Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 11-30-2021, 09:07 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,920
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Your case was a special one though. Not too many people have investment income and if they do, its their only income which is why it is considered.

For the majority of people who work a basic job (for the man) and have nothing but employment income, line 150 works. For some who have their own business, investments, special income, business expenses etc., line 150 is not applicable and it requires a deeper dive.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-30-2021, 09:15 AM
LMum LMum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 53
LMum is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Your case was a special one though. Not too many people have investment income and if they do, it�s their only income which is why it is considered.

For the majority of people who work a basic job (for the man) and have nothing but employment income, line 150 works. For some who have their own business, investments, special income, business expenses etc., line 150 is not applicable and it requires a deeper dive.
This is exactly my case, one "normal" job where line 150 works.

Quick update..... he did not file his pleading to ask for spousal... YET. And I say yet, as we tried to discuss among ourselves a deal but we were not successful. Lot of factors here but the main being, he got cocky and condescending, and I got triggered and couldn't continue. Since the amendment was due, his lawyer still send them to us so I was able to review them. As you may guess they were not factual (far from it). As of yesterday they still did not file them.

My lawyer and I are currently putting together an offer, hopefully we can get it out this week. I like it and I think its fair, with NO spousal.

Wish me luck
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-30-2021, 10:29 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,920
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

When my husband was negotiating before his settlement conference, his exs lawyer got an attitude and my husband was ready to scrap everything and let the judge decide. His lawyer and I had to talk him down. When he realized he would end up paying more in fees he cooled himself.

It is hard dealing with a difficult ex but remember settlement is key. If he isnt entitled to spousal then definitely walk. If he is, try to negotiate. I wish you all the best luck!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-30-2021, 11:03 AM
LMum LMum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 53
LMum is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
When my husband was negotiating before his settlement conference, his ex�s lawyer got an attitude and my husband was ready to scrap everything and let the judge decide. His lawyer and I had to talk him down. When he realized he would end up paying more in fees he cooled himself.

It is hard dealing with a difficult ex but remember settlement is key. If he isn�t entitled to spousal then definitely walk. If he is, try to negotiate. I wish you all the best luck!!
I've already told him verbally I will let a judge decide spousal. I 100 percent believe he's not entitled. I have facts and proof to support that. He does not.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-30-2021, 12:53 PM
StillPaying StillPaying is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 652
StillPaying has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
Still have the trial decision where the judge dismissed spousal support. I wish I could post it here but that probably isn't allowed.
I've seen many examples of not being entitled to further spousal. I would love to see any mention of your brilliance. There are other examples of that too - WD was assigned a nice pay in one...

I think you're fixated on this line 150 thing.
All incomes will be totaled, and then exemptions will be made. Nothing special about that. With disability, about half my income is used for support purposes. Same for people with side incomes, which both you and ex had. You start with all your income sources, then argue why certain amounts shouldn't be used.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2021, 03:23 PM
mafia007's Avatar
mafia007 mafia007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 340
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
No New Day, you are not wrong. Most lawyers and Judges aren't smart enough to figure out what income is for child support purposes.

Ex and her lawyer tried to use Line 150 income on my and that idiotic Divorcemate program. I got Divorcemate banned from my case because it showed I owed something like 800 or 900 a month (can't remember the exact figure).
So you did what I stated on a previous post. You plead for a different figure based on your findings. That's ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
Then when everything was taken into account, I owed zero. Still have the trial decision where the judge dismissed spousal support. I wish I could post it here but that probably isn't allowed.
Yes post it. I did it in the past. It's up to you if you don't mind everyone seeing your case. Just post the link of your decision here otherwise your statements are suspicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
At trial, I got the following lines excluded from Line 150 income including:

Line 10400 Other Employment Income
Line 12000 Taxable Dividends
Line 12100 Interest and other investment income
Line 12200 Limited Partnership Income
Line 12300 Taxable Capital Gains
Line 12900 RRSP Income

I didn't test any of the other lines at trial. My basic argument was this:

She bought a house and I decided to rent and invest. So you're punishing me just because my investment income is taxable and hers is non-taxable (capital gains in a house). So I said ok if you include my investment income as income for child support purposes then I want her non-taxable capital gains in her house each year added to her income.

At trial decision, all my investment income was excluded for child support purposes. Of course now it's a non-issue with TFSA's. I just put all my income in there and now it's non-taxable just like hers.
OK so you adjust your revenue as per your actual situation. That's find. Now post your judgment so we can see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
There were two things I will never ever forget about that trial.

At one point during the trial, the judge was furious with my ex (I forget the exact reason). So he scremed at her and asked her what her problem was. And me being the politically incorrect person that I am said "She's a c*nt, that's what her problem is" Then the judge screamed at me and said if he heard another outburst like that from me, he'd hold me in contempt of court (but I saw a little smile so I think he liked what I said...lol). I told him I was just trying to help by answering his question.
hummmmmm! We see a lot of those in American Courts. Not only we need the judgment but will also require the transcripts. Lot's of possible BS here but could be true with reasonable doubts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
Then at the end of the trial, the judge made this comment. Mr [my last name] Based on your writing and conduct in Family Court, you think you are smarter than every Family Court Lawyer and Family Court Judge including me. Then he paused and I thought he was going to screw me. But then he finished his statement by saying...and you probably are and then he dismissed spousal support and contempt of court.
Judgment and transcripts please!

There is two sides to consider when it comes to determine support. The view of the recipient and the view of the payor.

The recipient will claim that your income is line 15000 and plus more, they always do and the payor will claim that it's less than the actual figures from the NOA, they always do. The court is all aware of those fights. We all know that the judge play dumb at this and you must plead whatever you are determine what your revenue actually is. I did indicate that on my previous post:

If you feel that line 15000 is not the appropriate amount to use according to your situation, then you can argue and propose your own figures based on your findings. Be prepare as those will certainly be challenged by the opposing party and only in rare and specific circumstances (like self-employed) the judge will diverge from the actual amount file with RCA. Do the maths to establish if it's worth the effort and money to argue in court.


Remember that as a payor, you only have to justify your revenue if it is challenged by the opposing party. As a payor, if your revenue are strictly base on an annual job supported by T4, stick to line 15000 and don't make a fuzz on it. If you have investments, rental revenues, own business, support to previous breakdown... then adjust and plead accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate_Dad View Post
By the way, I'm an accountant too but based on what I read on this thread a hell of a lot smarter than the other accountant who posted here who blindly wants to accept Line 150 as income.
Congratulation for being smarter as I never intend to be. As per your post, the judge once told you that you were smarter than him and any lawyers so there you go. Keep the designation up for yourself. Still, I would like to have a look at your judgment. It's full of intrigues and will only need to see it to believe it!

It's a shame to have to deal with egocentric people on a forum that brings together people seeking support. As if their situation weren't already painful and difficult enough. Still, each of us who publish on this site are just a bunch of monkey who gives only our opinion. No legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-02-2021, 01:40 AM
nofrills nofrills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 47
nofrills is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi,
I'm attaching the Department of Justice review of the Child Support Guidelines that review the adjustments to income. They give a brief background to each adjustment, the rationale and provide case law if required.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/...p/v2/v2_6.html

Scroll down to the middle of the page until you hit
"Schedule III: Sections 1 to 13"

These adjustments do not need to be defended. These are straight from the DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-02-2021, 10:29 AM
Brampton33 Brampton33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 356
Brampton33 is on a distinguished road
Default

I always appreciate hearing how a vexatious person gets their karma handed in court, however feel I must comment on decorum.

A really smart person would know to not smile, laugh, or get excited in court if things are going their way, knowing to keep it all internal and celebrate outside or in the car on the way home. Judges see everything from up there. Whether you smile, smirk, get upset and cross your arms, posture in chair, etc. And it means something. How you behave in court does count. Verbal and non-verbal.

A really smart person would be a stand-up individual and not speak ill of their former spouse in front a judge, or use profane language in a court of law. A really smart person knows that the judge is a stranger and you need to make a good impression as an individual. Keep it classy. OP might be good in math, but I would not characterize the story given as being "smart" in litigation or courtroom smart. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-02-2021, 02:57 PM
mafia007's Avatar
mafia007 mafia007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 340
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brampton33 View Post
I always appreciate hearing how a vexatious person gets their karma handed in court, however feel I must comment on decorum.

A really smart person would know to not smile, laugh, or get excited in court if things are going their way, knowing to keep it all internal and celebrate outside or in the car on the way home. Judges see everything from up there. Whether you smile, smirk, get upset and cross your arms, posture in chair, etc. And it means something. How you behave in court does count. Verbal and non-verbal.

A really smart person would be a stand-up individual and not speak ill of their former spouse in front a judge, or use profane language in a court of law. A really smart person knows that the judge is a stranger and you need to make a good impression as an individual. Keep it classy. OP might be good in math, but I would not characterize the story given as being "smart" in litigation or courtroom smart. Sorry.
LOL
I sincerely like your decorum but the poster clearly stated that he was a hell of a lot smarter so this goes a lot over the "really smart" person you define here. I guest we need to multiply your definition by 2 or maybe 3?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spousal Support - Why It Matters Divorcemanagement Political Issues 83 11-28-2013 10:38 AM
Application For Spousal? lorlaman Divorce & Family Law 16 01-04-2011 08:42 PM
CS and SS Questions Teddie Financial Issues 4 12-14-2010 04:49 PM
What Were They Thinking........ FL_Needs_To_Change Divorce & Family Law 6 05-25-2007 09:47 PM
child and spousal support Catherine M Financial Issues 9 02-26-2007 06:32 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 AM.