Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 06:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 114
Trix is on a distinguished road
Default Approach for finances in Mediation

Scenario

2012, S7 to be split near 50/50 as incomes are similar
2013, I start paying all S7 finances because ex is having money troubles
2014, ex runs finances into the ground and declares bankruptcy
2015, no more daycare being used
2015, both myself and ex in dual income homes but I'm still paying all S7 expenses for extra curricular activities because "she just doesn't have any money"

In 2014 I received a retroactive lump sum payment for contract renegotiation (present and future year income will not mimic this amount, but the CS adjust back to a lower amount will take a full year).

Moving into Mediation, this is the what she seems to have in mind:

She will not pay any Section 7 Expenses for extracurricular activities because she has no money, but she does expect me to pay the increase in child support ($80-$180). If I can't afford to pay for the activities "they just can't do them"

Result for myself and the girls: I cannot afford to pay %100 of the girls activities (amount to about $4000 a year) as well as the increased child support amount as again, a good portion of last years lump sum retro payment went to cover the activities and my PRESENT salary is far less than what my PRESENT CS amount would lend you to think.

I know that household incomes only come into play in rare occasions (undue hardship etc)....but is it reasonable that ex, living in a dual income home, who has ruined her finances is able to say that she will not, in any way help with activities but collect full CS? I

Note that the cost of the activities have gone up significantly, but they the intitial cost (approximately half of what they are now) had been agreed to in the original order)

Thanks, Trix
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-09-2015, 11:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 509
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

don't go in with the attitude of giving her what she wants, you have S7 50/50 in writing from 2012. stick to it and demand retroactive. if she is unable to pay the retro C7 then try to get CS to stay where it is until that amount is off set. then insist on having her pay S7 going forwards. I believe her expenses will be irrelevant if the matter of s7 goes to a judge and i believe she will be ordered to pay retroactive with interest.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 419
Teenwolf is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trix View Post
2015, both myself and ex in dual income homes but I'm still paying all S7 expenses for extra curricular activities because "she just doesn't have any money"
Why doesn't she have any money? Is she employed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trix View Post
I know that household incomes only come into play in rare occasions (undue hardship etc)....but is it reasonable that ex, living in a dual income home, who has ruined her finances is able to say that she will not, in any way help with activities but collect full CS?
Don't bother taking the dual income slant. As you said, it's only applicable to undue hardship claims. Even then, comparing household incomes is not the factor that determines undue hardship; rather, it's just a check system the courts use to avoid reducing CS obligations for a payor who has a higher household standard of living than the recipient's household. Sort of off topic...

Back on topic...does she work? If so, she should be disclosing her annual income to you and she should be paying S7 expenses in proportion to both your individual incomes.

If she doesn't work, why not? There may be a valid reason for it, but deciding not to work because the new partner makes enough for both of them is not a valid reason. Income can be imputed to her, if necessary.

Last edited by Teenwolf; 06-11-2015 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mediation & Financial Disagreement rockscan Divorce & Family Law 29 07-28-2014 04:29 PM
Mediation kids1st Divorce & Family Law 3 04-17-2013 12:21 PM
Refusing Mediation GoDiegoGo Divorce & Family Law 2 03-09-2013 10:39 AM
Mediation onlybeginning Divorce & Family Law 3 10-24-2012 10:50 AM
Open vs closed mediation Me_too Divorce & Family Law 7 05-28-2011 03:25 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.