deducting legal fees as net payor

K

Kkc

New member
Hi,

I know there is a sticky but is there any updated consensus for deducting legal fees in establishing myself as a recipient.

Background would be currently it is 60/40 and thus shared arrangements (CCB was approved this way for us). To be clear, none of the legal feels are used to increase my parenting time.

We are looking to impute income to the other side keeping a 50/50 NDI. This would result in child support my way per table. The net amount would be going her way. If the order is worded that I pay her X and she pays me y every month, will that fly with CRA.

My lawyer did not seem to think so but I have seen it done

anyone with more recent knowledge or worked for them being the net payor, please advise
 
If you're already getting CCB, then CRA has no issue. I believe it just has to mention a pays b amount, b pays a amount, then it can say the set off amount. Not sure about any legal fee deductions.

I'm also not sure about your 50/50 NDI hopes. A reasonable income will be imputed on ex, then an offset amount will be determined based on both your table amounts.
 
cra did ccb because 6/14 overnights is 43%, by hours I am 39.2%. Luckily our current interim order was set up for shared parenting and at low end of support yielding a 50/50 NDI split. But her income was 0 so it really would not have any impact. All of this is without prejudice and can be varied back to my first support payment.

say if actual income is 35K for her, the divorcemate software with shared custody will put low range at exactly 50/50 NDI so after taxes we would have the same disposable income

In the case of imputation of income, the only difference is that the actual disposable income to her would be less as she is not actually working.
 
I predict a similar outcome to mine. Income will be imputed, your cs will go down, and your ss equally increased. You won't see any real discount until ss terminates.
 
seeing as how I have been overpaying by 2k a month from the first lawyer's error, any change to my actual amounts will be a blessing and there will be huge savings, like at most 4k less than what i am right now.

The retro side hopefully will be done now as opposed to trial, as on EP I am owed more than she has in assets and she just got a huge arrears award and surely she has not spent $50k already...

I'd much prefer a higher CS credit than SS bc CS can be payed back over time where a very large SS credit is less than ideal because the end date is really unknown.
 
Again, I believe your hopes are way too high on the equalization payment or any reimbursement you think you overpaid.

I would anticipate an equal split of money in trust and support payments to stay about the same. After a few years, spousal will end and you'll be left with offset.
 
Re money in trust

My EP owed to me is around 110k..with evidence all backed up

a split of the trust would be unequal distribution of the NFP. No basis for this.

If the trust were to be split she would have to forego ss and then some.
 
StillPaying said:
Again, I believe your hopes are way too high on the equalization payment or any reimbursement you think you overpaid.

I would anticipate an equal split of money in trust and support payments to stay about the same. After a few years, spousal will end and you'll be left with offset.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the overpayment of child support will not be given back?
 
Basically at end of 2019 got changed licence designation so she could no longer work.
Marriage was short. Was not working outside of my practice for a few years.
Multiple options to retrain and recertify in 16 months prior to changing licence.

It's a strong argument that when she changed her designation she became underemployed.

Based on my actual income, and the interim order is subject to review since it's inception with nothing imputted, cs is overpaid 12k, 27k with part time imputted to her.

Maybe the differencr between my interim order and yours was the wording. If mine did not have that without prejudice, I'd be screwed on the retro
 
Your wording of without prejudice wouldn't matter, or save you from being screwed. Temp, interim orders are wp.

Kkc said:
Re money in trust

My EP owed to me is around 110k..with evidence all backed up

a split of the trust would be unequal distribution of the NFP. No basis for this.

If the trust were to be split she would have to forego ss and then some.
Click to expand...

It sounds nice to say ex owes you so much, but what if you're the only one who believes it. Court usually assigns household furniture at zero, not 90k.

You agreed to your income twice, along with court, and have been paying so since. Only you believes there was an overpayment. It's highly unlikely to get the unemployed to pay you back for your error.

Then spousal. You believe if you can impute ex an income, you'll get all your spousal "overpayment" back. Again, highly unlikely.

Apparently you're a dr, yet you believe your unemployed ex will have no assets, owe you a huge EP, pay you back for spousal, before moving to offset. U ok?
 
okay bro let me break it down

On EP, she came into the marriage with significant debt and left with significant assets include a large RRSP and half a house. I came into the marriage with assets and did not gain as much. It is a straight math equation. Over the course of the marriage her worth increased by 250K, mine 30K. It sounds messed up but the numbers do not lie.

the initial agreement was all without prejudice subject to a review. I agreed on the premise that this was my income and the lawyer did not make a mistake. There has been a material change since that was agreed to the effect I would not have signed that had I known my lawyer screwed up. In addition, COVID nuked my income. CS is to be adjusted every year. Holding me to an income that I could not pay is in fact imputting income to me without a basis. This is much different than a final order. We have also had an expert report on my income being much, much lower than our guess.
The initial amount was a guess, it was never adjudicated and now there is more robust evidence of what my income truly was which forms the basis of entitlement. Had there been evidence that I was underpaying, i would be subject to retro increase.

I did not agree to it again. The court motion was basically a judge saying okay we have an order in place that was not followed. He did not want to look at all the evidence on a short friday motion. He stated his income could very well be less and would need to be adjusted retroactively and she would have to pay it all back. The judge never decided on what my income was but wanted to enforce a court order.

The ex is willfully unemployed, marriage was short and actually just got 90k in the last 6 weeks from all of this, so yes she would be able to pay back a lot of this back or I am credited. If she was overpayed CS by 20k, I get credited. If I underpayed it they would catch me up.


The ex has also received an advance of 65K from the house but spent it all as fast as she got it, the reason she has no assets is because she has a shopping addiction.

maybe the reason you are "stillpaying" is because your situation was far different than mine
 
Many judges will not require someone who is not working to repay overpayments especially if it would create a hardship. She may have a big equalization you could claw back but a judge may see that as taking away money from her. Instead they may order you to pay a reduced amount for a period of time.

I believe the advice SP was giving was along the lines of “don’t count your chickens” rather than you are wrong. The reason a financial statement is given is to determine if the person paying is actually able to handle a large repayment. And in many cases when it deals with a woman and/or someone with no income, the answer is no they can’t pay.
 
paying this overpayment has created extreme hardship for me. Kind of hard to give her about 80 percent of my income, no matter what I do for work.
especially in the setting we have been trying to adjudicate this for a year and her side constantly cancelled questioning and proceedings

I do not expect to get a check for that amount, but I do expect all these credits will add up against future payments. Instead of 3500 of CS a month, maybe it goes down to 3k a month for 5 years. If the SS credit is 40K, maybe she pays that back over 3 years.

I also think her posting on instagram all the luxury items she buys will gain any sympathy. She is trained to work but has chosen not to.

EP can be covered by her funds in trust.

well see how it goes in 3 weeks.
 
My thing is that I believe your hopes may be too high.
Separate the issues; equalization and support.

The small amount of assets and debt will be accounted for with the rest of the house equity being split 50/50.

I don't believe you'll get credit for paying spousal because ex should've had an income imputed. Same for child support. Ex will be imputed, but I believe only moving forward from order date. Your overpayment which you never tried fixing, I could see the judge saying go after your lawyer for that - knowing that you agreed to it.

I had similar imputation hopes as yours which was killed with one line... Changing the order on a retroactive basis would exacerbate the parties' financial positions.

I paid a larger equalization payment (kept the house) regardless of how ex spent it. Income was imputed creating offset support, however spousal went up with more money available.

Life will be good soon enough. Once spousal ends, you're still paying with about a 75% discount.
 
again house equity being split

the judge took 50k from mine to pay arrears

she has 128k, my EP and other adjustments is about that

if she wants anything from the house, she will have to pay the EP back some way

not to mention the issue of her paying cost award on the child side, we are asking for a motion for therapy and parental covenants (ie, dont make fun of other parent, allow them to call the other parent, basic ass stuff) and she wants to fight that..its interesting and off topic

my son is very young and on the path towards type 2 diabetes, i sent her an email with the details...it was ignored..i also sent support payment at the exact same time...that email was accepted...there are lots of issues here
 
You mention "other adjustments" as if it's guaranteed.

Let's say house sold and after mortgage debt there's 400k in trust.
You get into arrears and ordered to pay 50k from trust. Now equalization would be 250k ex and 150k you, give or take a few comics and purses.

The simple/basic orders you mentioned should have been included in your first order. If not, a conference judge would have no problem giving you that. Therapy or other medical assistance should be done through family dr, but a motion may be needed.
 
400 was pretty close lol, she got 65k cash, i got 65k to pay CRA because she spent all the money I saved to pay them in 2018 (which also made up my NFP)

there is about 128k for her and 70k for me. EP is coming in around 130k right now owed to me and is accurate..ours is not that complicated.

She already got 50K from my half of the house. It really created the problem because she has 128k in assetts and owes me over 200k..she has known about what she has owed since the beginning..so we will see.

We do have to bring a motion for all of that..simple basic orders. The ex decided to withhold access when I could only afford to give 7400 a month instead of 10k. She basically would say in front of the kids, I am not going to bring them unless you pay me. We did a compliance order and she was warned if this continued she could end up with therapeutic access. That was june 2020, nothing changed. Access was not occuring and the very specific things the judge ordered were not obeyed. Finally brought contempt in may and all of a sudden she complied.

the therapy is because my daughter is so scared to show affection to me in front of her mom, she won't take pictures with me on her phone because her mom will see it, she has adopted her mom's maiden name...pretty bad stuff that needs structure therapy...but they are resisting it..it won't go well for them
 
in terms of the amount she owes that she cannot cover...she has SS that she can use to pay it down over time, and she will have to get realistic with her spending
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top