Well then that's your issue. You could have had her imputed to at least min wage because anyone can get a min wage job. And like stated above, try to work for cash but that too will bite you. Best to just follow the law
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Technically she was imputed for spousal purposes only.....I am going to see a lawyer Friday and start planning.
Well then that's your issue. You could have had her imputed to at least min wage because anyone can get a min wage job. And like stated above, try to work for cash but that too will bite you. Best to just follow the law
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is my issue, that's why I'm here. I will solve the problem, then no more issues
It is my issue, that's why I'm here. I will solve the problem, then no more issues
You have only been paying ten months, highly unlikely you will be able to have this changed. What material change in circumstances have came up since the signing of the agreement?
You have only been paying ten months, highly unlikely you will be able to have this changed. What material change in circumstances have came up since the signing of the agreement?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nothing yet other than I bought a 4-plex. I'm starting to feel like my real estate career might be "unsuccessful" and involve less profit than expected.....and a couple years from now I may have to settle for a contract position. Really frustrating to know my future might be less lucrative than I planned on.
You talk to your ex and negotiate a new amount you both agree to. Tricky part is you both have to agree or it doesn't work. Nothing will be put in writing until you both agree
You talk to your ex and negotiate a new amount you both agree to. Tricky part is you both have to agree or it doesn't work. Nothing will be put in writing until you both agree
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trinton is not a lawyer and is currently in litigation with his ex so take what he says with a grain of salt. The Key word is agree. You both have to agree and if she doesn't she can file an application for support.
Also you have to review every year and if your income goes up then you have to renegotiate. If you can't agree you go with the tables and offset.
Trinton is not a lawyer and is currently in litigation with his ex so take what he says with a grain of salt. The Key word is agree. You both have to agree and if she doesn't she can file an application for support.
Also you have to review every year and if your income goes up then you have to renegotiate. If you can't agree you go with the tables and offset.
Great point.
Here’s my concern. I think I can get her to agree to a reasonable amount. Jump all over me all you want but $4000/month to have your kids half time is not reasonable.....however, if I get her to agree to a more realistic amount how do I document that so she can’t come back 5 years later and ask for more and back pay?
Once again I have no issue paying for ALL child related expenses at both houses, but I don’t feel the need to pay to make sure she has a similar quality house to mine.
Anyway, how can I prove she agreed to X amount? Is a written signed letter sufficient?
You do an agreement that she gets independent legal advice on. She can still come back but the onus is on her to prove what changed and why she doesnt agree now.
I have a somewhat related question in regards to expenses. If you have an updated court order including a one-time extraordinary expense clause but do not have an updated support deduction order, is the court order for the special expenses payment amount still enfocable by FRO? But not via wage garnishment?
Well I expect if they dont agree then a judge will get involved. Remember this guy makes $150,000 a year. All bets are off wrt "fair" and "table amount".
So in his case, he has somehow convinced her he makes $144k a year, and his ex seems to be imputed to $60k or so. At first her income is a mix of imputation and SS, stepping up to more imputation after 6 years, from the sound of it.
So for now, they calculate his CS based on $144k and hers on $60k. Assume two kids in Ontario for example purposes.
His CS is $1943 and hers is $892. Offset would be $1051 so half would be $525. Add to the $3121 SS he's paying her, he pays $3626 per month in year 1.
In year three, it look like he anticipates an income of $300k, while hers would still be imputed to $60k. He's paying less SS by this point, and she's expected to be making up the difference with her own employment.
His CS is now $3722 and hers is still $892. Offset is $2830 and half is $1415. Add to the $2274 of SS he's paying her by then (I just took the midpoint of the starting $3121 year1 and the ending $1427 year6 he mentioned) and he pays her $3689. It's still around the same as year 1, but it's starting to be less SS and more CS at this point. His increased income makes the CS overtake the set SS.
Now year 6. He anticipates his income to be steady at $300k and she's still imputed to $60k, if not making more by then.
His CS remains $3722 and hers remains $892. Offset is still $2830 and half is $1415. But now he's only paying her $1427 in SS, for a total of $2842.
What happens in year 7, we don't know. But one hopes that SS goes away completely, as six years of it is plenty and then some, for a ten-year marriage. In six years she could graduate university in a good program and find a great job and be established in it by then.
So year 7 and beyond. He anticipates his income to be steady at $300k and she's still imputed to $60k, or making more if she's been sensible.
His CS remains $3722 and hers remains $892. Offset is still $2830 and half is $1415. But he's no longer paying SS at all, so $1415 is a very fair amount for CS for a 50-50 access regime between two parents of those incomes. They are BOTH supporting the children in proportion to their incomes and the access.
50-50 access is one of the regimes that makes imputing an income essential. Otherwise if one parent is wealthy and the other one chooses not to work, CS is affected and becomes just SS in disguise.
However, all that math fun aside, if he's paying her $5100 in support this year, I can see why he thinks it's excessive, because it is. I do not understand where that number comes from. And I can understand his concern when the annual adjustment happens and he has to use his true $200k+ income for the CS calculation, because it must feel like the $5100 is going to increase instead of going down.
Post-marriage though, barring unusual circumstances, both people should be expected to be financially self-sufficient, and CS should not be used to make up the difference if one person chooses to be unemployed.
Last edited by Rioe; 10-03-2017, 02:07 PM.
Reason: added more links
Comment