SS arrears

[Leviathan]

As a receiver of SS I will throw my hat into this discussion:

I would keep money aside if you are unsuccessful and have to pay arrears.

I would not pay anything without an INTERIM ORDER.

Interim Orders can be good for both sides as it clearly sets out reasons, terms and length.

If your ex has no other income, and she hasn't provided financial disclosure, I would not pay any more until she provides documentation. Your lawyer can simply send a letter to opposing counsel giving them 30 days to turn over financial disclosure. If you don't receive it by that date then money stops. Often lawyers can make agreements simply over the phone and the two of you should be able to get an interim order by consent filed.

Just my 2 cents....

thanks Arabian...she's already given financial disclosures..the disclosures I'm referring to helps decide on CS IF any any is entitled...again, long story I don't want to through out here in public forum...If you'd like a little more info on it, I can PM..

it's rather unique really...ask pursuing

[arabian]

As a receiver of SS I will throw my hat into this discussion:

I would keep money aside if you are unsuccessful and have to pay arrears.

I would not pay anything without an INTERIM ORDER.

Interim Orders can be good for both sides as it clearly sets out reasons, terms and length.

If your ex has no other income, and she hasn't provided financial disclosure, I would not pay any more until she provides documentation. Your lawyer can simply send a letter to opposing counsel giving them 30 days to turn over financial disclosure. If you don't receive it by that date then money stops. Often lawyers can make agreements simply over the phone and the two of you should be able to get an interim order by consent filed.

Just my 2 cents....

[Leviathan]

I definitely say no.

Like Exquizique said, if you pay in the interim, you're implying she's entitled to it and she hasn't proved that at all. In addition, you're setting up a status quo of paying her and now she can claim you're causing her a hardship.

Think of it this way, the court would prove her entitlement by using the disclosures you're waiting for. So all you have to show is that you requested the disclosures multiple times and she didn't supply them...how are you supposed to know she needs support with the absence of relevant materials? That she didn't supply them would seem to me to end the discussion about retroactive support.

I'm really surprised your lawyer is ok with you paying her without an order. Personally, I think by doing this..he's weakened your position...I'd stop until she files a motion and brings her evidence forward.

By the way: If you bank the money, just in case she proves entitlement, you're no worse off. But if you give her money in unsubstiated payments that she can't prove entitlement for in the future, what are the chances that you're going to get it back...or get it back without incurring court costs?

Pursuing is making sense here too!!!... Yes the stbx and her lawyer threatened to go to court for an emergency motion..this is when my lawyer (she's female) said...let's throw some $$ at them to keep them happy..(so to speak)

It's not SS or CS (although thats what stbx is going after)...IT'S INTERIM SUPPORT" I know...it is tricky...I wasn't pleased either but with the stbx's lawyer whining about the stbx's health and whatnot...I was in a tight position really

[Leviathan]

Your lawyer will likely advise you to continue paying the interim SS until the matter gets resolved either through court or out of court settlement, especially if you had voluntarily paid it from the beginning, offered to pay it, or took your lawyer's advice to voluntarily pay an amount.

This is not necessarily "wrong" or "bad" advice.

However, if I was you, I would have my lawyer send correspondence to the other party to say that any future voluntary SS payments will be contingent upon receiving disclosure or information proving grounds for entitlement for SS by X date, and to please provide said disclosure forthwith.

If by X date this information has not been provided to you, notify the other party in writing that as of X date all voluntary spousal support payments will cease because entitlement has not been proven, and that your position is that there is no entitlement for spousal support. Then stop paying.

If the other party expresses outrage at the decision but chooses not to do anything about it, well, then you know they know that they have a weak case and won't pursue it. If they then go forward with a motion, then sort it out in court. Putting money aside for expected SS based on divorcemate calculations is always a good idea just in case an SS award is made (and most likely will if it's an interim award), if you can afford to.

Again, I am not a lawyer. You know your case and circumstances best.

You may not be a lawyer Exquizique but you're making alot of sense!!...I appreciate it, Thanks.

[Pursuinghappiness]

or do I continue to pay the interim??

I definitely say no.

Like Exquizique said, if you pay in the interim, you're implying she's entitled to it and she hasn't proved that at all. In addition, you're setting up a status quo of paying her and now she can claim you're causing her a hardship.

Think of it this way, the court would prove her entitlement by using the disclosures you're waiting for. So all you have to show is that you requested the disclosures multiple times and she didn't supply them...how are you supposed to know she needs support with the absence of relevant materials? That she didn't supply them would seem to me to end the discussion about retroactive support.

I'm really surprised your lawyer is ok with you paying her without an order. Personally, I think by doing this..he's weakened your position...I'd stop until she files a motion and brings her evidence forward.

By the way: If you bank the money, just in case she proves entitlement, you're no worse off. But if you give her money in unsubstiated payments that she can't prove entitlement for in the future, what are the chances that you're going to get it back...or get it back without incurring court costs?

[Exquizique]

SHH****TTT!!! I know...thats the scenerio I'm in now...do I continue with interim...do I not...do I wait for emergency interim motion from them and then when It's brought before the judge, we mention that they haven't given us the disclosures we've asked for and is why we stopped the voluntary interim??

or do I continue to pay the interim??...questions I'll definetly be asking my lawyer here shortly...as pursuing has stated to me earlier..throw the interim in a savings account and wait for them to contact us (we haven't heard a thing from opposing parties since the CC which was early Feb)...

I'm definetly confused here!! and pretty pissed off!!

Your lawyer will likely advise you to continue paying the interim SS until the matter gets resolved either through court or out of court settlement, especially if you had voluntarily paid it from the beginning, offered to pay it, or took your lawyer's advice to voluntarily pay an amount.

This is not necessarily "wrong" or "bad" advice.

However, if I was you, I would have my lawyer send correspondence to the other party to say that any future voluntary SS payments will be contingent upon receiving disclosure or information proving grounds for entitlement for SS by X date, and to please provide said disclosure forthwith.

If by X date this information has not been provided to you, notify the other party in writing that as of X date all voluntary spousal support payments will cease because entitlement has not been proven, and that your position is that there is no entitlement for spousal support. Then stop paying.

If the other party expresses outrage at the decision but chooses not to do anything about it, well, then you know they know that they have a weak case and won't pursue it. If they then go forward with a motion, then sort it out in court. Putting money aside for expected SS based on divorcemate calculations is always a good idea just in case an SS award is made (and most likely will if it's an interim award), if you can afford to.

Again, I am not a lawyer. You know your case and circumstances best.

[Leviathan]

If you have a strong position for not paying SS, and have grounds and facts to prove that she has no entitlement to SS, I would not pay a cent until the other party establishes entitlement. Since you're already paying, set a drop-dead date by which you expect to receive disclosure from the other party that would PROVE/ESTABLISH entitlement to SS. If such disclosure is not received by this date, end all payments for SS. The onus is on the opposing party to prove entitlement.

By paying SS without the other party having established entitlement, you run the risk of implicitly acknowledging their entitlement. Unless your ex is in dire circumstances if you stop SS (ie. no where to live, children will be evicted from home, no money to pay for food, no money to obtain required medication for a critical illness/condition etc.,), the longer you voluntarily pay SS the more it becomes "accepted" that she has a valid need and entitlement to SS and that you have the ability to pay.

Establish your position clearly and firmly from the get go, and know where your boundaries and thresholds are. Again, keep in mind that simply because of a sizable disparity in both your incomes right now, there is a good chance that interim SS will be ordered if this proceeds to any pre-trial motions. This is a risk that you will have to mitigate if you stop paying SS and they decide to take it to court. However, if you have a strong case and they have no ground for entitlement, it either will not go that far or the court will recognize it and decide accordingly when it comes to trial.

SHH****TTT!!! I know...thats the scenerio I'm in now...do I continue with interim...do I not...do I wait for emergency interim motion from them and then when It's brought before the judge, we mention that they haven't given us the disclosures we've asked for and is why we stopped the voluntary interim??

or do I continue to pay the interim??...questions I'll definetly be asking my lawyer here shortly...as pursuing has stated to me earlier..throw the interim in a savings account and wait for them to contact us (we haven't heard a thing from opposing parties since the CC which was early Feb)...

I'm definetly confused here!! and pretty pissed off!!

[Leviathan]

Leviathan:

As I mentioned in PM, I think that's the right strategy. There's a reason she hasn't disclosed and ultimately its her responsibility to prove the entitlement. Giving her money before she does that always sets a dangerous status quo based on need-based SS.

I'd just put the money aside just in case so you're not screwed if she wins.

Retroactive SS is probably not going to happen...especially if she walks a motion in without those disclosures. Highly improbable unless you get a bad judge.

Yes...you're correct pursuing, I remember you mentioning...I just thought I'd throw it out there and get a little more info/opinions from everyone...

[Exquizique]

Thanks Exquizique!!...useful information....I am currently paying interim but there hasn't been a set amount...no actual papers have been signed on whether or not I owe this much for SS and this much for CS...

I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!

If you have a strong position for not paying SS, and have grounds and facts to prove that she has no entitlement to SS, I would not pay a cent until the other party establishes entitlement. Since you're already paying, set a drop-dead date by which you expect to receive disclosure from the other party that would PROVE/ESTABLISH entitlement to SS. If such disclosure is not received by this date, end all payments for SS. The onus is on the opposing party to prove entitlement.

By paying SS without the other party having established entitlement, you run the risk of implicitly acknowledging their entitlement. Unless your ex is in dire circumstances if you stop SS (ie. no where to live, children will be evicted from home, no money to pay for food, no money to obtain required medication for a critical illness/condition etc.,), the longer you voluntarily pay SS the more it becomes "accepted" that she has a valid need and entitlement to SS and that you have the ability to pay.

Establish your position clearly and firmly from the get go, and know where your boundaries and thresholds are. Again, keep in mind that simply because of a sizable disparity in both your incomes right now, there is a good chance that interim SS will be ordered if this proceeds to any pre-trial motions. This is a risk that you will have to mitigate if you stop paying SS and they decide to take it to court. However, if you have a strong case and they have no ground for entitlement, it either will not go that far or the court will recognize it and decide accordingly when it comes to trial.

[Pursuinghappiness]

I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!

Leviathan:

As I mentioned in PM, I think that's the right strategy. There's a reason she hasn't disclosed and ultimately its her responsibility to prove the entitlement. Giving her money before she does that always sets a dangerous status quo based on need-based SS.

I'd just put the money aside just in case so you're not screwed if she wins.

Retroactive SS is probably not going to happen...especially if she walks a motion in without those disclosures. Highly improbable unless you get a bad judge.

[Leviathan]

It is a common strategy for opposing counsel (based on input and direction from their client), as a "first strike", to make forceful and seemingly "outrageous" demands as part of their approach of "sizing up" the other party (you and your lawyer). Based on your response to their "demands" and position, they are able to gather (at times quite valuable and useful) information about what your position, approach, leverages etc., are and then further tailor their case/approach moving forward. Many people who have never had to deal with the complexities of the legal system before or who can't afford a lawyer get easily rattled by such demands and end up either making rash decisions or tipping their hand through emotional reactions/careless responses to opposing counsel.

The best way to deal with such, IMO, is to educate yourself, know your rights and options, obtain legal advice where required, keep your cards close to your chest, do not reveal more than you have to and always respond in a neutral but firm manner.

Whether you should take it all the way to trial or not, especially because trial is a very costly affair, depends on how strong your position is compared to the opposing party's position and grounds. The leaset expensive and recommended outcome of course is to try your best to find SOME KIND of middle ground and settle out of court. Most reasonable litigants and their counsel will have retracted or withdrawn most if not all of their initial "outrageous" demands by the time some kind of negotiation is underway, but if you're dealing with someone who's decided to be unreasonable and determined to pursue claims that are not based on any kind of evidence or logic, then your best bet will likely to push the matter to court as quickly as possible.

Thanks Exquizique!!...useful information....I am currently paying interim but there hasn't been a set amount...no actual papers have been signed on whether or not I owe this much for SS and this much for CS...

I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!

[Exquizique]

I'll be honest exquizique...I'm at the point where her lawyer is just getting me going and pushing all the right buttons (from the stbx of course I'm sure) that I'm willing to go the full extent (trial)!!

It is a common strategy for opposing counsel (based on input and direction from their client), as a "first strike", to make forceful and seemingly "outrageous" demands as part of their approach of "sizing up" the other party (you and your lawyer). Based on your response to their "demands" and position, they are able to gather (at times quite valuable and useful) information about what your position, approach, leverages etc., are and then further tailor their case/approach moving forward. Many people who have never had to deal with the complexities of the legal system before or who can't afford a lawyer get easily rattled by such demands and end up either making rash decisions or tipping their hand through emotional reactions/careless responses to opposing counsel.

The best way to deal with such, IMO, is to educate yourself, know your rights and options, obtain legal advice where required, keep your cards close to your chest, do not reveal more than you have to and always respond in a neutral but firm manner.

Whether you should take it all the way to trial or not, especially because trial is a very costly affair, depends on how strong your position is compared to the opposing party's position and grounds. The leaset expensive and recommended outcome of course is to try your best to find SOME KIND of middle ground and settle out of court. Most reasonable litigants and their counsel will have retracted or withdrawn most if not all of their initial "outrageous" demands by the time some kind of negotiation is underway, but if you're dealing with someone who's decided to be unreasonable and determined to pursue claims that are not based on any kind of evidence or logic, then your best bet will likely to push the matter to court as quickly as possible.

[Leviathan]

From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.

Yes..I think it was MESS that has said the same kind of thing to me once before...but from others on here, I've been told I'm going to want to COMPLETELY avoid trial althogether (it can become quite expensive I hear)

The stbx and her lawyer have already sent me an OTS..which we threw out because it was ridiculous!!!...indefinite spousal based off 11 year CL??..I don't think so!!

I'll be honest exquizique...I'm at the point where her lawyer is just getting me going and pushing all the right buttons (from the stbx of course I'm sure) that I'm willing to go the full extent (trial)!!

[FB_]

From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.

This is exactly what my lawyer told me. He said be prepared on an interim basis for a judge to equalize incomes.

[Exquizique]

Well, the CC judge did state that there should be some entitlement..again he didn't give an amount or duration...stbx and lawyer jumped on that immediately..

seems to be cuz there's such a difference between our salaries (I'm making 75g more than she does) and the fact that she was recently diagnosed with a BS disease 5 months before our separation..I'm thinking the judge took that into account..

I read over their old CC brief and I'm picking out more and more S**T everytime I read it...I should just stop!!

From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.