Financial statement, filling out

[frustrated11]

How do you fill out the statement when you are told that any money you borrow is part of income, but it is not as there are notarized promisary notes of that being owed? (including a breakdown of why it is there)

basically it is like they are trying to base child support on my income and the person I borrowed from

is there a special way to fill this out, but technically it is not income

[standing on the sidelines]

let me see what I can find out, what province are you in?? What is the form number?

[frustrated11]

let me see what I can find out, what province are you in?? What is the form number?

We are in ontario

[standing on the sidelines]

I am thinking that you have to put the loan under the debt section. Under income it says support from others but it is not support that you are getting it is a loan. I would take support as a trust fund or something like that. I am not sure about any of this though, I am just looking at the form online and that is the way I understand it.

Who told you that you had to include the loan in the income section

[frustrated11]

thats what I figured, but at cc the judge stated I should include the loan in come as I have been paying my bills with it. does not make sense to me

[Suchislife]

A loan is a debt.
It is not income.
Support refers to child support or spousal support being received, not a trust fund.

[Linjohn]

frustrated11:

The "DivorceMate" Financial Statement instructions state that all of your debts should be listed in Part 8. Those debts include mortgages, loans, lines of credit, income and other taxes payable, overdrafts, outstanding legal and other professional fees, and credit card balances. The instructions also state that debts to parents, other relatives and friends should be included, although they will be closely examined to determine whether they are loans or gifts.

A loan is a debt that must be repaid no matter what the money is used for or who lends it to you, so I don't understand where the judge is coming from because he or she should know better.

Linda

[frustrated11]

they are trying to see if there is any income being hidden, so they want to try and see my girlfriends accounts. Her personal account was set up 7 years before I met her and we got a joint 2 years ago. To cover my bills she has been transferring in money which we have personal agreement agreement per item she was covering and a lump notarized amount of total owing to her to date.

[standing on the sidelines]

so basically she is paying half the bills or all of your bills? I am thinking that it could get sticky.

If it would have been a one time loan then it is clear cut. Now it may look like she is paying half the bills (I am assuming that you live together) so you have more free money because she is covering some of the day to day living costs by transferring money from her personal account to the joint account.

Not sure how a judge will look at it.

[frustrated11]

she is paying all her own bills, covering my car/insurance/some child support and my portion of the rent, to do this, she had to open up almost all her own RRSPs and Shares in the company she works at and she just had a baby in 2008, she is now living check to check to get by and I just started working which i let the court know but they still want all this extra disclosure

[Linjohn]

frustrated11:

The additional information you provided sheds a whole new light on the subject. Whether or not you're living with your girlfriend, if she is paying half of your bills or financially contributing to your household in any way, whatever money you receive from her would be considered income. All income from any source must be included in Part 1 of your Financial Statement, including gifts, voluntary or indirect support from other members of your family or from friends or a common law partner. It's very difficult to prove that money received from family members or friends is actually a loan and not a gift, especially since the money was not received in one lump sum, so that might explain why the judge became suspicious and instructed you to include the loan in Part 1 of your Financial Statement.

I don't know if your girlfriend can be forced to produce bank statements for her personal accounts, but any accounts jointly held between you and her would be subject to examination.

Linda

[frustrated11]

so even though she has had to open up her retirement savings, so that she could pay my bills via a loan, we have a written loan agreement between us
(ie I, (name) agree to loan, (name), the amount of $$$ per month to cover the costs of car insurance. Until he finds suitable employment. I, (name), agree, to borrow the amount of $$$$, per month to cover my car insurance, until I find suitable employment. All the different bills have their own note. Then for all the different types of bills, a lump promisary note (commissioned) with a payment schedule. this is a loan, not income

[Stargate]

I can't believe what I am reading. A loan should never be included as income no matter what the source is especially if there is documentation to support the loan agreement. If I buy a car and have it financed 100% by a bank or third party that is not considered as income. Its a loan. If judges have power to deem what is and what is not income notwithstanding proper documentation to back up a loan then we should all jump off the nearest bridge. This type of judicial interpretation is akin to highway robbery!!

[Linjohn]

Stargate:

If the loan was obtained from a financial institution and frustrated11 had a copy of the signed loan agreement, there would be no question that it's a liability. However, when a loan is obtained from a relative, friend or common-law partner, there is always the chance that the money is really a gift and not a loan at all, so it's up to the judge to determine which it is. Let's face it. How difficult would it be for two people who want to pull a fast one on the judge to draw up and sign a loan agreement even though there is no expectation for repayment?

frustrated11's girlfriend should have loaned him a lump sum, and that may have been more believable to the judge than having her pay half of his bills each month with a loan agreement for each bill. As Judge Judy always says, "if it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true". Since we don't have all of the facts, obviously, something didn't make sense to the judge in frustrated11's case.

Linda

[Stargate]

Linjohn:

Based on your argument if a loan is from a relative or someone at arms length then it becomes suspicious to a judge. Even if it is a lump sum payment it wouldn't make a difference in the final analysis as I am sure there are ways that a lump sum payment could theoretically be made to look like a loan. As such the baby gets thrown out with the bath water and it places legitimate loans at the mercy of the judiciary who in the final analysis would be playing Russian roulette with your head and once the gavel goes down you're SOL. Truly a sad state for Canadian citizens.