Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/index.php)
-   Financial Issues (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Is this considered available income? (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23555)

trueblue22 04-06-2021 01:00 AM

Is this considered available income?
 
My ex provided partially updated financial disclosure. I have a question about what is considered "available" income for spousal and child support purposes.

I understand if my ex was keeping money in his corporation in cash most of that money would be considered available income for support purposes.

It looks like in the last year he purchased a couple of investment properties. I don't know the exact amount of how much everything cost but lets say the down payment is 250k.

If he was sitting on this 250k in cash I would get support calculated on this amount easily. But if this money is used to buy an investment property it forms part of his overall net wealth. So instead of getting support on this 250k would I only be getting support payments on the rental income generated from this 250k?

Brampton33 04-06-2021 01:13 AM

Although I disagreed with OPs stance provided in previous posts regarding entitlement, I will say that her ex purchasing investment properties in advance of finalizing their separation through formal agreement or court order was actually foolish. Quite foolish.

When you both provide financial statements, the value of the investments must be reflected in his assets. Most people try to “hide” assets by “giving” their parents and friends HUGE sums of money prior to filing statements, to make it look like they are worth much less than they really are. OP’s ex did the opposite by increasing his worth in advance of filing statements and finalizing equalization.

I have read OPs posts, and to be honest the best and most liberating thing OP can do is finalize the separation once and for all....it’s been 5 years and OP had a new boyfriend so cut ties fully with ex. The outcome of the situation will see OP get fair share of equalization and spousal support (for a few years) as well as offset child support. The current house will be sold so best to accept it and seek a new start somewhere else.

trueblue22 04-06-2021 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brampton33 (Post 245904)
Although I disagreed with OPs stance provided in previous posts regarding entitlement, I will say that her ex purchasing investment properties in advance of finalizing their separation through formal agreement or court order was actually foolish. Quite foolish.

When you both provide financial statements, the value of the investments must be reflected in his assets. Most people try to “hide” assets by “giving” their parents and friends HUGE sums of money prior to filing statements, to make it look like they are worth much less than they really are. OP’s ex did the opposite by increasing his worth in advance of filing statements and finalizing equalization.

I have read OPs posts, and to be honest the best and most liberating thing OP can do is finalize the separation once and for all....it’s been 5 years and OP had a new boyfriend so cut ties fully with ex. The outcome of the situation will see OP get fair share of equalization and spousal support (for a few years) as well as offset child support. The current house will be sold so best to accept it and seek a new start somewhere else.

I am trying to get the best settlement possible. My ex knows I'll question large transfers of money to friends and family so I'm trying to figure out if this is a loophole he's trying to use. That's why I'm questioning if the purchases of these investment properties will help or harm my overall case.

Kinso 04-06-2021 08:18 AM

Quote:

I understand if my ex was keeping money in his corporation in cash most of that money would be considered available income for support purposes.
Not exactly. Different businesses can justify holding onto different amounts of cash for genuine business purposes. For example, if I own a factory and I'm planning to expand operations with a new building, I might retain a lot more 'cash' than I strictly need for daily operations, but it's justified. Since it's part of a bona fide business plan, it's not necessarily income.

Quote:

It looks like in the last year he purchased a couple of investment properties. I don't know the exact amount of how much everything cost but lets say the down payment is 250k.
Then the money used for this venture would almost certainly be income for support purposes.

Brampton33 04-06-2021 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueblue22 (Post 245905)
I am trying to get the best settlement possible.

No offence, but this sounds like pure greed where you try to mooch as much as possible out of your ex from 5 years ago. Your focus should be getting what is fair and equitable as defined by the law. If you sat down with a good lawyer, he/she would explain how equalization works, and the matter would be settled with little to no need for court. Other lawyers might encourage you to squeeze for as much as you can. The delay will only drag things out in the court system, costing you more in legal fees than you actually receive from your ex in the end.

iona6656 04-06-2021 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brampton33 (Post 245908)
No offence, but this sounds like pure greed where you try to mooch as much as possible out of your ex from 5 years ago. Your focus should be getting what is fair and equitable as defined by the law. If you sat down with a good lawyer, he/she would explain how equalization works, and the matter would be settled with little to no need for court. Other lawyers might encourage you to squeeze for as much as you can. The delay will only drag things out in the court system, costing you more in legal fees than you actually receive from your ex in the end.

Equalization by the letter of law and "fair and equitable" are two different things. I struggle to think of any other legal situation where so much INequitable division happens besides family law. In my situation- there was an understanding- written between my ex and I that, by me paying for our entire wedding (~$75k), that I would be buying my equity into the condo he owned at the time. The problem is that I paid for the majority of the expenses BEFORE the date of marriage- therefore I didn't have that money reflected as an asset to subtract from my NFP. But my ex got to subtract the full amount of the equity in the condo (which was our first marital home)....it IS a simple calculation. One that is often unfair and unequitable. And as MANY posters will attest to on this board- the higher income earner almost always gets screwed in the division of family wealth. I suspect that is just the golden rule for marriage and divorce?

At a settlement conference the judge told me that I had an uphill battle for unequal equalization- and told my ex that I had a good case to argue equity- and for us to settle the matter. That's why we ultimately settled on splitting the difference and putting the full amount into an RESP for D4.

The issue becomes a lot of real world fairness/equity issues come into play in each individual case. I don't know the OPs background to this. But it's often simple to say "the law says what is fair in equalization" -but the equity part of it? different story.

LovingDad1234 04-06-2021 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656 (Post 245909)
Equalization by the letter of law and "fair and equitable" are two different things. I struggle to think of any other legal situation where so much INequitable division happens besides family law.

Couldn't agree more. My ex was being unreasonable for both parenting time of kids, as well as, equalization. Rather than drag things out for years and flush money down the toilet in ongoing legal fees, I focused on solidifying 50/50 parenting and let go of any arguments related to fair equalization. Even though I has an overwhelming evidence that my ex's proposal for equalization was junk, being present in my childrens' lives was and always will be the priority. Family Law is ridiculous on how it lets people act incredibly unreasonable, wasting time and legal fees, with zero repercussions for such behaviours except through a costs award at trial or motion.

rockscan 04-06-2021 10:28 AM

Kinso is a lawyer and knows more than us but I would like to add that the rental income from the investment properties would be income for support purposes but the amount he had to buy them is only income in the year he purchased. Although I find it odd that it would be considered as income if it came from savings. For instance, he saved 50 grand for three years and then used it to buy properties say last year. That money was savings not income. If he didnt start gaining a rental income until this year, you cant back date the amounts to before he bought the places.

As always, you would have to prove your argument and just because you think he took more money from his business doesnt mean it actually happened. You may need a forensic accountant to determine these trails of money. A few weeks ago you said he wanted the house sold so he could buy his own place now you are postulating he hid money to buy property. Its a bit of a stretch and judges dont like false allegations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kinso 04-06-2021 02:17 PM

Quote:

Although I find it odd that it would be considered as income if it came from savings.
Only if was earned income in the corporation in the year it was taken out to purchase the investments. The devil is in the details which is why this forum is useful, but far from infallible.

rockscan 04-06-2021 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kinso (Post 245915)
Only if was earned income in the corporation in the year it was taken out to purchase the investments. The devil is in the details which is why this forum is useful, but far from infallible.


Well I also dont trust this poster on their details. Which is why I suggest a forensic accountant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.