Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can I communicate with the layer on the other side

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

  • #16
    Your lawyer works for you.

    It looks like the two of you don't see eye to eye. It doesn't really matter if you are in the wrong or your lawyer is in the wrong. Or you're both right, or both wrong. You don't see eye to eye.

    Time to get a new lawyer.

    Comment


    • #17
      yes that is what thought, my lawyer works on his own plan.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
        You wouldn't have to fight it again with an agreement that outlines changes. You pay based on your income. If your income goes down you pay less.
        that is a term I want to put in a settlement to review the lump sum amount based on actual income and CS guideline if they come back again later on. Say, if my actual income decreased in 2 years, but the lump sum was paid based on current income good for more than 2 years, will the court order to resume monthly payment if they come back again in 2 years?

        Comment


        • #19
          A judge may not accept the overpayment as you chose to agree to overpaying her. Not to mention she could claim a pile of section 7 expenses that eat up any overpayment.

          Lump sum payments are never a good idea for support.

          Comment


          • #20
            what if she has to agree to review CS based on income and guideline if claim again? it doesn't help at all?

            S7 expense has to be reasonable and necessary, also depends on the family's income and spending style, and both parties have to agree on it. I might not have to pay whatever she provides in receipts, am I right?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by gmcode View Post
              what if she has to agree to review CS based on income and guideline if claim again? it doesn't help at all?

              S7 expense has to be reasonable and necessary, also depends on the family's income and spending style, and both parties have to agree on it. I might not have to pay whatever she provides in receipts, am I right?

              Nothing is certain. In your case by giving her a lump sum you are in effect agreeing to anything. In a sense, here is money to raise our child and I donít care how. So she can argue she used the money for swimming lessons, sports, tutoring etc. You didnít want a say so she didnít ask you and because this is done to make her go away, she will win. What are you going to say in court when the judge asks why did you give her a lump sum if you wanted to approve expenses? I wanted it to go away your honour?

              She will have to review the guideline and the income ANY TIME this is reviewed. Including now. You are so worried about her asking for spousal and equalization that you are paying her to get lost. SHE WONíT STAY GONE. A judge will ask why she didnít deal with this years ago and why she accepted less not to mention her demands to things she isnít entitled to. You are so terrified that you are willing to put yourself at risk again to make her go away.

              Comment


              • #22
                sorry I forgot the important part in the settlement, I meant she has to agree to review and recalculate the CS and S7 based on actual income, guideline and lump sum paid in advance if claim again, unused portion must be carried over to future support. She might have to think about it before going to court again especially if my income is lower than before.

                And the term to request lump sum to be properly spent on children will be there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Your plan of overpayment is not sound, it raises suspicion.

                  You can send your ex a cash gift afterwards if you want as a birthday present; you won't get credit for that. I guess they could call that you willingly agreeing to up your support and ask you to keep doing it.

                  Somebody somewhere sent extra and then used that to make the ex feel financially dependent on them. That is frowned upon.


                  Something is fishy.
                  Still let your lawyer do it. Later you can have a lawyer on a limited retainer to cut costs.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gmcode View Post

                    And the term to request lump sum to be properly spent on children will be there.
                    you cannot dictate what the CS is spent on...

                    Honestly you are being very unrealistic with everything. Just pay the CS to be recalculated each year at a certain time. Keeps things simple.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by cleanSlate View Post
                      Your plan of overpayment is not sound, it raises suspicion.
                      Not fully understand what suspicion could be? She is also claiming Retroactive, if go with lump sum settlement, all disputes will be settled for now. If go trial, costs more and uncertainty. If overpaid with a lump sum solution, want to make it hard for her to win more claim later on. Is it something fishy or frowned upon? Recalculation of CS based on lump sum paid, actual income(if go back to court later on) won't be accepted by court at all?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by gmcode View Post
                        Not fully understand what suspicion could be? She is also claiming Retroactive, if go with lump sum settlement, all disputes will be settled for now. If go trial, costs more and uncertainty. If overpaid with a lump sum solution, want to make it hard for her to win more claim later on. Is it something fishy or frowned upon? Recalculation of CS based on lump sum paid, actual income(if go back to court later on) won't be accepted by court at all?

                        What your ex is doing is extortion. And you are falling into it. Not for the first time either.

                        She can claim all she wants but truly it would be three years back. You are overpaying her to save legal costs but in the end will have additional costs in the future when she comes back. Someone who has gotten away with this twice will do it again.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I believe you guy's comments are right in the context of CS, really appreciate it. Have a couple of questions though.

                          1. I paid a lump sum before, but the child didn't live with her for several years(the child lived outside of Canada), and she doesn't have proof that she has ever sent money to support the child. If I claim credit for the lump sum paid during the time the child was not living with her, will the court likely support my claim.

                          2. She never contacted me in past many years, never exchanged financial status, cut me off from the child as well, she didn't talk to me even when I reached out to her. Until awhile after first lump sum used up (defined in separation agreement), she filed a court case from nowhere. In this case, how likely the court will go back for retroactive? Still maximum 3 years or might be less or further back to the separation agreement signed many years ago?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            To be honest I donít think youíll make it past the settlement phase. Your ex will more than likely be told what she is and isnít entitled to and settle quickly. She has to pay her lawyer too and making unrealistic demands gets costly. At this point she is expecting you to make a knee jerk reaction and get more than she is entitled to. Which is why everyone is telling you not to do it. She has limited (most likely no) entitlement to anything other than cs and if you end up on LTD it goes down. So she is making all kinds of accusations and scaring you into giving her more. You get to the case conference and your case is laid out that she disappeared after the first lump, kid was sent off somewhere, you tried reaching out to her, she came back demanding more money she isnít entitled to and you are looking at sick leave. A court will not award anything she isnít entitled to and her extortion attempts will fail. Then in the next few years when things change you can avoid having her come back demanding more.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              thanks rockscan, you sound very analytical and professional. I heard for older kids like high school students voluntarily withdraw from the parent and no relationship with the parent in the past are not entitled to retro CS, is that correct? Thanks.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                No this isnít true. I havenít seen a case where a judge agreed to no cs for a child who has withdrawn from a parent. My husbandís two kids both cut him off and he still had to pay cs and school expenses.

                                I try to approach this as not giving in to someone trying to extort money. My husbandís ex claimed he owed her 80 grand and made a pile of false allegations in her documents. It was brutal but she wasnít entitled to more than $5,000. A judge blasted her at a motion and she came back and settled. Some women approach this thinking they will get what they want as judges are sympathetic. This has not been my experience in any of the cases I have read.

                                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