Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

s.7 vs s.3.2(b) for University

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • s.7 vs s.3.2(b) for University

    Good Day Again

    Does anyone have any experience with using Section 3.2(b) for University payments instead of Section 7? Everyone talks about "University is s.7", but 3.2(b) brings into question the "means" of all parties involved. There seem to be quite a number of cases on CanLii which are based on 3.2(b).

    I'm asking because both kids are off to University... she's got the big house (no mortgage), a huge mountain of cash, and doesn't bother working. I've got a good income (60% of which goes to support payments), and a monster mortgage on a tiny place.

    Though my income is "high"... our "means" are very different...

    any experience out there ??

  • #2
    Yes but what is involved in those cases? A childs disability, illness, ability to work/go to school, income levels of the paying parent etc all come into play in those cases.

    Your ex can be a trillionaire and it wont mean a thing. You are still responsible for paying support and a portion of the kids expenses. You could try to see about imputing an income to your ex but it may not work either.

    You have to ask yourself if going to court to fight to pay less is worth it. Your ex has resources and could drag the fight out. Is it worth the extra money to potentially lose?

    If your kids go away, CS should be reduced. If they stay home you pay for tuition books equipment and transportation. Remember too that the tax benefit comes off the tuition costs as well for the net cost.

    Youre driving yourself crazy trying to find an out. You wont get one. You are still going to have to pay a share of university as a section 7 expense.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not in the least trying to find an out.... I have always fully planned on paying for University (for the record the only reason they have significant RESPs are due to my financial diligence)... both are moving out and the support rules are changing... I'm just trying to clarify them.

      For what it's worth, I'm a sane, logical, rational, reasonable person.... and she's nuts.

      I'm looking for experience on s.7 vs s.3.2(b).... not a lecture...

      Comment


      • #4
        And im telling you trying to get university set under s 3.2(b) wont work. Your best bet is to either try and work out an agreement with her. If that fails, work with the kids. If that fails tell her youll be paying as per the FCSG once your receive receipts with CS reduced while the kids are at school (either no support during the 8 months or the 4 months divided by 12). Then let her figure it out.

        What I was trying to impress upon you is that youre in the weeds on this. She has to come to you for the money. If she doesnt want to work together reasonably then let her figure it out. The kids know youre not a deadbeat.

        Through all the post secondary posts here no one has gotten through court on 3.2 (b). You need to look at the circumstances of those cases and whether it was applied to reduce CS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you. I have found quite a few that applied 3.2(b)... but that seems to be the exception, not the rule.

          agreement with her.. fail. agreement with kids... fine but they don't want to pay 1/3 (actually they are ok with it, but she thinks I should pay everything)...

          the court order that exists says I must pay her table support... I am putting in a motion to change that (1/3 - 2/3.. 70-30 s.7 split, payments directly to the kids).

          3.2(b) keeps coming up so I was simply curious.... this is my first motion, and I want to get it right.

          Comment


          • #6
            Youre mixing up the two (or maybe Im confusing it).

            School costs are s7. They are split depending on the courts judgement if the parties cant agree and that split is predominantly held at 1/3 to child and 2/3 split proportion to parents' income LESS all tax benefits and awards (ie OSAP 30% off).

            Child support is where the 3.2(b) comes in and you use that for your argument on reducing while away at school.

            This case: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc...&resultIndex=1
            Spells it out quite clearly "Most courts now find the guideline amount inappropriate when a child attends university out of town and only returns home during the summer and school breaks...."

            Another point is to have your final order split the cs for the kids. Kid 1 xxx until DATE. Kid 2 yyy until DATE. That way if youre in a province with a maintenance program (FRO, MEP) you can have the payments stopped properly without having to call and have them chase your ex for proof the kids are in school.

            Comment


            • #7
              thats a clear explanation.... thank you very much.

              I'd give my left arm to not have to deal with this crap....

              cheers

              Comment


              • #8
                When you look at the cases on canlii see where the judges opinion fell. They break it down between CS and s7 expenses. The point is that you shouldnt have to pay double--living expenses to the recipient and then your portion of living expenses for kid being away (residence, apartment etc).

                My partner keeps saying "seven more years of this and then Im done" which sounds sad but when youre dealing with an unreasonable person its understandable.

                Comment


                • #9
                  thank you again rockscan... you were correct in that I was mixing up the two (you were not confusing it).

                  It is all much clearer now and I will go back and re-read the cases I found with a new understanding...

                  and I repeat... I'd give my left arm not to have to deal with this crap...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                    What I was trying to impress upon you is that youre in the weeds on this. She has to come to you for the money. If she doesnt want to work together reasonably then let her figure it out. The kids know youre not a deadbeat.
                    Just have to followup on this comment... I am trying to teach my kids sound financial management principals and responsibility. The last thing I want to do is "let her figure it out"... as she is a pure financial train-wreck and that is certainly not "in the best interests of the children" to have them experience all that entails for the next 4 years.

                    What I am trying to do is lay the groundwork now (i.e. through a motion) to pave the way for a stress free university experience. Since the kids were born, I've been planning for that.... kinda sucks to have it messed up in this way.

                    cheers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Totally understandable but theres only so much you can do. My partners ex has horrible financial sense and the kids have learned from her. They all feel the bank of dad should pony up or theyll just take out loans and he should too. Hes tried talking to his kids about money and earning money and making smart decisions but moms attitude is let kids be kids we work so they dont have to. What philosophy do you think the kids are going to follow?

                      The point of that comment was basically to say that if she isnt going to work together with you then let her fuck it up and the year after the kids will be willing to work with you instead.

                      Comment

                      Our Divorce Forums
                      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                      Working...
                      X