^^I agree, and of course this is coming from me which came from him which came from his attorney which came from her attorney (or her attorney's office, I'm not even sure). so I'm guessing the wording was muddled.

I can't even begin to describe the mess this has become. and yes, I know there are three sides to every story and everyone has their subjective opinion, but I know this man VERY well and I have 100% confidence in his ability to relay details of daily happenings to me. and throughout this whole thing (and even before), aside from remarking about her behavior or her general mental state, he hasn't uttered a nasty word about her in anger or disgust or anything. he loves his children more than anything and would give up 100% of his visitation rights and 100% of his paycheck if he really believed that was in their best interest and would provide them the best life possible.

9/6/2012 2:01:50 PM

i read this entire thread.... and what i've learned is...

theduke shoots a .45

9/6/2012 3:06:47 PM

9/6/2012 10:55:01 PM

9/6/2012 11:09:55 PM

9/6/2012 11:57:43 PM

In NC the courts use your "adjusted gross income" off of your tax returns to establish a child support amount if you are self employed. The judges will not handle any disputes pertaining to your tax returns, but you better believe an angry ex will try to turn you in to the IRS if you are bullshitting your taxes.

That means his income would be the amount after expenses like mileage, meals, office supplies, phones, all the stuff you usually deduct in the course of business.

9/7/2012 6:04:29 PM

^Except you can't do things to reduce your taxable income for the purposes of reducing spousal obligation.

Quote :

"Tell him to stop trying to cheat his wife and kids out of money. Income is income. And what kind of information do you think you're going to get from this website that he can't get from his California-licensed attorney??"

This.

Spousal support is given in exchange for the lost time from being not being in the work force. If they worked as well the whole time this is accordingly reduced or possibly eliminated, but that's typically the only way it goes down.

9/8/2012 1:30:39 PM

I don't think anybody takes issue with spousal support, per se. It's that the implementation is flawed and the amounts are often absurd.

I mean, really, my dad has to pay $2000/month in alimony, over 10 years after the divorce. If there was some way he could reduce that, I hardly think we'd call that cheating my mom out of support (hell, even if he cheated the law to do it, even if he cut the amount by half or more, it would still be WAY more than fair.)

[Edited on September 8, 2012 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

9/8/2012 3:08:20 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anybody takes issue with spousal support, per se. It's that the implementation is flawed and the amounts are often absurd."

This.

And duke - that is fucked up. I just don't get that. The marriage is over. He is no longer reaping the "benefits" of the marriage or their arrangement during the marriage (someone keeping house, meals on the table, childcare, blowjobs, whatever), but in the eyes of the law, she is STILL trying to "recover" from not having worked for a period during their marriage, TEN YEARS LATER? it almost seem as if spousal support is some sort of default consolation prize for the woman. As if the 50% she took from the divorce wasn't equitable enough.

[Edited on September 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM. Reason : *she* in general terms, not your mom specifically]

9/8/2012 4:42:39 PM

I don't think you're grasping this concept very well. It's not about the marriage. It's about a loss of opportunity for the wife. It does not matter if she did nothing at home but sit on her ass and turn into a 400lber for 8 years. It. Doesn't. Matter. Spousal support exists to put the woman back into the same or similar condition as before the marriage. Here it is assumed that the man made all the money and the woman contributed nothing monetarily. There is no need to prove 'martial' services or lack there of. It. Doesn't. Matter. This is a old concept but it's still in force. Again, spousal support is given in exchange for the lost time from being not being in the work force. It doesn't matter WHY she was out of the work force, just that she was.

9/10/2012 11:12:31 AM

But if the person goes to work that individual then has the "loss of opportunity" to be a stay at home parent yet the divorce isn't forced to shell out tons of money every month.

9/10/2012 11:43:12 AM

Quote :

"Spousal support exists to put the woman back into the same or similar condition as before the marriage."

I think you meant "divorce".

The courts look at marriage/divorces similar to contracts, IMO. They look to put the lesser party in the position that they had during the marriage. If the wife was being supported by the husband during the marriage, then she will continue to be supported by the husband after the marriage. They look at it like a broken contract and whoever is the richest has to pay the price of that broken contract.

Unless they fucked up the marriage by cheating/too much drinking/abuse/etc.

I've got a client who's husband is trying to get alimony from right now. It would normally happen, but he's a dumbass who drinks too much and has passed out on several occasions and had the 5 year old kid walk out of the house and take a stroll around the neighborhood. The court isn't going to give him shit.

9/10/2012 11:43:44 AM

Quote :

"Spousal support exists to put the woman back into the same or similar condition as before the marriage."

then WHY would her spousal support increase as his income increases, AFTER THE DIVORCE (which has nothing to do with her condition during the marriage)??

Quote :

"They look to put the lesser party in the position that they had during the marriage. If the wife was being supported by the husband during the marriage, then she will continue to be supported by the husband after the marriage. "

I get this, TO A POINT. why should there be an indefinite promise to keep that person in a "similar condition" when that contract has ended (or been voided, broken, whatever)? both parties are no longer reaping the benefits or punishments of said contract, and for all intents and purposes have new contracts for new lives. why is either party entitled to anything beyond a reasonable measure of protection for the "lesser" party?


[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ...]

9/10/2012 12:28:59 PM

Is the divorce already finalized?? If it's during the separation, then it still counts as being during the marriage.

That's why you still can't sleep around after being separated in most states...unless there's a marital separation agreement that allows it.

You basically have to be on your best behavior until that last court date. The most your buddy can do is try and get his clients to sit on their checks until the divorce is over and done with.

9/10/2012 12:30:32 PM

no, it's not finalize, but we're talking about in the future. apparently, as his income increases, she can file yearly for more spousal support (in addition to more child support). DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

Quote :

"You basically have to be on your best behavior until that last court date. The most your buddy can do is try and get his clients to sit on their checks until the divorce is over and done with."

wut?

9/10/2012 12:35:51 PM

I wish the law did not allow for spousal support. It is pretty rare that it is applied fairly, gone are the days where women automatically have no career prospects due to being a house wife or stay at home parent.

I know a guy that has kept his wife up the whole time she has been in law school (while working a non-glamorous job), yeah he will get fucked if she leaves him after she graduates, but that is the risk you take in a relationship...no one forces to marry someone or take care of them. If you do it and get burnt then you failed for picking the wrong person to marry, suck it up, split the assets and move on.

I could not imaging making payments to an ex for a decade, even if the spouse is legitimately screwed (income wise) by the divorce that shit should work like unemployment, you only get it for long enough to find a job, and it still runs out even if you don't find a job....

9/10/2012 12:39:36 PM

Quote :

"no, it's not finalize, but we're talking about in the future. apparently, as his income increases, she can file yearly for more spousal support (in addition to more child support). DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. "

That's interesting. Must be a California thing, because I haven't encountered that before. Although it could be similar to a med school/law school thing. If they were married during school/residency and divorce right after the husband graduates, the wife is entitled to part of his future earnings because she supported him during his educational years. Maybe they see it as a "she supported him while he was learning to consult"?? But that seems like a stretch.

Quote :

"wut?"

Just reiterating my point that the separation is still part of the marriage. You can still commit adultery while you are separated. As far as the "sitting on the checks"...that was meant to say that if he did some consulting work and hasn't yet been paid, he could tell his clients to wait to pay him until after the divorce, then he could possibly avoid it as being part of the marriage income. But I see that as highly unlikely.

Quote :

"yeah he will get fucked if she leaves him after she graduates, but that is the risk you take in a relationship"

Not necessarily. Depends on how much he makes and how much she makes in her first job. Read my earlier comment in this post.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2012 12:43:32 PM

Quote :

"Unless they fucked up the marriage by cheating/too much drinking/abuse/etc. I've got a client who's husband is trying to get alimony from right now. It would normally happen, but he's a dumbass who drinks too much and has passed out on several occasions and had the 5 year old kid walk out of the house and take a stroll around the neighborhood. The court isn't going to give him shit."

These scenarios vary state by state. FL, for example, is a "no fault" divorce state. It doesn't matter how shitty of a spouse anyone is here, in terms of alimony.

Quote :

"Just reiterating my point that the separation is still part of the marriage. You can still commit adultery while you are separated"

that's prob the biggest deal in NC, where you can still be sued for alienation of affection. I think it's the only state remaining with such a law on the books.




Also, child support can commonly be re-evaluated with respect to changes in income. Child support is different from alimony, though--it actually makes some sense in that regard (although it's still overall a completely broken, unfair system).

9/10/2012 7:52:09 PM

I thought a "no-fault divorce state" was merely a state in which a finding of fault is not necessary for divorce, not a state in which fault is never found in divorce proceedings; then again, Word of Wikipedia sez that no-fault divorce has been available in all 50 states and DC since at least '85, so that sense is meaningless, especially because it turns out that not all states even allow fault divorce (more Googlably known as at-fault divorce) anymore (FTR Cali doesn't allow fault divorce): http://howtogetadivorcex.com/grounds-for-divorce/

Now this statement struck me as rather homophobic...

Quote :

"Why do homosexuals get fought so much on this whole marriage thing, if they want to be this miserable just let them. Bet they won't be so "gay" after a few of them go through divorce court."

Many same-sex married couples have already gotten divorced (some have had difficulty after moving to states that do not recognize same-sex marriage), and gay people who get screwed by divorce court will still be gay, and also angry and bitter, just as straight men and women who get screwed by divorce court will still be straight, and also angry and bitter.

slappy1, when I started reading this thread I thout your friend was a major-league d-bag, until I remembered that the idea to "hide the stash" was your idea, so I chalk it up to ignorance of the law (I mean it's not obvious); anyway, if your best friend's ex is near as wacko and unfit to parent as you're telling us, I don't think she'd even get custody, and she may throw some red flags on alimony (then again IANAL).
At least he didn't use his influence as a pillar of a small community to scare away all the local attorneys from dealing with his ex, except his own attorney; that's how Dad screwed Mom over majorly (Indiana BTW).

As for jbrick83...

Quote :

"Maybe he should have tried harder to save the marriage or been more careful in picking his "life" partner."

This sad fact of family law inspires diatribes like this when taken out of proportion: https://dontmarry.wordpress.com/

9/11/2012 10:30:06 PM

Quote :

"if your best friend's ex is near as wacko and unfit to parent as you're telling us, I don't think she'd even get custody"

Dude, I could write a book, or at least 50+ pages, on the fucked-upedness I've had to deal with from my ex. Silly, crazy, wacky shit, on top of the spiteful, bitchy behavior one might halfway expect...meanwhile the worst thing she could really ever say about me is that I have some speeding tickets (none on my record, I don't think). Hell, I totally busted her for lying under oath at a contempt of court hearing for disregarding a court order and not letting me have my daughter for visitation a week after I returned from a deployment to Iraq.

She hid my daughter from me at a neighbor's house the day before I moved across the country one time, and THE DAY AFTER she signed a contract at mediation explicitly requiring her to let me spend that next day with my daughter without interference.

She drunk dialed me at 2-3 am one night; she was heading home from a bar and had just stopped and picked up our then-baby daughter from her mom's (who'd been keeping her that evening).

She refused for about a week to let me assemble the crib we bought just before our daughter was born, because she was afraid I wouldn't do it right and it would fall down/apart or something. I'm like "I have a mechanical engineering degree and am pretty handy with building stuff, and I am her own father. If I don't put this thing together, who in the hell are you going to find that's better qualified?"

She once threatened to skip town with her and not let me see her again.

She made up completely bogus medical conditions about our daughter in court to justify not letting me have visitation (said she had stopped breathing a few times at night); of course, she had never taken her to any doctor about the supposed "problem".

All sorts of instances of not letting me talk to her on Christmas, or her birthday, or Father's Day, etc...going months at the time on my deployments without letting me talk to her (I think I recorded ~100 times when I called or emailed from Afghanistan trying to talk to her; she answered twice, and I got maybe a total of 5-10 minutes on the phone with her over 7 months).




It is fucking tough for someone to lose custody altogether unless they are flat-out abusive or severely neglectful, and even then it might take a chronic pattern of it in many cases. I finally got 50% custody after 5 years, 2 trips to court, 2 trips to mediation, 1 call to the police, and about $20,000 of legal expenses. If I hadn't been able to afford to basically write blank checks to lawyers (all while paying $1020/month in child support), I probably wouldn't even have that 50%.

The family law system is frustrating beyond belief.

9/11/2012 10:58:07 PM

Family court is not like big-time criminal court where there's real investigation, evidence, and detailed discussion.

Anybody can pretty much claim whatever the hell they want without any consequence. The hearings are short; there's a ton of stuff to go through in only the most cursory detail over maybe a 2-3 hour period. The judges just scratch the surface of everything, then try to sort through bullshit, half-truths, and flat-out lies to come up with the best solution they can, all the while in many cases having their hands tied anyway by outdated and/or ill-conceived statutes.

Because of this, they usually default toward precedence in the arrangement and favor minor tweaks even when decisive action would be better. They are surely in a frustrating position, too, that necessitates severe judicial restraint, but it produces an inertia so severe that you have to have a certain combativeness and resolve that probably most normal people lack, and enough money to persist and roll the dice on outcomes that are not guaranteed.

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2012 11:09:12 PM

Quote :

"that's prob the biggest deal in NC, where you can still be sued for alienation of affection. I think it's the only state remaining with such a law on the books."

This can easily be addressed with a Separation Agreement. When I was going through my divorce, I made sure to include in the Separation Agreement that we were both free to engage in relationships (both emotional and physical) with other people. Now, the only issue would be if 1 of the parties does not want the divorce. In which case, this "I want to fuck other people" clause may make it tough to get the signature.

9/12/2012 10:52:27 AM

threads like this make me never want to get married or have a kid, ever.

luckily I'm not currently at risk for either of those things.

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2012 11:35:50 AM

are you a gay?

9/12/2012 11:39:23 AM

^

9/12/2012 11:49:23 AM

If your friend's lawyer didn't have any ideas on how to structure his business to keep his wife's hands off the money, I doubt anyone here will have any. But, I know I wouldn't accept getting bent over without at least getting a second opinion from another lawyer.

9/12/2012 12:04:40 PM

haha from another standpoint.

the bullshit in this thread are what gay people are fighting to get access to!

9/12/2012 12:06:19 PM

^^I don't think it has even been discussed at length yet. I originally posted here out of sheer curiosity, having no fact-based knowledge to go off of. (I'm the one that brought this up, not him)

and for the record, I think my question about WHY future income can't/shouldn't be "protected" has still gone largely unanswered.

9/12/2012 12:10:05 PM

I think supporting someone through law school was the best example as to why future income should not be protected.

9/12/2012 12:38:20 PM

And it's not future income alone. It's a part of his current income. You said he's been doing consulting for years on the side.

It's not like he gets divorced, has made the same amount all through the marriage, and then after the divorce picks up a second job. Nine times out of ten that wouldn't alter alimony. That's not the situation you've repeatedly described here.

9/12/2012 1:40:23 PM

I'm saying if his consulting income were to increase exponentially (as it very well could). why would her alimony increase alongside of that? that no longer supports the argument of "maintaining her current standard of living".

additionally, some years it's $5k, some years it's $20k. (he is paid based on the amount of cases sold, which varies greatly year to year and winery to winery)

9/12/2012 1:45:34 PM

Are you sure you know all of the details? Saying that, I'm definitely not an expert on California family law...its a different country as far as I'm concerned in regards to legal matters.

But the law/med school example is still the best. If he was building his business during their marriage and they can make a somewhat accurate assumption on how much it will continue to increase and/or top out at...then that would be the reasoning why. He can say it might fluctuate, but if it's steadily increased the last couple years, that's what they'll go by.

9/12/2012 1:50:35 PM

Quote :

"are you a gay?"

no, I just have no prospects as of late

9/12/2012 4:50:54 PM

Oh, we'll don't get too down. I'm sure there are plenty of women who would love to take you for a free ride and then take half of everything you've worked for.

9/12/2012 6:13:24 PM

Pretty much all single women in the 25-35 demographic that live in Cary, NC fit the bill.

9/12/2012 6:57:29 PM

Quote :

"threads like this make me never want to get married or have a kid, ever. "

Yup. I have no desire to get married. none.

9/12/2012 11:09:18 PM

Quote :

"additionally, some years it's $5k, some years it's $20k. (he is paid based on the amount of cases sold, which varies greatly year to year and winery to winery)"

That's probably his best defense.

I've made piles of money trading stocks some years, and not much in others. My lawyer told me that didn't count--they were concerned (for a child support case, in FL) with regular/steady income. I'm sure if you're self-employed and none of your income is regular/steady, it's treated a little differently.

9/12/2012 11:52:44 PM

sort of update: according to his attorney, only the child support will increase with raises and bonuses. however, it remains unclear how his current (or past) consulting income will factor into either the child support and spousal support (ie will it be averaged over 5 years, and they use that figure to determine support?).

also, during a conversation with his attorney regarding legal fees, it was been mentioned again that her attorney is still having a hard time "controlling" her, and that she has deferred most or all communication to the paralegals/office staff. that said, because she is racking up inequitable (and probably will be seen as unreasonable) billable hours, his attorney thinks the judge would not rule for him to be responsible for that.

she is off her freakin rocker. and I don't say that lightly. I feel so bad for him.

9/24/2012 12:47:12 PM

Quote :

"sort of update: according to his attorney, only the child support will increase with raises and bonuses. however, it remains unclear how his current (or past) consulting income will factor into either the child support and spousal support (ie will it be averaged over 5 years, and they use that figure to determine support?). "

So pretty much what we've been saying?

Quote :

"she is off her freakin rocker. and I don't say that lightly. I feel so bad for him."

I feel bad for your friend...but I also feel bad for the woman who has completely lost it because of this divorce. It sucks that her "craziness" is effecting him...but it doesn't sound like her life is only going to get worse. At least your friend seems like he'll be able to move on and have a different/better life.

9/24/2012 1:07:33 PM

Quote :

"So pretty much what we've been saying?"

uh, no? I feel like some of you guys were implying that HER support should/would also increase as his income increased, which apparently is not the case.

Quote :

"but I also feel bad for the woman who has completely lost it because of this divorce."

I do too. I completely understand her feeling angry, lost, abandoned, rejected, etc. And I know everyone reacts differently to "trauma", but this nasty, vindictive side of her that is coming out makes it a lot harder to have sympathy for her, especially when she starts pulling shit with the kids in an effort to hurt HIM. I feel like the day you decide to become a mother is the day you sign on the dotted line that EVERYTHING, including your own desires (in this case, vengeance or retaliation), comes AFTER your childrens' health and well-being.

I have never experienced divorce firsthand before (nobody in my immediate or extended family has ever been divorced, never had close friends go through it), so this is all pretty new to me. I never really understood what people meant when they said "nasty divorce". I'm sure it gets a lot worse, but either way this is really sad for all parties involved.

9/24/2012 1:23:00 PM

But you just said "the child support will increase with raises and bonuses"

9/24/2012 2:23:12 PM

child support != spousal support

9/24/2012 2:36:52 PM

You didn't say spousal support in your prev post.

9/24/2012 2:53:39 PM

After you said that as his income increases she can file yearly for more spousal support, I said this:

Quote :

"That's interesting. Must be a California thing, because I haven't encountered that before. "

Them making an average over the next five years makes pretty good sense.

Quote :

"I have never experienced divorce firsthand before (nobody in my immediate or extended family has ever been divorced, never had close friends go through it)"

No. fucking. shit.

9/24/2012 3:30:43 PM

What??

9/24/2012 10:51:26 PM

If she's doing crazy shit, that's irritating but ultimately to your friend's benefit. Keep calm and keep feeding her the rope.

...then get to court and kick the stool out from under her.

9/24/2012 11:31:56 PM

The money in the LLC is not really income unless he transfers it back to his personal acct...right?

He can take his car fuel, repairs, phone bill, internet, business travel, and all kinds of other shit that is primarily business use and pay it with the consulting income. That will keep the stank beotch out of it.

9/25/2012 7:41:31 AM

The money in the LLC is not really income unless he transfers it back to his personal acct...right?

He can take his car fuel, repairs, phone bill, internet, business travel, and all kinds of other shit that is primarily business use and pay it with the consulting income. That will keep the stank beotch out of it.

9/25/2012 7:41:31 AM

^ I hope that wasn't serious.

Quote :

"What??"

I was just commenting that your inability to be just slightly unbiased in this situation makes it clear that you've never been exposed to a divorce.

[Edited on September 25, 2012 at 7:53 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2012 7:52:55 AM

I have done a lot of "putting myself in her shoes" during this whole thing, and try to give her the benefit of the doubt more often than I'd like.

I'm not sure how my (obvious) loyalty to him, and a lack of understanding of the system or the logic behind it, equates to an "inability to be just slightly unbiased".

9/25/2012 10:58:31 AM