Lawyer not responding

[atlanticcanadian]

That is what I am saying Arabian. He initiated the motion and I tried to answer.

By the way, my ex is an engineer. He always has income. If not, he finds someone or a few people to support him.

[arabian]

Variations.... orders... stays.....
lawyer that initiated the action should do up the order and give to OC period. I believe it is in standard rules of court (at least where I'm from).

Right hand has to know what the left hand is doing don't you think? Get everyone on the same page....

[arabian]

Usually my lawyer does up the order if not the same day, within 2 at the most. I am faxed/emailed promptly of same. That's what I'm paying for.

[atlanticcanadian]

Perhaps I don't have the full story, but this is my take.

Your previous order still exists. His previous variation to suspend did just that: suspend the order; it didn't disappear off the face of the earth. He now has a job, so the order should be back in play.

If he makes less money now, then he can ask the court to reduce SS, but he should continue to pay his SS until ordered otherwise by a judge, or agreed by you.

Yes. The old order still exists. It is just suspended. He wanted a reduction and so did I (I returned to work). My Order states I can make so much a year before considered a change in circumstance.

It also states that if I repartner it has to be for three years before he can apply for termination or reduction.

[Teenwolf]

The way I see it: the suspension was in place until he found work. He found work; suspension lifted. I understand that there are some changes from both sides, but the old order should prevail until such time that a new one is made.

In regard to drafting the order, do it yourself. Just take the the old order, type up a new one word-for-word and change the the amount owed each month, as well as anything else you agreed to. Then send it to his lawyer.

[atlanticcanadian]

Sorry, but I do not follow this discussion at all. If the (ex) husband is not paying support and has no order requiring him to pay support, I do not see why he would be rushing to tell his lawyer to respond to create a new order requiring him to pay.

I gather he works off and on.

Where a payor works off and on I have never found it makes sense to have support payable only when the payor works. Rather support should be based on the last years total income or a typical years income. Grant it it might not get paid when he is not working but when he starts working again more should be collected by the enforcement agency. In Ontario they will collect up to 50% of the pay to catch up. Having it at a higher rate when working and not payable when not working just doesn't seem to work.

But if there is no current order, then it seems obvious to me that the recipient has to start a proceeding to obtain a new order. While I don't like to encourage people to act on their own, if the problem is the cost of a lawyer it might make sense to start it on one's own.

Expecting an ex husband who clearly doesn't want to pay support and clearly could care less if his ex spouse has a steady income to suddenly wake up in the morning and say, I must get my lawyer to call her lawyer to put an order in place----- strikes me as naive to the point of being a little nuts.

And his lawyer is working for him. He is not working for the wife's lawyer or the wife or the public interest and therefore does not have an obligation to pressure his client into dealing with the situation.

Besides if the guy isn't working he has probably not paid his legal bill either and his lawyer needs to work for clients who can pay so he can keep the lights on in his office and pay the office assistant.

On the other hand I do not think it overly likely that the payor is getting himself laid off on purpose to avoid spousal support. Granted this is possible but it is cutting off his nose to spite his face. I have acted for a great many men who were one of a hundred laid off on a day and the wife insists that he engineered the lay off to avoid paying support. Hardly likely.

But while I don't think a lot of men purposely have their plants close down to avoid support they don't either go out of their way to settle their support cases.

Everyone has to deal with the realities of human nature.

There is an Order. It was suspended until negotiations could take place. Negotiations took place. There is a verbal agreement in place. We are waiting for the Order.

[Old Lawyer]

Still confused. I now see that there were some discussions wherein the husbands lawyer was going to draft something.

Are we talking about

1. issuing and entering an order already made by the court or
2. drafting a document to obtain an order of the court on consent.

If an order of the court has been made it can not be enforced until it is issued and entered and it is the custom that the party who brought the motion for the order issue and enter it. But there is nothing preventing the other party from doing so.

So if a court order has been made and the husband's lawyer is not issuing and entering it the wife's lawyer can do it. There no point writing letters requesting the other side to do it as it will take about the same time to do it yourself.

But it does not sound to me that an order was made.

It sounds to me that at one time there was an order to support. There was an order suspending the payment of support. This means that there is now no obligation to pay support. The understanding was though that the support would be reinstated when the husband returned to work.

However the husband wanted the amount reduced when he went back to work and the wife agreed.

The husband;s lawyer said I will draft up a consent to a new order setting the support at the lower rate.

There is therefore no order.

The husband has absolutely no reason to rush as the order will create an obligation to pay support where none now exists.

If I were acting for the wife I would never ever ever have agreed to this

The party who benefits from the new agreement or order is always the one who should draft.

So the wife's lawyer should draft up the consent to the new order.

Therefore the wife's lawyer must do it send it to the other side for signing. If it does not come back bring a motion.

Begging the other side to draft up a consent to an order which is not in their interest strikes me as a waste of time.

So what am i missing now.

[atlanticcanadian]

Still confused. I now see that there were some discussions wherein the husbands lawyer was going to draft something.

Are we talking about

1. issuing and entering an order already made by the court or
2. drafting a document to obtain an order of the court on consent.

If an order of the court has been made it can not be enforced until it is issued and entered and it is the custom that the party who brought the motion for the order issue and enter it. But there is nothing preventing the other party from doing so.

So if a court order has been made and the husband's lawyer is not issuing and entering it the wife's lawyer can do it. There no point writing letters requesting the other side to do it as it will take about the same time to do it yourself.

But it does not sound to me that an order was made.

It sounds to me that at one time there was an order to support. There was an order suspending the payment of support. This means that there is now no obligation to pay support. The understanding was though that the support would be reinstated when the husband returned to work.

However the husband wanted the amount reduced when he went back to work and the wife agreed.

The husband;s lawyer said I will draft up a consent to a new order setting the support at the lower rate.

There is therefore no order.

The husband has absolutely no reason to rush as the order will create an obligation to pay support where none now exists.

If I were acting for the wife I would never ever ever have agreed to this

The party who benefits from the new agreement or order is always the one who should draft.

So the wife's lawyer should draft up the consent to the new order.

Therefore the wife's lawyer must do it send it to the other side for signing. If it does not come back bring a motion.

Begging the other side to draft up a consent to an order which is not in their interest strikes me as a waste of time.

So what am i missing now.

It's 1. There is an Order in place. Waiting for issuance at the lower amount.

[atlanticcanadian]

Old Lawyer: Are you telling me I am being scammed because he started the motion.

[atlanticcanadian]

I think he got "laid off" and the old order holds of payments being suspended.

I have a question where he has declared financial hardship, can I ask for his new spouse's income information?

[Teenwolf]

I think he got "laid off" and the old order holds of payments being suspended.

I have a question where he has declared financial hardship, can I ask for his new spouse's income information?

Perhaps, but I'm not entirely sure about SS. I do know that if an undue hardship claim is made to reduce CS payments, then the household income is compared between the payor and payee.

[atlanticcanadian]

He did get "terminated" again. My lawyer said there is a possibility of imputation of income because he has now been "terminated" twice for cause.

How imputation of income work?

The new Order is not signed.

[Teenwolf]

That's probably why the new order with a lower amount hasn't been forthcoming; he doesn't have a job, so he doesn't want to pay you anything. And that's what he'll likely argue in court.

How does imputing work? You basically ask the court to assign him a certain income based on his earning capacity. The court will determine his capacity to earn based on his employment history, age, education and health. If he was working full time and making decent money anytime in the last couple of years, then you would argue that is his earning potential and ask the court to impute income to that previous level.

The court will also look at availability of work in his area of skill, as well as other factors. I recall reading a case law recently where the guy attempted to argue that his income shouldn't be imputed because he was fired from his previous job, which would impede his ability to find another. The judge didn't buy it though. It was a CS case and the judge basically said that his termination was a result of his own actions and his children shouldn't wear the result of those choices. Income was imputed and CS awarded.

[atlanticcanadian]

We now have the Order with his lawyer saying he was terminated again. Last two jobs he has had, he has been terminated for cause.

[Teenwolf]

He has been fired from his last two jobs; there's a pattern developing. As I pointed out above, being fired likely won't get him of the hook for his support obligations. Especially when it's a pattern. Your lawyer has mentioned imputing income and I agree with that course of action.