Welcome!
You've come to the right place.
I am (ok was) in your shoes, and was terrified to have a "legal" relationship with a man that had an ex that he supported and paid CS to. I had all the same concerns as you.
Here is "my" experience.
First and foremost, have a separate "joint" account with you as the primary, that way if there is any issue with respect to adjusting CS in the future it is based "solely" on his income and any savings he has in the existing account. Not to mention any statements will be in your name as if it was your account alone. We transfer almost all of his income that is directly deposited into his pre-existing account (drawn on by the FRO) to "our" joint account in order to pay bills, etc. He’s never been in arrears but if he was a direct withdrawal on a joint account would mean FRO could simply take the amount owing even if it came from your pay check, they can’t tell the difference when the money is in an account he has authorized payment on.
When we decided on a home, I was indeed on the title so avoid any forced sale should the unthinkable happen and the ex for what ever god created false accusation attempts to force a sale, I have the first right to buy out the other half. Thus holding onto this "huge" personal investment. Who wants to make such a commitment wondering if all the sweat and tears could be for not? NO one!
Here's a catch that I did find when we started to amalgamate all aspects of our lives. And there is nothing that is going to sound fair about this one!
There is a possibility that once you have legally married that the ex can take his CS order back to court and request an increase even if the increase is above the table amounts and his income has NOT increased. Here is how she would go about doing it, (remember hind site is 20/20 so keep this in mind). By getting married he is basically "freeing up" more of his income to be considered "disposable income". And the thought process behind this is that married individuals that both work, BOTH contribute to ALL the family expenses. So when you add your income to the equation, it means to the courts that he uses less of his income to pay his living expenses, thereby freeing up income so that he has the "ability" to pay more. This does not mean that the courts look at your income when determining CS, no! What they do is assume that the household expenses would be proportionally split, and this means less of his money is gone on basic living, and more is now available for CS should the ex so choose to say she "needs" more and he now has the "ability" to pay more. Does this make sense? My husband’s ex has friends in the legal field so she knows all the loop holes and let me tell you, she has used each and every stinking one of them on us. I’m convinced there is no law she has not exploited to her own benefit. Just an FYI when making choices as a married couple.
Oh yes, a legal will is a MUST! And he MUST include the son in the will in order to avoid the ex contesting it. If the son is not specifically mentioned in some capacity the ex has the legal right to have it contested and either gain all right to force the sale of “your combined” assets or a significant portion.
This is the courts way of continuing CS should the unthinkable happen.
I don’t want to scare you, but it’s best to be informed so there are no surprises.
|