesn't mater....you have comingled money. She cannot prove that she bought the apartment building with her own money, or most likely will not qualify for the loan without your income included. Sounds like you need to hire an accountant. The insurance/ liability that you will need to cover a rentals could eaisly costyou thousands of dollars, out of poket a month. My husband's, single family, rental cost 500.00 a month in rental/liability insurance. Of coarse most of that cost is a end of the year write off, because he wouldn't need to carry so much if it was him whom lived there.
Posted by: myangels

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:31 AM

Hell yeah Im benefitting from her income. Without it I would probably be living in a one bdrm apt, and we have a three bdrm.
She bought a car with her money. That sure I use it as well, and I also can say that I also contributed to it,
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:33 AM

Ok, now think of it this way. If you were living in a one bedroom, and paid $300/mo. rent, but instead live in a 3 bedroom and say pay $1K/mo. mortgage, they consider your half to be $500. Meaning...if you can only afford $300/mo. who is picking up your other $200 tab? She is. So she's contributing to your expenses.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:35 AM

he can't put anything into his wif's or his MIL's name. His wife does not have HER own money to buy it! Nor does he! But, we can all dream
Posted by: myangels

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:37 AM

You're right, Im not arguing with you on that. I agree that she pays half of our expenses. Meaning why should my X benefit from what my W is paying? She shouldn't at all.

When she saw my W in her Jeep she almost had a heart attack. Since we pay CS we shouldnt be able to afford anything, because right away everything like "oh you have a new car but you can't buy them this and that" You know.. Screw that.
Posted by: myangels

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:39 AM

he can't put anything into his wif's or his MIL's name. His wife does not have HER own money to buy it! Nor does he! But, we can all dream***

I dont get it? Sure I can put it in my MIL's name she said if we needed to she would.
Posted by: gr8Dad

You can't win... - 06/11/06 03:43 AM

You are a DREAM ex to MOST of the women on here. You love the kids, see them regularly, pay all of your child support. In recognition of the hard work you put in being a Dad, they jump all over you.

I don't BLAME you for wanting to hide the assets. The curts WOULD take the income from the rentals for child support, and this is ABOVE and BEYOND your JOB. When the LAW makes everyday citizens into out laws, the everyday citizens need to become outlaws.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 03:43 AM

sure I can put my house in Santa Clause's name if I wanted too. But Santa would have to prove through foresenic attornies that Santa used HIS own money to pay for it.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You can't win... - 06/11/06 03:45 AM

why would Myangeles be an outlaw? Once you have minor children you can not hide assests. That is the law!
Posted by: gr8Dad

And maybe you should ask yourself... - 06/11/06 03:45 AM

...WHY he should have to go through that? Look at it this way, he WORKED for the money he SAVED (saving it by going without, living slim, but STILL paying CS on a percentage of his INCOME). Now he wished to BUY something with THAT money, and he has to SHARE it with the CP?

And don't give me any of that "It's not for CP, it's for the KIDS..." crap, cause he ahs the kids MORE than the CP does in tis case.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Yeah, sure you can't... - 06/11/06 03:46 AM

...it IMPOSSIBLE...
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You can't win... - 06/11/06 03:48 AM

gr8dad YOU are the last person on this board that should be complaining about everyday citizens becoming outlaws, since YOU are one. What's that saying??? Click Click There is no place like home.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Wow, THERE's a shocker.... - 06/11/06 03:51 AM

...here comes katie with topics that were dead and gone a YEAR ago. Okay, you wanna type out the whole story, or shall I? Maybe we could keep you and your cackling hen club under 200 posts this time, okay?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Wow, THERE's a shocker.... - 06/11/06 03:53 AM

don't bother! All I am saying is Myangles should by a house that does not generate income and that would be the end of things..Get it?? Myangeles' wife can't prove that she bought the apartment independently of him. Case closed. When a NCP makes money it is considered into the CS and vice versa.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: You don't understand... - 06/11/06 04:14 AM

She's benefitting from you getting REDUCED expenses. As I said, you WOULD pay $300/mo. (as my example), but now would pay $500/mo. But since you CAN'T pay $500/mo. (or you would have paid it while single) someone else is paying $200 of it for you. So you're $500/mo. expense is being reduced to $300/mo. IOW, your wife is in essence paying you $200/mo. That's why they often look at expenses in figuring CS. They figure your expenses are being reduced by her sharing in the costs or even taking on a bigger portion of them. That you're not paying as much as you would be if she weren't assisting you.
Posted by: almostheaven

I didn't realize we were having a contest... - 06/11/06 04:14 AM

I thought he wanted to know if the income would be counted and most of the answers he's getting is that YES, it will be. What is it he's trying to win and what's the prize?
Posted by: almostheaven

He's not sharing what he "buys" with the CP... - 06/11/06 04:18 AM

The question is does he have to share "income" that what he buys generates with the CP. The answer is yes. He can buy anything at all with money he saved up and she gets none of it. But it's like if he just put that money into the bank to sit. She would get a portion of the INTEREST it earned, as that is more income.
Posted by: cincsu

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:04 AM

my husband is in this situation. he was paying CS on the rent til the atty realized he was paying more in the mortgage than he was receiving in the rent. when you do your taxes you will only be taxed on the profits. say the mortgage for all 4 units is 1000/month and you receive 1200/month. you would only claim in income of 200 for CS purposes.....not the whole thing.

if the ex wants to argue, tell her to look at your tax return. that is how the government taxes rental income - only on the portion that is actually profit.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:12 AM

yes that is what we have all been saying...but that wasn't his question
Posted by: JulieLynn

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:14 AM

Now in Indiana it's not calculated that way ...it's the rent income not minus any expenses that are used in the calculations-especially not what your tax returns state. (the ex's lawyer is the one that did it this way first not our attorney) Also the properties with her husband yes it was split 50/50 on her having to claim 50 but the one property from her marriage to my dh was counted 100% since only her name was on the deed now. But when we did this last modification we didn't count any of her property because the numbers wouldn't have really changed much and our lawyer would have had to went through her books and just not worth it so we only counted her teaching income.
Posted by: cincsu

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:37 AM

yeah, as usual it's different in every state. this is in cA.
Posted by: cincsu

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:38 AM

what was the question? i thought he asked if the rent money would be figured into child support?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:44 AM

he orginally wanted to know if he bought a building and rented out apartments should he put it in his currents wife's name to avoid any CS incress. The thread developed after that
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:46 AM

yes you are only assesed on the income generated
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 05:55 AM

however,you can only be in the "Red" so long. For an example...I can not buy an apartment building for 500,000 mortage and rent the apartments for 3 hundred a month (say to friends) and write the loss off each year. Eventually the IRS will asses your proerty value and current rental values and you will be accountable. My husband rents his beach house in Santa Barbara, Ca for 2,800 a month. The mortage is about 1,700 a month. He can not claim that he only gets 300 a month for rent. Otherwise, he would rent it to a friend on paper for 300 a month and pocket the rest tax free. Can't happen. There are checks and balances in places on rental property when the IRS in concerned.
Posted by: Melody

Doesn't matter whose name it's in....because - 06/11/06 06:18 AM

the paper trail of the financing will lead back to you and YOUR savings. Basically you'll be guilty of committing fraud for the purpose of avoiding child support. Good guy, you are, huh!
Posted by: Melody

oh SHE has to do her part - 06/11/06 06:19 AM

but if YOU have additional income, then YOU don't have to do your part. good logic.
Posted by: Melody

If you buy the property jointly - 06/11/06 06:22 AM

with funds from both of your accounts, then the income derived from the asset is jointly yours....regardless of whose name you put on it.
Posted by: Melody

He would have to go through all that - 06/11/06 06:26 AM

because he's a rat bastard...and the LAW says income is income. As long as he engages in some sort of activity that results in income, it is available for CS purposes.

And if he REALLY wanted to do something about his situation, he would have legal custody of his kids, and THEN he wouldn't likely have to pay the CS. But you see, I guess he realizes that he likely wouldn't win a custody battle, so he comes here and makes his ex sound bad and him sound like the angle (intentional misspelling) that he is.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: He would have to go through all that - 06/11/06 06:41 AM

Yeah, I forgot about that! I thought he was going after full custody. He always said that he has them 24/7 (even in this thread) but still has not asked for custody! A few months back, he claimed his kids were being abused by the mother and grandmother. Remember...the mom and grandmother were dunking the son in scalding water leaving burn marks. Then, he was invited on a vacation and that was the end of that.
Posted by: Melody

Yup....he's SOOOOO concerned - 06/11/06 06:45 AM

about the safety and health of his children....that he'll take no action...either through the legal system or the CPS system, but he'll get all up into a fraud scheme to try to elude CS.
Posted by: myangels

Re: IS this calculated.. - 06/11/06 07:47 AM

See but thats what Im going to avoid. Becasue anytime I decide to raise rent then CS goes up? THats ridculous.
Posted by: myangels

Re: Doesn't matter whose name it's in....because - 06/11/06 07:50 AM

Melody. No not really because MIL is investing in this as well so it wont trace because just to my account my wifes account it would be hers as well.
Posted by: myangels

Re: oh SHE has to do her part - 06/11/06 07:52 AM

Melody, exactly ADDITIONAL income EXTRA income meaning extra for ME and MY family, she wants extra than she can get a part time job and work for it.
Posted by: myangels

Re: He would have to go through all that - 06/11/06 07:55 AM

Melody, you're funny.. You think I come on here for WOMEN to think that Im great? AAWW lady maybe you do, but I couldnt care LESS of what people on HERE think of me. IF I even cared a tiny bit then MAYBE just MAYBE I would be careful of the things that I say, but I dont. Oh BTW The my engles, wow hitting me where it REALLY hurts huh? You're a fool!
Posted by: myangels

Re: Yup....he's SOOOOO concerned - 06/11/06 07:58 AM

Yeah Im not going to throw out more money to see if I MIGHT get my kids. When I can invest it and make money.. Maybe in the future I will go back, but just finished all the custody stuff not even a year ago. I aint going back to court.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: - 06/11/06 02:26 PM

I really don't understand all of the arguing back and forth about additional income because everyone knows that spouse's income is not used in CS formulas. MY ex's wife has her own practice and does well from what I hear yet his wages are still imputed at BS levels since 1999. They live in a community property state, yet her $$$$ is not included whatsoever.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: - 06/11/06 04:00 PM

I don't get it either. Folks are harping on the IRS issue....but the CS formula in Illinois doesn't have anything to do with how the IRS figures "income." If the building is in his wife's name, and the income goes to her account....it's not counted toward his "net." It's fairly simple.

And....as an FYI....since his custody case just ended a year ago, he has at least another year before he can ask for a change.

myangels.....honestly, I think the whole point is moot. Your ex is a twit, and wouldn't have the motivation or the means to hire attorneys, forensic accountants, etc. SDU would ask for your proof of income.....you would give it....end of story.
Posted by: jsp

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/11/06 05:33 PM

Why are you even asking or arguing about this on this board? You know you and your wife and kids aren't entitled to anything. How dare you think about yourself or wanting basics, like food? Fair is fair - everything, including your wifes income & savings should go to your ex. Hey, the kids don't even need to eat at your house. You should be taking them to a soup kitchen as how dare you spend money on food. How dare your wife by herself a new car - have her write over the title to your ex imediately. :) Then, maybe some people on here will support you.

What we decided is you cannot spend your life worrying about your ex. Ok, so you have assests, savings, etc. And, your wife is doing well - the better you do the worse things will get. Talk to a lawyer and see if they can do some type of trust/business, etc. where it is in both your names, but there is a way to protect both of you. Child support goes by income, not assets or savings (at least in the states I know of), so if you are reinvesting back into the building and spending it on repairs/improvements then you would not be recieving any income from it.

P.S. If you are working at Home Depot, can you get us a good discount? Our house only needs everything, especially a kitchen.
Posted by: myangels

Re: - 06/11/06 05:58 PM

Thats good that her income is not used.
Posted by: catrmm

Re: oh SHE has to do her part - 06/11/06 07:59 PM

*** ADDITIONAL income EXTRA income meaning extra for ME and MY family, she wants extra than she can get a part time job and work for it. ***

In the past you mentioned you're in a state that calculates CS ONLY on the NCP's income. However, this is not the case in most states.

In most states the attitude of "ADDITIONAL income EXTRA income meaning extra for ME and MY family" doesn't work because CS is based on BOTH parents' income.

Partially this is because of a problem in your statement; exclusion of some children from your "family". Your children with your ex are considered part of your family so most states consider that your extra income means extra for them too.

In most states this extra income idea affects both the CP and the NCP alike. If you were in one of these other states and your ex got that part time job to get extra as you suggest, your CS could be reduced meaning YOU would benefit from her additional income just as CS increasing if the NCP has additional income.

Many people have problems with additional income affecting CS yet they have no problems with demanding that CS be affected when their income decreases. This double standard in thinking is widespread among CPs and NCPs alike.

Since you're sharing the property with your W and MIL, once expenses are deducted and net income is divided between 3 people, your share of is unlikely to be that large. Including it as additional income in CS calculations is likely to have a negligible effect. However, the risks involved in trying to hide income are huge and the effort enormous. It makes me wonder why you'd bother?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/11/06 08:18 PM

JSP, why are you so negative and unhappy? Do you ever have a positive thing to say? Didn't you know when you married your husband that he had prior obligations?
Posted by: gr8Dad

Oh, Melody.... - 06/11/06 09:06 PM

...you mean like living with your boyfriend and NOT getting married or comingling funds so your spousal support continues? You are a hypocritical cvnt!
Posted by: Dee78

Is that gr8dad namecalling again? - 06/11/06 09:09 PM

Who pissed in your wheaties?

Last night you yell at me (for no reason since she corrected a typo) and said I was the reason that people become deadbeats and today you are using the worst cuss word (IMO), I cuss like a trucker but I won't even use that word.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Oh, Melody.... - 06/11/06 09:10 PM

I think Mel's BF lives almost 500 miles away. Why do you use such vulgar name calling. Would you approve if someone called your daughter that?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Oh, Melody.... - 06/11/06 09:12 PM

The way you attack people with such name calling tells me that you have zero control over yourself. I can just imagine what your household is like. UGH! I would die if I ever thought my father spoke like you did!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Cause I am sick of the attitudes on here... - 06/11/06 09:14 PM

...and have just had ENOUGH of the man bashing and BS that goes on here. Let some WOMAN come on here and ask about something, I have SEEN you people advise her "Tell him your take the kids and no child support. Then, after you have them, go back and file for support..." Of MANY ways that were just at the edge of right and wrong or legal and illegal.

Then you have myangels, who, depite ANY denials, is a DAMN good father, and all he is trying to do is ensure that he has money to live on, and he gets hammered cause he wants to invest some of his saving in a way that helps HIM to keep it and not give it to his ex.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Katie, SHUT THE FVCK UP! - 06/11/06 09:17 PM

You are one of the WOSRT two faced b!tches on this board. Yeah, when I get angry, I speak more colorfully. Don't like it? Don't open my posts. In the last week or two YOU (yes YOU ALONE) have started MORE problems on here, bring up stuff PURELY to get a reaction. Well, you wanted it, YOU got it. Sorry if my BIG PERSON talk made you upset, but your constant haranging of thing that I have done or said YEARS ago makes me mad. Again, don't like it, don't read it.

BTW, I am SURE, that if he had to raise YOU, your father spoke MUCH worst, but proably not in your presence. And since my KIDS are not here, oh well.
Posted by: gr8Dad

No, she lives with him... - 06/11/06 09:18 PM

...and they are evry careful NOT to be married, cause she wouldn't get the alimony.

BTW, if my daughter acted like YOU or HER, yes, I would call her that.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Katie, SHUT THE FVCK UP! - 06/11/06 09:20 PM

you need help!
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Katie, SHUT THE FVCK UP! - 06/11/06 09:24 PM

I am more concerned about the 8 innocent children who reside with him.

I keep telling myself he is at work, bored and just trying to incite something to keep himself entertained. No child should ever be called that disgusting name as he indicated he would if his daughter acted like you or Melody. After all, what terrible people you two are--working moms who do your absolute best for your child(ren). Pretty disgusting in my book!!! LOL
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Katie, SHUT THE FVCK UP! - 06/11/06 09:27 PM

he said that he kids have been in therapy for abuse....ummmm! What a guy!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Oh, lookie lookie... - 06/11/06 09:28 PM

...it's katies "posse" to the rescue...LMAO! Bring on Annie, the day I can't handle a few of you people, I'll turn the kids into the state...
Posted by: gr8Dad

Why is that wrong? - 06/11/06 09:30 PM

My ex beat the children, and continues to abuse them emotionally. Do you think they SHOULDN'T be in some kind of counseling? PLEASE explain to us why you think THAT is wrong.
Posted by: Miranda

I find it amazing... - 06/11/06 09:34 PM

That certain people on this board can ridicule, name call, incite drama, insult one's profession or education level (while misspelling words in the same post) and that is okay yet if gr8dad does it he is abusive and everyone worries about his kids or his wife LOL...
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Why is that wrong? - 06/11/06 09:34 PM

its wrong if you would readily call your daughter a name such as that.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I find it amazing... - 06/11/06 09:36 PM

please name one poster that uses the language and names that GR8DAD does!
Posted by: Miranda

Re: I find it amazing... - 06/11/06 09:39 PM

[quote]please name one poster that uses the language and names that GR8DAD does! [/quote]

Why?

At times you act just as he does, but then you turn around and post to JSP about negativity when you are spouting off negative stuff left and right. It makes no sense...
Posted by: catrmm

Re: Cause I am sick of the attitudes on here... - 06/11/06 09:40 PM

You sound angrier than the current posts could cause. Is everything ok?

BTW, if you want to include me in men bashing and BS because I advised myangels that I thought it would be easier and better for him to stop trying to hide things and I thought the financial effect would be slim, go ahead. I know I don't like to bash anyone, male or female, and I know I'm likely to state my opinion whether it's popular or not and I don't think it's BS (could be wrong of course :) )! Therefore, if you care to do so because it helps you vent some of that anger, go ahead! I'm sorry for whatever has caused you to get so upset. I hope you and your family are ok.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I find it amazing... - 06/11/06 09:40 PM

please show one post where my language compares to Gr8dad! Or anyone else for that matter!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, since I am rasing ALL of my children... - 06/11/06 09:40 PM

...correctly, in MY opinion (which, when it comes to MY children, is all that MATTERS), I will never have to DO that, since they will not turn out like you, or Melody, or Annie, or any of the other FINE "Women of Entitlement" that we have gracing this message board.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Nah, your not in the "club"... - 06/11/06 09:42 PM

...sorry if I indicated that, not intended. Just sick of the crap from certain posters, and on the drive to work today, decided I was not going to bite the bullet this evening, just say it like it is. Apparently, some ears/eyes are VERY sensitive on here, LOL!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, since I am rasing ALL of my children... - 06/11/06 09:42 PM

when have I ever had an entitlement attitude
Posted by: gr8Dad

How about... - 06/11/06 09:44 PM

...where you accused me of being a child molestor? Repeatedly?? Oh, yeah, you didn't use any of the "bad" words, so that makes it OKAY?? Guess what, there ARE no bad words. Just DIFFERENT words for DIFFERENT situations. Can't handle BIG PEOPLE words? Try www.nick.com, they might have some message board there that you can handle. And, unlike here, you MIGHT find that you are NOT the most immature person on THOSE boards.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: How about... - 06/11/06 09:46 PM

child molester....that is a new one! never saw that here
Posted by: gr8Dad

Oh really? - 06/11/06 09:51 PM

So, if you were not concerned abou THAT, why was it a problem that I had seen my child naked? If it is not sexual, or "sick" as you said (and if it IS "sick" WHY is it sick, if not sexual), why?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Oh really? - 06/11/06 09:55 PM

nobody called you a child molester. You are the ONLY poster that chose to use that term. I stand by position. There were alturnatives to confirming whether your 9 year old step daughter had a vaginal infection (as you called it!) To keep the record straight YOU brought the subject up again all on your own.
Posted by: almostheaven

Get used to it... - 06/11/06 10:08 PM

gr8dad, for years, has gone on these occasional tirades, where he starts calling everyone names, throwing tantrums, stomping his feet, acting all irrational, then he disappears for a week or two and comes back posting sane again. I think they have a diagnosis for that somewhere. ;)
Posted by: gr8Dad

Remember, BIG PEOPLE place... - 06/11/06 10:23 PM

Lines like "I didn't say that" don't fly here. You DID say that. You said that I was sick for LOOKING (you used the word "peeking") at my daughters privates. So lets see WHY you would have a problem with that. Are you against medical treatment? Obviously not. Are you a Muslim, are you embarrased by the human body? Probably not, but that is a possible source of the "sick" thing you talked about.

So, if it WASN'T sexual, what was sick about it?
Posted by: AnneB

Not-so-great Dad... - 06/11/06 10:33 PM

Get over yourself. I have NO entitlement attitude as I don't ask my ex for anything and work for everything I have. I also don't have more kids than I can afford to take care of and expect the government to take care of them either.

But I will give you this--you have NOTHING on another poster on here for being hateful and trying to incite. I don't like your name calling, but at least you make genuine posts that concern the matter at hand instead of just initially attacking other posters with rude, arrogant and hateful comments that in no way address the matter at hand but simply attempt to denigrate another poster so you get credit for that. While I do not often agree with your opinion, I have not seen you just follow other posters around bash them for no apparent reason but instead bashing only when you genuinely disagree with their opinion. That is to your credit.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Get used to it... - 06/11/06 10:33 PM

you are right. He already said that his temertantrum was premedatated before he even got to work. I guess he anticipated a slow evening.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Come on Annie... - 06/11/06 10:36 PM

"I have NO entitlement attitude as I don't ask my ex for anything and work for everything I have."

Your 17 year old child forgot his clothes at Dad's, and you were making DAD out to be the bad guy because he wouldn't run out and mail then IMMEDIATELY.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Come on Annie... - 06/11/06 10:38 PM

her son was leaving on a school trip and needed the items that were left behind
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, first of all... - 06/11/06 10:42 PM

...it was a SKI trip, and while it MAY have been scheduled through the school, it wasn't like he needed his algebra book. Second, he KNEW about the trip, and it wasn't SKIS he needed, but some "stylish" clothes he wanted to wear. Maybe if he WANTED them, he should have been more careful when he packed to LEAVE.

But REGARDLESS, it is NOT Dad's job to ensure that junior has his Gap hoodie when he leaves, if he needs it for a trip, it is the job of the SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD YOUNG MAN to make sure he has it. THAT is entitlement.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, first of all... - 06/11/06 10:43 PM

YOU of ALL people have the nerve to bring up entitlement! LOL.
Posted by: AnneB

Sorry...not entitlement... - 06/11/06 10:44 PM

COmmon courtesy. I would mail clothing to a casual guest who stayed in my home. Mailing clothing to my child would certainly be a given. And when you had been out NO expense to see that child I would think anyone would try to be as cooperative as possible.

You can think whatever you want of me because it doesn't affect my life, but last week when I was in north Texas for my mother's FUNERAL I let the ex pick our son up a couple of hours after the funeral (even though all my relatives were there too and wanted to see our son) and then I picked him up the next day on my way back to Austin. Since he has NEVER come to Austin to get our son as ordered by the court, I think I have gone way beyond what anyone else would have done to encourage that relationship. Not only did he not really appreciate it, he had the audacity to complain our son only got to stay one overnight...I had to get back to Austin for work demands and my son was starting class in two days from then at Austin Community College under the early college start plan. Did he offer to keep him and then meet me halfway in two days or anything? Nope.
Posted by: gr8Dad

I think this is where you lose it... - 06/11/06 10:49 PM

I think your ex is a piece of crap. I think katies ex is a piece of crap. MOST people on here have a piece of crap for an ex. Now, does that mean that YOU or KATIE can do no wrong, because your ex is foul? Nope. I have a difficult ex as well. I still have to teach the children right from wrong, because in life, there are going to be difficult people to deal with. That deosn't make you (not you personally, but the corporate you) right, just because they are wrong.

On the clothing issue, you came on here ranting that he wouldn't promise to run right down to the post office and mail them. If I recall correctly, he DID mail them, and they DID get there on time. But the BOTTOM line was that the error was on your SON for leaving them there. But the lesson you taught was that HE left them there, but the "problem" was with DAD not returning them when YOU said, not with the FACT that your SON wanted the clothes, he was going on the trip, and HE forgot them. Nope, you shifted the blame to Daddy, and ranted.
Posted by: gr8Dad

And you, of all people... - 06/11/06 10:50 PM

...dodged the question again. WHAT was SICK about me looking to see what was wrong with my daughters private area, if it was NOT (per you) sexual?? Come on katie, answer the question.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: And you, of all people... - 06/11/06 10:54 PM

I guess my question is....why did you bring it up again all on your own? And, three times just in this thread! Are you looking for some entertainment?
Posted by: AnneB

Your are right. - 06/11/06 10:54 PM

Instead of getting angry at dad because he won't go to the post office and mail clothing that our son needs for a trip, I should just be like others we hear about on here who don't send clothing at all--let him buy it. That will fix that, won't it? When children do something wrong, I thing they need to suffer the consequences of their behavior so they can learn from it. Leaving some clothing behind is not doing something wrong--it is simply making a mistake or being careless while packing. It happens. His mistake was in relying on his dad...
Posted by: gr8Dad

Cause I want to know... - 06/11/06 11:01 PM

...WHY you think it is sick. INITIALLY, I assumed that you had some sick perverted mind that sexualized everything. But you SAID that it WASN'T sexual, that you DID NOT accuse me of being sexual with a child (ie child molesting), so since that ISN'T what you meant, I am asking for clarification.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Cause I want to know... - 06/11/06 11:04 PM

for the last time, I thought that you should have taken her to the dr. But you called me an idiot for taking my child to the dr. for such things. To each their own. Why on earth do you keep wanted to rehash this topic on this thread?
Posted by: gr8Dad

You still don't get it, do you? - 06/11/06 11:05 PM

"Leaving some clothing behind is not doing something wrong--it is simply making a mistake or being careless while packing. It happens. His mistake was in relying on his dad..."

It is not being careful enough. It is NOT Dad's FAULT. And Dad DID get iot back on time, didn't he? It was YOUR rant that he WOULDN'T do IMMEDIATELY that was the problem. You sit the 17 year old child down and say, "Well, you shouldn't have left all of those clothes at Dad's. I am sorry, and I hope Dad send them back in time, but if not, well, you will have to do without." But NO, that would be blaming your baby. Your right, much better to say, "Well, your father should have made sure it was all in there. If you don't have them for the trip, it is HIS fault...OOOHH baby..."

CUT the APRON strings...
Posted by: gr8Dad

No, get it right... - 06/11/06 11:07 PM

I called you a PSYCHO, for not at least LOOKING first to see what it was. Get it right.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: No, get it right... - 06/11/06 11:08 PM

My daughter is 16. Ok I am psyco! She is psyco! We go to doctors.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: No, get it right... - 06/11/06 11:33 PM

Since I answered your question will you be so kind to answer mine? Why do you keep bring this topic up?
Posted by: Melody

No, dear - 06/11/06 11:38 PM

unless your state specifically says that only income from one job or source is considered. You might want to check your state statutes before you stick your foot in it.
Posted by: Melody

I'm the fool? - 06/11/06 11:41 PM

That's hysterical when YOU"re the one considering the commission of a fraud...for both CS purposes and tax evasion. You do realize that in order to perpetuate your lie about who is earning the income from the investment property, then you would also have to not report it to the IRS...thus committing tax fraud as well. Foolish, ME? I don't think so.
Posted by: gr8Dad

You answered nothing... - 06/11/06 11:41 PM

WHY is it sick? Since you said it ISN'T sexual, why do you find it sick?
Posted by: gr8Dad

Gee, aren't you... - 06/11/06 11:41 PM

...NOT married to your live in BF so you can get spousal support?
Posted by: Melody

Wow....interesting that you'd admit that you care - 06/11/06 11:42 PM

more about money, than you do about your own children. I already suspected as much, but who'd have thought you'd actually say it.
Posted by: Melody

Sorry to disappoint you not so GR8dad - 06/11/06 11:45 PM

but spousal support in my case is non-modifiable....so your point is moot...if it was a point. Besides, it has nothing to do with the topic. :) I am not involved in any income generating operations that I am attempting to hide from my ex to increase his CS obligation, or prevent his CS obligation from being reduced.
Posted by: Melody

Yes, Dee....he's behaving badly yet again - 06/11/06 11:46 PM

when he can't win, he goes into "insult" mode. I don't let it bother me since he can't seem to spell the word correctly anyway.
Posted by: Melody

Oh but we're supposed to tolerate your - 06/11/06 11:48 PM

relentless woman bashing???? Tell me, when did someone resort to the type of name calling that you seem to enjoy? Yes, go stand up for the idiot who wants to shelter his income. That's definitely the right thing to do.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You answered nothing... - 06/11/06 11:48 PM

Ok here we go...First I found it sick that you watched your nine year old step daughter taking a shower without her knowledge to make sure she knew how to properly wash herself. Second, I found it unappropriate for a step father to make a medical diagnosis on his step daughter's vagina, especially since you were not asked to diaper her or bath her. Thirdly, I find it SICK, that you are so board at work that you once again want to talk about this! Lastly, I find it odd that you call a parent of a 16 year old daughter a psycho for taking her to her OBGYN for a vaginal infection before I checked it out first. Now you are creeping me out and others from the private im's that I have recieved.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Ah, you lie... - 06/11/06 11:49 PM

So, which was the lie? Was it when you TOLD us that you were not getting married BECAUSE it would mean an end to your spousal support, or is it now when you say your spousal support is non modifyable?

And jst to clarify, are you saying that if you WERE married, your spousal support would be exactly the same?
Posted by: Melody

Tell me, is that a different language? - 06/11/06 11:49 PM

f V ck? German? Russian? Just curious.
Posted by: Melody

If you're speaking of me, - 06/11/06 11:51 PM

We're not careful to not be married over spousal support....we simply choose not to be married. It's just a piece of paper that we don't feel is necessary. And..since the judge has already ruled on this issue, the cohabitation does NOT negate the spousal support, so your statement is wholly without merit...as is most of what you spew.
Posted by: Melody

I don't know where you're getting that - 06/11/06 11:52 PM

nm
Posted by: Melody

I find that comment interesting - 06/11/06 11:54 PM

How does Katie qualify as a "woman of entitlement" when she is out about $200K in unpaid support? And why do you feel that YOU should be the determining factor in whether or not someone receives support? Shouldn't it be a job for the judge? You're telling the courts they are wrong? I guess you ARE the superior mind, aren't you!
Posted by: Melody

Yeah, didn't he steal from the government? - 06/11/06 11:56 PM

Isn't that a type of entitlement issue?
Posted by: Melody

Pssst...Katie.....He might get some enjoyment - 06/11/06 11:57 PM

out of talking about it....I dunno....if it were me, I'd be keeping that one to myself.
Posted by: Melody

Nope - 06/11/06 11:59 PM

that's the spin YOU put on it. The judge ruled that cohabitation does not negate the spousal support...in essence....he put the good housekeeping seal of approval on it. I'm sorry that disturbs you so much. Perhaps you should discuss it with the judge.
Posted by: Melody

My dear....I have NEVER said I am not - 06/12/06 12:01 AM

getting married because it would mean an end to spousal support. I'm not getting married simply because we're not getting married. And when the spousal support ends, I still do not plan on getting married...it's unnecessary.
Posted by: gr8Dad

You are just a flat out liar... - 06/12/06 12:01 AM

I have proven it again and again, and will do so right now, ONCE AGAIN.

"First I found it sick that you watched your nine year old step daughter taking a shower without her knowledge to make sure she knew how to properly wash herself."

This is simply something you MADE UP. I NEVER watched her without her knowing. I DID SEE her shower (she KNEW I was there) and asked her to show me how her mother had shown her to clean herself, to make sure she was doing it properly. Her mother had shown her nothing, so I TOLD (not SHOWED, or DID, but TOLD) her how to make sure she was clean, and that would get rid of the irritation from NOT being clean.

"Second, I found it unappropriate for a step father to make a medical diagnosis on his step daughter's vagina, especially since you were not asked to diaper her or bath her."

FIRST, I am her FATHER. COURT ORDERED. I KNOW that CHAPS your ASS, but it is a FACT. Despite the lack of matching genetic material, I am her COURT ORDERED FATHER, get that?

Second, I did not make a diagnosis, I DETERMINED that it was not an infection (I know I wrote that once, it was a typo, I apologized, it was NOT an infection), and treated it with cream. SInce the CREAM is available without the word of a doctor, one would figure that its use and application was okay without a doctor as well. And, lo and behold, it WORKED, and the irritation went away.

"Lastly, I find it odd that you call a parent of a 16 year old daughter a psycho for taking her to her OBGYN for a vaginal infection before I checked it out first."

Wait, how did you KNOW it was an infection? Did you make a DIAGNOSIS? WITHOUT a DOCTOR?
Posted by: gr8Dad

Dutch, I think...? - 06/12/06 12:04 AM

"The word fvck did not originate as an acronym. It crept, fully formed, into the English language from Dutch or Low German around the 15th century (it's impossible to say precisely when because so little documentary evidence exists, probably due to the fact that the word was so taboo throughout its early history that people were afraid to write it down). The American Heritage Dictionary says its first known occurrence in English literature was in the satirical poem "Flen, Flyss" (c.1500), where it was not only disguised as a Latin word but encrypted gxddbov which has been deciphered as fuccant, pseudo-Latin for "they fvck."
Posted by: gr8Dad

Answer the QUESTION! - 06/12/06 12:05 AM

If you WERE to marry, would your spousal support end?
Posted by: jsp

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/12/06 12:08 AM

There is a big difference from my husband supporting his children and what is expected for him to pay with child support, which is only based on his income, not the actual needs of the child or their standard of living at the divorce. Enough is enough, why is it an CP on here can protect themselves financially, but if a NCP does it, it harms the child/ren and the NCP/wife are horrible people. Or better yet, if a NCP has the children 50% of the time or even visitation, why is it that they can't do directly for the child? Why is it the NCP has to pay the CP to decide what clothing to buy, then the CP gets all the credit? Why is it that the NCP can't get the same pleasure (assuming they are involved) that the CP does with parenting? Why is it that the NCP is only expected to care for his "1st" family, who doesn't want him involved usually and isn't in anyway obligated to support his family now?

I'm far from negative and unhappy, but I do look for the day child support is over so we are comfortable. Nothing wrong with that given we both work hard for our money.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: British... - 06/12/06 12:11 AM

Ummm well I thought I was done with this thread BUT this is what I heard in college.

In England around the same time you've stated Brits had to get permission to have s ex and they had to put F U C K on their doors which meant "Fornication Under Consent of the King".

I have also heard that it was derived from "for unlawful carnal knowledge".
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You are just a flat out liar... - 06/12/06 12:13 AM

you really are off your meds today! When a 16 year old says she THINKS she has a yeast infection, I took her at her word and took her to HER doctor! Call me psycho for that! Please don't tell me you and your wife are still playing gyno to your daughters after a certin age!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: You are just a flat out liar... - 06/12/06 12:20 AM

***Second, I did not make a diagnosis, I DETERMINED that it was not an infection*** LOL do you see how back assward that statement is? Are you OK tonight? You seem a bit off tonight!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Okay, I realize you are... - 06/12/06 12:22 AM

...being obtuse on purpose, but the child in question in MY situation was NOT 16, she was NINE. Get that NINE, NOT SIXTEEN. DO you understand? If my SIXTEEN year old daughter (which I do not even HAVE a 16 year old right now, but I digress) came to me and said she thought she had a yeast infection, I WOULD trust her, and if she wanted a treatment, or is she wanted to see a doc, I would make the appointment. But when a NINE year old child says her peep itches or hurts, you LOOK at it. You don't snatch up the child and run to the ER. Sorry you have a problem with that, but THAT is what you do.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Okay, I realize you are... - 06/12/06 12:24 AM

But gr8dad you know my daughter isn't nine and you continued your bully attack
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, TELL me something... - 06/12/06 12:25 AM

...you FVCKING MORON, if your child has a RED RASH outside her vagina, and the labia itself is fine, but you can see where her failure to clean has caused some irritation, do you feel that being an ADULT gives you enough BASIC ANOTOMICAL KNOWLEDGE to determine that it is irritation, and NOT an infection? That is not a DIAGNOSIS, it is a BEST GUESS. And I realize you HATE to let FACTS get in the way of your rants, but the treatment I applied WORKED.
Posted by: gr8Dad

And you KNEW mine WAS... - 06/12/06 12:26 AM

...and CONTINUED to bring it up as SICK. So, since you KNEW my daughter was NINE, WHY WAS IT SICK?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Okay, I realize you are... - 06/12/06 12:26 AM

even on this thread when I CLEARLY said my daughter was 16 you continued and called me a psycho for running to the doctor. LOL I think you need some sleep. Are you not leaving on a "World" cruise shortly to mexico and Jamica?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: And you KNEW mine WAS... - 06/12/06 12:27 AM

you really want to talk about this don't you?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Well, TELL me something... - 06/12/06 12:29 AM

so you made DIAGNOSIS! LOL
Posted by: gr8Dad

Nice twist... - 06/12/06 12:29 AM

...on what was said. YOU said that I shouldn't even have looked, and that you would have run to the doctor. I STILL say that you are a psycho. If your 16 year old daughter comes to you and says she is itching down there, and the FIRST thing you do is run to a doctor, you are a PSYCHO.

But, you see, that is the great thing about this country, you can BE a psycho, and still raise your kids. But you accuse ME of being SICK for making MY own choices with MY children. Then when you are CALLED on it, you say "I didn't mean to infer anything sexual..." YES, you DID. Cause if NOT, then it wouldn't have been SICK.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Nice twist... - 06/12/06 12:33 AM

***...on what was said. YOU said that I shouldn't even have looked, and that you would have run to the doctor. I STILL say that you are a psycho. If your 16 year old daughter comes to you and says she is itching down there, and the FIRST thing you do is run to a doctor, you are a PSYCHO.

But, you see, that is the great thing about this country, you can BE a psycho, and still raise your kids. But you accuse ME of being SICK for making MY own choices with MY children. Then when you are CALLED on it, you say "I didn't mean to infer anything sexual..." YES, you DID. Cause if NOT, then it wouldn't have been SICK.****

I think someone at the place you are RIGHT NOW needs to call the medics. You are having a nervous break down. You are quoting me, when it didn't happen. Your blood pressure is boiling, you are frustrated and angry. You are not in a safe position right now.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Katie, katie katie... - 06/12/06 12:37 AM

Don't lie, we all know what you said, as a matter of fact it is still on the board. If you are going to lie, please at LEAST put a little effort into it. If you are WRONG, which I think you know you are now, be adult enough to admit it. Jeez, even I have done that when it was warranted.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Katie, katie katie... - 06/12/06 12:44 AM

show me the quote, then I will beg for forgivness! Sorry I don't respond so quickly, I am in a POGO poker match and I can only check in with you when I fold
Posted by: forthekidz

gr8dad.... - 06/12/06 12:49 AM

I think it is COMPLETELY screwed up that anyone would accuse you of ANYTHING other than being a concerned parent when you were helping your D with a vaginal(outer vaginal whatever) irritation.

If a woman had done that, no one would have said a GD thing...but because a man did it, he is a pervert. That is so freaking wrong. That is the reason why my poor husband is afraid to step in the bathroom and get his frigging toothbrush if one of his BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTERS are in the shower behind the NON-SEE THROUGH shower curtain....because of judgemental and hysterical attitudes like those shared among certain people.

That really touches a raw nerve with me....
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: gr8dad.... - 06/12/06 12:50 AM

forthekidz, nobody called him a child molester! He coined the term all on his own and still wants to talk about it.
Posted by: Miranda

Semantics... - 06/12/06 12:52 AM

[quote]forthekidz, nobody called him a child molester! He coined the term all on his own and still wants to talk about it. [/quote]

Not in so many words, but people sure did act like he did something immoral not to mention it is brought up in threads constantly nearly two years after it was initially mentioned.
Posted by: gr8Dad

So why, then, was it sick? - 06/12/06 12:52 AM

Why was checking to see WHY she was itching a SICK thing, if you weren't speaking of a sexual nature?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: So why, then, was it sick? - 06/12/06 12:54 AM

We are talking about a 16 year old girl! Remember PSYCHO PSYCHO PSYCHO for calling HER doctor?
Posted by: gr8Dad

No, answer... - 06/12/06 12:58 AM

...the QUESTION! YOU keep avoiding it, YOU keep side stepping it. It has NOTHING, NADA, NEIN, ZILCH to do with your 16 year old daughter and her yeast infection.

YOU said that ME looking at my NINE year old daughter's privates when she complained about them itching was SICK. Why (WITHOUT BRINGING YOUR DAUGHTER INTO IT) was that sick, if you didn't mean it in a sexual nature???
Posted by: forthekidz

Re: So why, then, was it sick? - 06/12/06 12:59 AM

I am not talking about the 16 year old comment....that gr8dad thinks you are a psycho or whatever is not what I am referring to....it is when you said a few pages back that is was sick that he looked at his daughter in the shower.

I am sorry, but that burns my a$$. I think it says a lot about this child feeling safe and comfortable with a man she views as her FATHER that she would come to him with a problem about her private area.

It is in no way SICK or anything else...it is the overreaction and sexualization of such actions that is SICK.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: So why, then, was it sick? - 06/12/06 01:12 AM

forthekidz, since you are new on this board I will forgive your ignorance on this topic. A few years back he posted that he was worried that his 9 year old step daughter was not taught how to properly bathe herself. He then said he was watching her through the door/mirror to make sure she was properly washing herself. He will deny this, but that is what he orginally posted. He was negatively posted to by both CP's/NCP's/ Male and female at the time. this all took place during his visitation.
Posted by: Miranda

FTK... - 06/12/06 01:14 AM

What Katie purposely left out is that gr8dad legally adopted this child and it is his daughter. I think by making it sound like a step father peeping in on his unsuspecting step child makes it somewhat dirtier and creepier...hence the whole child molester argument.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:18 AM

I was just reminded by someone is that Gr8dad was actually looking at his daughter in the shower to make sure she was developing properly
Posted by: gr8Dad

For the kids.... - 06/12/06 01:18 AM

...what KATIE will not tell you is that she has served Federal Jail time for transporting child [censored] into the US. She also cooks meth.

Hey, if SHE can make up stuff, so can I...
Posted by: Miranda

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:19 AM

[quote]I was just reminded by someone is that Gr8dad was actually looking at his daughter in the shower to make sure she was developing properly [/quote]

So?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:21 AM

Lets not forget that it was gr8dad that brought this topic up AGAIN on his own! He must have a sick desire to hear about it again, and again and again!
Posted by: Miranda

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:23 AM

[quote]Lets not forget that it was gr8dad that brought this topic up AGAIN on his own! He must have a sick desire to hear about it again, and again and again! [/quote]

Maybe today he did but usually others are ones who constantly bring it up or the fraud thing.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:26 AM

He must enjoy the topic. Once it dies down, he brings it up!
Posted by: Miranda

Re: FTK... - 06/12/06 01:27 AM

[quote]He must enjoy the topic. Once it dies down, he brings it up! [/quote]

No I think he has a secret crush on YOU!!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: I think this is where you lose it... - 06/12/06 01:34 AM

And you would too. You would, and have, ranted about things with your ex. Did you expect her to rant about her son AFTER she'd likely already had a talk with him about leaving his things? Did you expect her to rant TO her son about dad vocally refusing to mail them back? Instead, she ranted HERE, about him saying he wouldn't mail them, or wouldn't do it in time anyway, BEFORE he actually did mail them, and AFTER she'd likely already spoken to her son about the need for keeping up with his things. Her EX was the only part of the equation left. She could handle it with her son by talking to him. She could NOT handle it with the ex by talking to him, nor by talking to her son about him...so she came here.

But of course taking the common sense approach often eludes you.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I think this is where you lose it... - 06/12/06 01:38 AM

looks like "Dad" finally burned himself out on the topic...Thank GOD!
Posted by: almostheaven

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!! - 06/12/06 01:44 AM

>>>>>Are you not leaving on a "World" cruise shortly to mexico and Jamica?<<<<<

And the disappearance is already pre-planned! ;)
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!! - 06/12/06 01:44 AM

LOL
Posted by: almostheaven

Oooh... - 06/12/06 01:49 AM

Pogo poker. I need to break away from trying to win that Quick Quack jackpot and play some more poker.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!! - 06/12/06 01:50 AM

a few things may have happened here. He just gets his kicks about talking about his daughters "rash", he wants to hear more about MY daughter or he finally called the medics because he was having a heart attack!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Oooh... - 06/12/06 01:51 AM

I love POGO. I will im you with my screen name and we can play together. No gr8dad, it wasn't meant to be sexual!
Posted by: almostheaven

Or... - 06/12/06 01:54 AM

He took that cruise early?

I'm just hanging around waiting for him to start in on me about the great shower debate...that I've never been involved in and still ain't discussing. I'm focusing on his normal every-so-often tirades just before the disappearance that's gone on for years. I've always gotten a kick out of trying to predict the next one. ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Oooh... - 06/12/06 01:55 AM

Good luck. I'm AlmostHeaven220, but I hardly get a chance to play. When I do get on Pogo it's right around this time for about an hour to wind down before bed.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Or... - 06/12/06 01:56 AM

he is very predictable. I did not see that one coming though. Shame on me!
Posted by: almostheaven

What the fvck... - 06/12/06 01:57 AM

has happened to this fvcking board when we start having a fvcking discussion on fvck. Fvck it.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: What the fvck... - 06/12/06 02:01 AM

[quote]has happened to this fvcking board when we start having a fvcking discussion on fvck. Fvck it. [/quote]

I don't fvcking know!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: What the fvck... - 06/12/06 02:11 AM

Well if that doesn't fvcking beat all! This is fvcked up!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: What the fvck... - 06/12/06 02:17 AM

I think Dad has wrapped things up at work and is getting ready to set sail. Almostheav., you sure called that one off the cuff!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Nope, still here... - 06/12/06 02:24 AM

...not going on any cruise, have NO idea WHY you would think that, I cruise in the SPRING, not summer. Usually Late February through mid April.

Just letting you folks whimper away. Letting those who can see that you just look for an excuse to make fun of people and insult them, regardless of what they say.

BTW, you still haven't answered the question. If there is NOTHING sexual about it, why is me seeing my daughters privates sick?
Posted by: Renee

WOW - 06/12/06 02:26 AM

You sure do have a knack for starting the most enlightening, lively posts myangels....I bet you're a blast at parties!

Did you ever get an answer?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Nope, still here... - 06/12/06 02:31 AM

well you are the one that has said, in the past, after tax return time, that you got more back in return then you ever paid in! You were leaving just as soon as school got out to take your family on the "World" cruise to mexico with a stop in Jamica. Was that a fantasy. You elabortated and even spoke of excursions and that the girls would perfer to sit on ship and sun themselves. Remember???? Oh by the way, you did post that I was international child sex felon, and a local meth addict. The meth addict I will ignore, the other I will not. You need to learn boundries!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Again, since you obviously... - 06/12/06 02:34 AM

...are too stupid to understand basic english, we cruise in the SPRING. When school gets out for SPRING BREAK.

Okay, okay, I have no proof that you are an international smut peddler, I'm sorry. It's just that YOU were making up so much stuff, I felt left out.

Oh, and it was a meth COOK, not an addict.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Again, since you obviously... - 06/12/06 02:47 AM

damage done!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Yeah, sure, you were DAMAGED... - 06/12/06 03:04 AM

...let me guess, since I posted that, you are now recieving calls for orders of child p)rn? What was DAMAGED? You reputation? LMAO!
Posted by: Melody

Yes, her rep was damaged - 06/12/06 04:03 AM

I, for one, do not plan on having any further conversations with her because of what you've posted about her! Thank you, O Wise One...for saving me!
Posted by: gr8Dad

You shouldn't be so judgemental... - 06/12/06 04:04 AM

Just because you HEARD something about her, doesn't make it true. If you were really her friend, you would trust her. Personally, when I read that, I considered the source, and my feelings about her did not change on bit.
Posted by: Melody

but her reputation has been sullied - 06/12/06 04:08 AM

by your falsehoods.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: but her reputation has been sullied - 06/12/06 04:08 AM

Well I am no longer talking to you Mel since you used to talk to Katie.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: but her reputation has been sullied - 06/12/06 04:10 AM

I refuse to scrapbook with you, Miranda, because you made detrimental comments to Melody and about my car.
Posted by: Melody

Then I'm not talking to you either - 06/12/06 04:10 AM

so there....the circle widens!
Posted by: gr8Dad

Well, I'm not talking to YOU... - 06/12/06 04:13 AM

...because you posted two posts UNDER her. Three might have been okay, but two...WAY to close to the source. You know, guilty by association.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Well, I'm not talking to YOU... - 06/12/06 04:13 AM

I'm allergic to the number 8. Begone.
Posted by: Miranda

Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:15 AM

And Rebecca since you eat that scalloped corn and you MOKE constantly I am no longer your B.F.F ...Susan is my NEW best friend!!
Posted by: Miranda

M O K I N G... - 06/12/06 04:18 AM

I am soooo tired of everyone M O K I N G on this board. It is getting so consuming. I just can't handle the amount of M O K I N G going on here-this is insane!
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:19 AM

Heeeeeeey...watch the corn remarks, lady. I think making fun of corn to a Midwesterner is a felony.
Posted by: Miranda

Re: Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:22 AM

Well I come from a long line of war heros who have advised me to take action against you for refusing to scrap book with me.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:24 AM

Well...my dad comes from a long line of engineers, and he says your blueprints stink....AND your mother wears combat boots. Scrapbook THAT!
Posted by: Miranda

Re: Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:26 AM

Hey...my mom did wear combat boots. Boo hoo hoo...so did my dad BUT they we in different branches and subjected to totally different regulations.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Well I hate to crop anyway... - 06/12/06 04:28 AM

They came from different branches, and they married? One of them should certainly be stoned to death.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: And with that sort of ready cash - 06/12/06 06:36 PM

It doesn't matter how much money he makes, if he buys the building with the intent of income from the other three apartments, that income will pay for the purchase of the building. It probably woulnd't take much of a down payment.
Posted by: forthekidz

By the way.... - 06/12/06 07:24 PM

Katie, just for the record, I have been here over a year, which I think gets me past being a "newcomer".

Regardless of how long I have been reading the board, I still think your interpretation of gr8dad's care of his daughter is deplorable.