Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:12 PM
DunnMom DunnMom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On-Tar-IoOoO
Posts: 294
DunnMom is on a distinguished road
Default Benefits

Posting for my brother (again)

Background ... boy/girl (16 & 17) live exclusively with him. At the time of the original agreement, boy was going to live with him F/T and girl was going to do 50/50 access so my brother was paying offset CS.

Fast forward less than 3 months after agreement signed/filed and girl moved in with dad permanently. Took another 3 months and my brother asking and asking about stopping paying CS and having her pay CS and her refusing. My brother then filed a Application (which was subsequently withdrawn) for his ex to agree to an "amendment" of the original order stating that the children lived exclusively with him and that he was no longer required to pay CS but that she was instead. This amendment was also filed with the courts.

His ex took him to court Jan 3rd to attempt court to order access and reverse the Divorce Order that was in the works. Motion took less than 10 min. Judge said divorce was going through and he wouldn't issue an order or force access.

Now we're onto Medical/Dental benefits ... his ex was covered under his employer's benefit plan and now that he's "divorced" can't be ... but he is still willing to pay out of pocket until the terms of the Sep Agreement are met.

Problem is when he puts her on an individual plan the benefits aren't identical to what he had at his work. She's ranting & raving, stating that she gets to choose what provider to go with. He has 4 different quotes at varying costs and is willing to have her pick one of the 4. She wants no part of it and states that it must be the exact same coverage.

I disagree with her when reading their court order ... It states:

7.2 While required to pay child support under this Agreement, (my brother) will maintain the children covered on his medical, extended health & dental coverage through his employment for as long as it's available to him. He will also maintain (his ex) for coverage on his extended medical benefits from employment or provide private coverage for a period of three years from the date of this agreement, such coverage to cease for her if she remarries, cohabits with another person for more than 6 months, or receives benefits through her employment. (Ex) agrees to notify (my brother) if she is entitled to such benefits from employment.

Two things stick out ...

1) I don't see where it states that benefits must be at a certain level. Heck, her employer could offer benefits tomorrow that are 50% less than what my brother is offering and he'd be off the hook in my mind.

2) reading the first line it states "While required to pay child support under this Agreement, (my brother)..." well, he is NOT REQUIRED to pay Child Support any longer, SHE is

I feel he's being MORE than reasonable even offering to pay out of pocket (approx. $175 - $250 month) until either Sep 2014 or until she remarries or cohabits or gets benefits through her own employer.

Opinions please?
  #2  
Old 01-22-2013, 02:40 PM
Exquizique Exquizique is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 451
Exquizique is on a distinguished road
Default

If going by the letter of the order, then yes, i read it as as long as he is required to pay child support, he will provide coverage to both the kids and his ex. If he is no longer required to pay child support, he is no longer required to maintain coverage.

However, if your brother wants to be nice, he can still offer to provide private extended medical benefits coverage for her, but the most basic package available would suffice and meet the terms of the order.

That's how I read it. You can argue one way or another in terms of "reading between the lines", but i do believe if a dispute like this ever goes to court, the court will take the wording at face value the way it is written.
  #3  
Old 01-22-2013, 03:40 PM
shellshocked22 shellshocked22 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 310
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm on your brother's side but I'm thinking the "while paying CS..." is a separate sentence and applies to benefits for the kids (court likely simply assumed he would be paying CS until they were adults is my thought). In that reference, the "while paying CS" is SEPARATE from benefits for the ex.

IF I'm wrong and it really is ONLY while paying CS, I wouldn't pay her a dime since if he does something "extra" I would be afraid of him "setting a precedent" somehow (Family Law tends to punish people who do something nice - ie status quo, in loco parentis"

My hunch is the "intent" was for him to pay her benefits for 3 years OR until remarries, blah, blah, blah....

My suggestion is to get a lawyer to properly draft something (assuming the lawyer agrees the intent is to pay her up to 3 years unless she remarries, etc. that in lieu of his employer benefits (since they are now divorced) he agrees to pay her $X per month for _____ months which discharges his obligation in full. That way she can do whatever she wants with it. She sounds greedy so she'll likely just pocket the cash but that's her problem. It will be up to her to decide and fund the insurance. Make sure its ironclad in that all he has to do is pay her $x for so long. Perhaps see if she'll take a lessor "lump sum" payment and then he's done with it. Again, get a competent lawyer to properly draft it.
  #4  
Old 01-22-2013, 04:06 PM
DunnMom DunnMom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On-Tar-IoOoO
Posts: 294
DunnMom is on a distinguished road
Default

He won't hire a lawyer.

He fully intends to pay for private benefits until one of the "conditions" is met

She's insisting it must be at the same level she has now (Feb 1st is when she is coming off his work benefits) ... and insisting that SHE gets to search out and choose the new provider (not one of the 4 he's provided her details on).

I'm telling him no way. It should be comparable IMO & the one's he's got quotes on are very comparable but not "exact" ... he's even offered her to choose one of the 4 and she's refusing. She's continually stating via email " this is not acceptable, this is not my problem, this is yours problem for getting divorced so be a big boy and figure it out". (paraphrasing here)

I've told him to email her one final time stating that if she doesn't respond by ____ then as of Feb 1st her new provider will be ______. And let her take it from there (ie. take him to court)
  #5  
Old 01-22-2013, 04:44 PM
mom2three mom2three is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 407
mom2three is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DunnMom View Post
Posting for my brother (again)

7.2 While required to pay child support under this Agreement, (my brother) will maintain the children covered on his medical, extended health & dental coverage through his employment for as long as it's available to him. He will also maintain (his ex) for coverage on his extended medical benefits from employment or provide private coverage for a period of three years from the date of this agreement, such coverage to cease for her if she remarries, cohabits with another person for more than 6 months, or receives benefits through her employment. (Ex) agrees to notify (my brother) if she is entitled to such benefits from employment.
It is clauses such as this that can lead to both sides fighting in court. Her lawyer would argue that none of the factors to end coverage have occurred and your brother is required to continue to provide coverage. His lawyer would argue that he no longer has an obligation to provide coverage because he is no longer paying child support.

IMHO, the two issues are separate and his obligation to provide health coverage is not contingent on him paying child support.

If my understanding is correct (that this is a court order), he is obliged to pay for the benefits, whether he is "willing to" or not. Given that the clause is mute respecting what value that is, it will be expected that it is comparable to what she would have received under his plan. Not the exact plan, but comparable.

Your brother needs to stop listening to her. Of course, if she wants to do some leg work in finding a plan and sending it to him, all the power to her for saving him some searching time. But he does not, nor should he, have to pansy to her demands. Find the cheapest plan that is comparable (not exact) to the previous plan, enrol her and let her be the fool in front of the judge if she wants to be litigious about this. And make sure he keeps copies of all the plans he has checked out to show he was being reasonable should he ever need the information.
Closed Thread


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 On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Health Benefits GreyShadow Divorce & Family Law 11 09-23-2014 07:05 PM
new here...pls be gentle! :) caro46 Introductions 9 08-11-2011 02:49 PM
Group Benefits clause and the Ontario Court of Justice Pharah Divorce & Family Law 4 01-18-2011 05:18 PM
Benefits - (spouse Not child) mrix General Chat 8 01-05-2011 01:43 PM
Benefits gooddadgoingmad Financial Issues 13 06-04-2007 04:44 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.