Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Introductions

Introductions If you're new to the forums, drop by and introduce yourself.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 03:03 PM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default Retro/arrears

Hello Everyone,
I am new on here.. Applicant Mother. I just received after 5 LONG MONTHS, my FINAL ORDER for CHILD/SPOUSAL SUPPORT. The matter was in Provincial Court and I have no idea why a single issue trial that lasted under 3 days, took THIS LONG to get the decision "released" - nonetheless - I have it now. Here's what I'm wondering - the retro amount is around $26k - and a new monthly amt. for both CS and SS has been established (we did not have an interim order). I have a 13 year old son - so... there is something in the final order that reads that the retro ($26grand) shall be paid in $200 monthly instalments (??!!) Am I reading that correctly?? So he has 12-13 years to pay this up? I thought THE F.R.O. dealt with enforcing arrears/retro/and all that is payable (CS/SS). IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETROACTIVE AND ARREARS? The Retro Amt mentioned above, was calculated back to the date of the application (SEPT 2008). Please, if anyone can enlighten me on this - that would be great.. Thanks so Much
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 04:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Arears are if you had an existing court order and the other party wasn't paying.

Retroactive is if you had no court order or agreement and the court rules that support should have started at some date in the past.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 05:24 PM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default re: arrears

Thank you for that simply put explanation - I'm really curious as to whether or not this $200/mo nonsense is all about - doesn't make ANY sense!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 06:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 968
ddol1 is on a distinguished road
Default

I have come accross these issues in the reading I have done - no specifics for sure. You did not mention if you had legal representation which if so this would be the first place i would be asking. The judge in your case made a ruling for moving forward and the going back is or has a different "standing" that it is not paid at once, the FRO are not here to get people to pay beyond the scope of the ruling handed down by the courts. your ex is on the line for CS and SS and if that is not hard enough another amount on top. As far as the length of time to pay retro type payments of 10 years is something i have come across more than once. I believe this length of time is looked upon as doable on part of the payor in light of their other responsabilities which the courts will take into account and finally not too long that the payee will actually have a chance to use the payments for the (out on a limb here) the "intention to which they were meant"....... tosupport for you and your children.

I would think that if there was another way that could have seen your arrears paid sooner - was it brought to the courts attention at that time? They can only rule on what they know/have before them. Based on what you posted it appears that your ex has/will be doing everything the court asked so your ex will be in good standing - nothing for the FRO to enforce in otherwords.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 166
anotherSTEPmother is on a distinguished road
Default

Based on what you have written this does make sense. I am guessing that there will be in addition to the $200/mnth ongoing CS and SS payments. They will deduct the 2 amounts and then the additional 200 on top of that. They can reasonably on deduct so much at a time so that your ex can still afford to eat.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2011, 07:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

If the ex had assets that could have been used to pay down the amount owing, this should have been brought to the attention of the judge.

Otherwise, the ex needs to cover personal living expenses, he can't cover CS and SS ongoing if he is naked living in cardboard box.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2011, 08:53 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,567
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadenough View Post
Hello Everyone,
I am new on here.. Applicant Mother. I just received after 5 LONG MONTHS, my FINAL ORDER for CHILD/SPOUSAL SUPPORT. The matter was in Provincial Court and I have no idea why a single issue trial that lasted under 3 days, took THIS LONG to get the decision "released" - nonetheless - I have it now. Here's what I'm wondering - the retro amount is around $26k - and a new monthly amt. for both CS and SS has been established (we did not have an interim order). I have a 13 year old son - so... there is something in the final order that reads that the retro ($26grand) shall be paid in $200 monthly instalments (??!!) Am I reading that correctly?? So he has 12-13 years to pay this up? I thought THE F.R.O. dealt with enforcing arrears/retro/and all that is payable (CS/SS). IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETROACTIVE AND ARREARS? The Retro Amt mentioned above, was calculated back to the date of the application (SEPT 2008). Please, if anyone can enlighten me on this - that would be great.. Thanks so Much
1. The judge based the decision off the Form 13.1 Financial Statement.

2. If the other parent does not have the liquid assets to pay the amount owing up-front and has other debts to cover this is why it is set to $200 a month.

3. This is quite common. Courts do not make orders for repayments that a parent can't make or will put them at financial risk.

4. The court is more concerned with your ongoing needs for support than your past need for support. You will get your lost money back but, over time.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2011, 11:05 AM
Gary M's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Kanata
Posts: 703
Gary M is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hadenough View Post
Thank you for that simply put explanation - I'm really curious as to whether or not this $200/mo nonsense is all about - doesn't make ANY sense!
Wow...

Gary
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2011, 02:26 PM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks for the responses. The ex is in no danger of being naked/starving and living out of a cardboard box. That description would better describe me after all of this BS. His income was imputed @ $90k per year - he was not truthful under oath nor in any prior sworn affadavits/financial statements. For all of which: he got slammed by the Judge. "Not Credible" "Dishonest" "Evasive and Vague" "disclosure woefully inadequate" - Since trial wrapped up, Mr. Lim broke and drive a Mercedes" has purchased a home w/his wife and welcomed a 2nd child into the world. Litigation has been like entering into a "machine" - one that is difficult/impossible to get out of. There are other issues (another proceeding in a different Court). Stay tuned. This case is being monitored by a few people. That said: so glad to be done w/Family Court. It has been very consuming in more ways than one.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2011, 08:12 PM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Post

I'm not sure what Gary's "wow" comment was all about but it needs to be pointed out, that while the general consensus is that men get "screwed over" by their ex's and the Courts - it does happen the other way around as well. I know several responsible dads, 2 of which have sole custody of their kids, and rightfully so given their circimstances.. But it needs to be said that women get the short end of the stick as well. Every situation has its own unique set of circumstances - and trust that in "mine" - my ex eats/lives and travels quite well - it is me amd my son that have been left at a serious economic disadvantage. As a parting comment: I find it appalling, and have throughout found it OBSCENE: the amount of lying and misrepresentations that is tolerated (full out PERJURY) from certain parties in litigation, AND (from) their Counsel. Pls forgive any typos, not so easy to type this via Blackberry
Closed Thread


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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 AM.