Orders. Neverending story ...

[dana2]

So I have drafted my orders, I have SERVED them to the other party.

It turns out the other party's lawyer sent his own draft orders to the court clerk "for pre-approval". His position is that I must undergo the "pre-approval" stage.

At this point, I start not understanding anything anymore. Whose draft actually counts, his or mine? I served mine, he "pre-approved" his, of course, while not forwarding me any copy.

[Beachnana]

I thought the " winning" party drafted the orders. But I am sure someone who is a lawyer will pipe in here soon.

[dana2]

Basically the other party's lawyer wants a disclosure clause added to the order.

The clause reads like this: "each year, the parties shall disclose ..."

This is an order for interim support. Wording to this effect are not present in the endorsement.

Is this standard, shall I accept it or dispute it?

[standing on the sidelines]

Basically the other party's lawyer wants a disclosure clause added to the order.

The clause reads like this: "each year, the parties shall disclose ..."

This is an order for interim support. Wording to this effect are not present in the endorsement.

Is this standard, shall I accept it or dispute it?

I am not sure but does it really matter if that clause in in there?

Like you said its an order for interim support. How long will this order be in effect for? I think the other party is just planning for the order to last longer and making sure that the normal disclosure of income happens till there is a final order.

For me I wouldn't dispute it but that's me, you may have your own reasons to dispute it.

[dana2]

What the clause mentions is full financial disclosure.

Firstly, we do not know what full financial disclosure is. I can basically make financial disclosure and he can say he is not satisfied with it, cause it is not full, therefore no more payments.

Secondly, while I understand exchanging filed income taxes each year, this clause goes above and beyond. Now I have to give him banking information, etc. There is nothing to hide, cause I cannot even afford lawyers. However, in the same time, who will cover for my expenses for obtaining all this information, that now becomes mandatory, each year?

So I am asking, is this clause standard, a clause that gets added to all interim support orders? Like for instance is the FRO clause, or the post-judgement clause.

[rockscan]

Orders. Neverending story ...

You could tell them to put in something like:

Both parties agree to exchange financial information according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines Section 21 (CHECK I MIGHT BE WRONG ON THE SECTION) once a year via the individual T1 tax return and issued Notice of Assessment or upon financial change with proof of income via a pay stub, letter of offer from employer or other means to show proof of actual income.

That way it covers off the item in the guidelines on updating income WHEN it changes or annually if there is no change AND it lists what is acceptable.

They can ask for your bank records all they want, they dont prove what an employer is paying.

Also, most agreements have a standard clause on updating. Having it in an interim order covers you if he decides to screw off and not update you. Regardless though, hes obligated to update when his income changes. Hes demonstrating blameworthy conduct if he hides it. And your income means nothing for cs if hes the payor. Its only applicable for s7 breakdown so theycan blow it out their ass when they want your banking info.

[blinkandimgone]

What else does the clause mention? annual Financial disclosure after seperation /divorce does not include anything about banking information. It includes tax returns, T Slips and notices of assessment, period, for the purpose of calculation of child and spousal support and section 7 expenses.

Maybe you could post what it actually says in detail so we'd have a better understanding of what you mean.

[dana2]

We are in the third year of our dispute, and I do not see the end in sight ...

[dana2]

The moment I get home, I will post it. I think they reference section 24(1).

Hmm, now that I am reading Child Support Guidelines, I am not even sure why that clause is even there, anyway such disclosure is mandatory.

Question: is there a similar provision for spousal support? I.e. annual disclosure if spousal support is payable? And what section should be mentioned.

[standing on the sidelines]

The moment I get home, I will post it. I think they reference section 24(1).

Hmm, now that I am reading Child Support Guidelines, I am not even sure why that clause is even there, anyway such disclosure is mandatory.

Question: is there a similar provision for spousal support? I.e. annual disclosure if spousal support is payable? And what section should be mentioned.

I am thinking its there so no one can later say that they didn't realize that they had to provide the information. Just makes it clear.

I am not sure if there would be one for SS. My understanding is that SS doesn't do up and down based on income (I could be wrong) that it is usually a fixed amount.

[arabian]

Are either of you self-employed?


Regarding SS - it is whatever you negotiate. It is not uncommon for SS to be calculated annually based on a % of difference between income. This is often done when one party is self-employed. In my situation my ex and I had to provide full financials (invoices, bank statements, full tax returns, NOAs) although it didn't provide me with enough information as ex's g/f and family members shelter income for my ex.

[LovingFather32]

Yearly Financial Disclosure is not uncommon. Blink's correct, this does not include your banking statements, etc. Simply your T4's, notices of assessment, etc. This saves a lot of arguments in the future about who brought in what. Like
SOTS ... not a battle I'd choose to fight.

[dana2]

Thanks guys, amazing input! Indeed, the clause is not harmful at all for me, therefore I have no good reason not to accept it, however, obviously, on consent, since it was not there in the original endorsement.

[Tayken]

Thanks guys, amazing input! Indeed, the clause is not harmful at all for me, therefore I have no good reason not to accept it, however, obviously, on consent, since it was not there in the original endorsement.

It wasn't in the original order because it is so common that it is assumed. It is also a part of the child support guidelines which are law. Restating it shouldn't be required. If you had a lawyer you would know this basic stuff. This is why I recommend you retain counsel as you may annoy a judge with petty stuff like this and it could make things longer and more expensive for everyone involved.

[dana2]

Haha, I wish I could afford one