Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CS/SS - Please Help - Numbers and Considerations

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

  • #16
    Thanks OrleansLawyer - so the DivorceMate printouts will show the 50/50 NDI point?

    Andrew.

    Comment


    • #17
      the DivorceMate printouts will show the 50/50 NDI point?
      Yes. The default is to show low-mid-high but you can do a lot with the program to show different scenarios, such as specific NDI % or specific support numbers.

      Comment


      • #18
        Quick update:

        I was able to confirm that the 50/50 NDI split was in fact the absolute low end the range. Nonetheless, STBX believes that she should have about 55 NDI and me 45NDI (or worse) based on her "compensatory claim" ( ie that she has been home for 13 years). Thoughts?

        FYI the youngest child started school full time 2 years ago (If that matters). The STBX has completed 1 year of undergraduate studies.

        Thanks!

        Comment


        • #19
          STBX believes that she should have about 55 NDI and me 45NDI (or worse) based on her "compensatory claim" ( ie that she has been home for 13 years).
          Even when the recipient's claim is based upon a loss of their earning potential, I have difficulty seeing a case with shared custody or no children going in front of a judge and the recipient receiving more than 50% of the NDI.

          Could it happen? Yes, but the circumstances would need to be extraordinary.

          Comment


          • #20
            Unfortunately Divorcemate is the standard in Ontario. It's a horrible program that miscalculates everything. Also many lawyers miss legitimate deductions to input into the softwaresuch as but not limited to - employment expenses, debt payments, insurance deductions (life disability, health). If you have to pay any of those, this reduces your income substantially.

            In addition, Divorcemate splits income this way. The "low" range is based on 53/47 in her favour, the "mid" range is based on 55/45 in her favour, the high range is based on 57/43 in her favour. This is based on the following fact - you are both employed fully to your capability but she is also taking care of the kids so she gets more. If you are in shared custody or she is underemployed (which seems to be the case)

            Either you can push for a 50/50 NDI or impute income to her through this guideline (which lawyers also fail to adjust for most of the time.

            Intentionally under-employed/unemployed
            Input the additional amount of annual employment income to be imputed to the intentionally under-employed or unemployed party (CSG, s.19(1)(a)). This amount will then be included as if it were gross employment income in the determination of the party's Guidelines Income and child and/or spousal support (CSG, Sch. III, s.12), and in the Support Scenarios.
            Section 19(1)(a) of the CSG provides that the court may impute income to a party where the party is "intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse [ie. party]".
            Input a reasonable amount of income according to the person’s education, abilities and experience. Parties must make an effort to maintain employment suiting their education, experience and abilities, or income may be imputed.
            In Drygala v. Pauli (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 711, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income can be imputed. This is consistent with the approach adopted by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Donovan v. Donovan (2000), 190 D.L.R. (4th) 696. However, in Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt (2001), 20 R.F.L. (5th) 409, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that s.19(1)(a) requires proof of a specific intent to avoid child support obligations or circumstances which permit the court to infer a specific intent. Spouses should be aware of the other spouse working part-time, or a 4-day workweek. A court will not tolerate payors who arrange their affairs so as to avoid paying child support. Clients should be advised accordingly: see Abdilla v. Abdilla, 2004 CarswellOnt 4524 (S.C.J.); White v. Comeau, 2003 CarswellOnt 1140 (S.C.J.); Egan v. Egan, 2003 CarswellBC 1 (S.C.); Kaye v. Kaye (2002), 32 R.F.L. (5th) 368 (Ont. Div. Ct.); and X.(R.L.) v. X.(J.F.), 2002 CarswellBC 1934 (S.C.). However, a parent is not intentionally underemployed where he or she is unemployed because of ill health or misfortune: see Metzler v. Metzler, 2002 CarswellOnt 3149 (S.C.J.). Evidence of lifestyle may be used to impute income: see Orszak v. Orszak, 2000 CarswellOnt 1574 (S.C.J.); Chen v. Chen (2000), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 288 (Ont. S.C.J.); and Currie v. Currie (1999), 2 RFL (5th) 153 (Ont. S.C.J.). In a clear case, a court may impute income on an interim motion: see Gillett v. Smyth, 2002 CarswellOnt 3737 (Ont. S.C.J.). However, generally the courts take a conservative approach on interim motions: see Bedard v. Bedard (2003), 36 R.F.L. (5th) 10 (Ont. S.C.J.); and Kadikoff v. Kadikoff, 2003 CarswellOnt 1251 (S.C.J.).

            Based on what you have told us so far, your worst case scenario is spousal support is zero. Your best case scenario is spousal support is zero and you get a reduction in child support.

            Don't let lawyers tell you otherwise.

            Regards.

            Comment


            • #21
              Desperate_Dad,

              Thanks for that post - that was extremely helpful. Would the courts impute an income for her, or is it possible that they would see it reasonable for her to attend school for 4-5 years while she completes a degree?

              The "facts" we entered into divorce mate was as follows: 4 kids, ~ 119,000 annual income (me), ~ 4500 annual income her (from the old Child Tax Benefit).

              It spit out ~ 2550 a month in child support, and the range for spousal as follows:
              Low: 333 (extended "low" to account for a 50/50 NDI split)
              Med: ~ 1300
              High: ~ 1600

              The "other" expenses that i would have is ~ 4000/year i pay into Life Insurance, Health, Dental, Critical Illness, Disability, etc for our entire family (i'm also not considering the commuting costs to work..which is ~ 400 /month to Toronto).

              Does a reduction in Child Support ever happen? In what instances? something i haven't even considered? Also - would a court ever say "Zero" Spousal support?

              Sorry this is entirely new to me.... my goal is not to "screw" anyone over, i want this to be fair for all parties involved..but i also want to ensure i'm doing whats fair for me and the kids and everyone.

              Thanks,
              Andrew.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by singledadtoronto View Post
                Thanks for that post - that was extremely helpful. Would the courts impute an income for her or is it possible that they would see it reasonable for her to attend school for 4-5 years while she completes a degree?
                Assuming that she didn't have any meaningful work for 14 years, I wouldn't count on her getting imputed any income at first. Don't ever make the mistake of confusing "fair" with "what actually happens in court".

                With a compensatory claim, "fair" is a tricky concept. You have an income potential that you might otherwise not have had. She doesn't have an income potential that she might have otherwise had. It could be argued that "fair" would involve you paying her something for the rest of your working life.

                For example:

                Your income: 120,000
                Your income if you had to raise 4 kids: 90,000
                Her income: 30,000
                Her income if she didn't have to raise 4 kids: 70,000

                Assume you both work another 25 years. You have an extra $750,000, and she is down about 1 million. Raising the kids has created a 1.75 million dollar difference. Fair might involve you paying her almost a million in compensation.

                Don't worry, the courts won't order that either. I'm just pointing out that if you start talking about fair with her you might end up on a road that doesn't look as good as you might be hoping.

                That said, at least she is willing to get an education, which could result in serious savings. Honestly, that sounds kinda fair. My best friend has an ex who hasn't worked a day in her life, and they got divorced almost 15 years ago. He has tried to get spousal stopped or reduced in court over and over but has never been able to pull it off. She just shops and hangs out with friends.

                I think your goal should be to get a hard termination date. Paying a bit extra now to avoid the uncertainty is worth it. It will also get her motivated to finish school and not turn it into a 15-year educational adventure.

                Also, spread the word. Having a stay at home spouse is a terrible idea for everyone involved. The "savings" get eaten up entirely by the lost income.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Divorcemate is ... horrible program that miscalculates everything.
                  It provides the SSAG calculations, nothing more, nothing less. It does so accurately, provided the information is input correctly.

                  many lawyers miss legitimate deductions to input into the software
                  True - which is a problem. Garbage in = garbage out.

                  such as but not limited to - employment expenses, debt payments, insurance deductions (life disability, health). If you have to pay any of those, this reduces your income substantially.
                  Debt payments do not reduce your income, however they impact your overall financial situation.

                  Would the courts impute an income for her, or is it possible that they would see it reasonable for her to attend school for 4-5 years while she completes a degree?
                  It will depend on her overall plan.

                  The theory behind paying increased support (ie, while she has no income) as she retrains is that support will decrease when she finishes retraining and earns an income. Some people address this with income imputation, others take it as an example of restructuring.

                  As an example of a settlement, you might pay support based on $0 income to her for 4 years, then $30k in year 5, and +5k per year imputation until some ceiling is reached (or support ends).

                  Or, you might impute $25k from the start (not adjusted until her income surpasses it), first 4 years you pay based on her having $0 income, but support ends 2 years earlier with a hard termination date.

                  Every family is different - creative solutions are usually better than boilerplate ideas.

                  The "other" expenses that i would have is ~ 4000/year i pay into Life Insurance, Health, Dental, Critical Illness, Disability, etc for our entire family
                  The portion that is for her / the children impacts your income, and thus the SSAG.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Orleans Lawyer?

                    Are you freaking serious?

                    Divorcemate is NOT accurate. Never has been, never will be.

                    There are at least 100 errors probably alot more. You obviously haven't read any of my prior posts. Divoremate is effectively banned from my case. It is not law and no one should accept it.

                    Debt payments do not affect the Divorcemate calculations but they should. Within the program, they affect the NDI which means support payments should be significantly below the lower range.

                    The 4,000 per year is legitimate expenses which should be input into the program but no lawyer ever does. There is a place on Divorcemate called "cash flow adjustments where this information should be input. You have acknowledged this is a problem where you said "True - which is a problem. Garbage in = garbage out."

                    So basically what you are saying is what we all know. Lawyers charge $250 to $750 an hour and input garbage and are garbage. I'm still waiting to get back the $10,000 that was stolen from me because of lawyer garbage.

                    Yes, I'm pissed which is why I try to help as many people as I can so they can avoid the nightmare I went through.

                    One last thing. Don't tell people Divorcemate is accurate when it's not. Read my posts and get educated.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Divorcemate is a tool used to show the SSAG range for incomes as well as calculate NDI. Nothing more, nothing less. Divorcemate does not decide the SSAG ranges any more than it decides the FCSG amounts.

                      Debt payments do not affect the Divorcemate calculations but they should. Within the program, they affect the NDI which means support payments should be significantly below the lower range.
                      They show cash flow, however they do not impact the SSAG range. Your issue is with the SSAG, not Divorcemate.

                      You may wish to consider that most cash-flow issues can be addressed within the range provided by the SSAG.

                      The 4,000 per year is legitimate expenses which should be input into the program but no lawyer ever does.
                      This is an issue with counsel, not the program. Your argument is akin to saying, "I punched my keyboard a bunch, my computer must be broken because my e-mail didn't come up!".

                      As for "no lawyer ever" doing it, and many of your views on the subject of lawyers and the legal system - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Orleans Lawyer - You still don't get it.

                        I am aware of problems with SSAG, incompetent counsel etc. But that is not my point. You conveniently ignore the problems with Divorcemate itself. Read my response to abuseddad on the thread Yearly child/ss calculation for an example of errors within the Divorcemate program itself.

                        Those are just two errors. There are many more.

                        So if you post again, comment on the errors I pointed out and why they are not errors by Divorcemate.

                        The fact is - they are errors and I challenge you to show my why they aren't errors. And if you can't, then that proves Divorcemate is a fraudulent program which is what I have been saying all along.(and you seem to dispute?!)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          At the start of litigation my lawyer (in Alberta) used ChildView to get the "ball-park" numbers but he always emphasized that it was just an estimate and that there were shortcomings in all software programs.

                          In the case of SS, much is up to judge's discretion in allowing/not allowing certain expenses for determination of income for support purposes.

                          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