Alimony

[Onkel Neal]

Is there anything crazier than alimony in this day and time? I thought that women had equal rights, etc. :shifty: What's the status of alimony, are there still state that have this? It's typically for men aying woemn, right? And how do they justify it? Anyone paying this kind of legal extortion?

Anyone receiving it?

[antikristuseke]

I think when my parents got divorced my father payed alimony, though he was not legally forced to. Not anymore though since me and my siblings are all over 18.

Edit: wait, no, that was child support.

[ETR3(SS)]

Look no farther than the State of Washington. When I was stationed there, and still living there until the middle of last year, the worst thing you could be in that state was be a man. Routinely I would hear "don't get married or divorced in this state!" form fellow service members and civilians living in the area. It wasn't unusual for a couple with children that were getting divorced for the women to "automatically" get awarded custody and alimony. If there's anybody from Western Washington on the forums they should be able to back up what I've said.

And on the subject of "equality", I must say that it has a very tarnished image in my eyes. Personally I do not approve of women in the military based on the fact that they are not held to the same standards as their male counterparts. It is my (probably biased) opinion that "equal pay for equal work" does not exist, and that our country places too much time into being PC than looking at the qualifications of employees or prospective employees. Case in point the New Haven firefighters.

[FIREWALL]

In California your EX gets half, her lawyer gets half and, you get the shaft. :03:

[Zachstar]

This is one of the reasons I will likely never get wed. Sadly it has almost become a buisness to wed someone due to their wealth and get a convinent divorce. And I don't mean just women. Men and even same sex people do it.

[AVGWarhawk]

My sister just got divorced in the great state of TX. She gets alimony and child support. Child support is not enough IMO. Kids are expensive and you know that aspect of it Neal. Homes and the necessities are expensive also. So yes, alimony is something that I can see as not crasy. At least until the are all over 18. At that point all alimony and support should stop. Over the years her husband had pissed away hundreds of thousand of dollars that wase hers. She had a million dollar home in Houston TX. This a-hole did nothing for years. Had nervous breakdowns all the time. His resume shows he was an 'entrepenuer'. That is a nice way of saying he was a slouch. Now he asked for the divorce and is busy dating an illegals.

IMO, alimony is fine to a point and should stop after the children reach 18 years of age. After all, child support stops at that age.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is one of the reasons I will likely never get wed. Sadly it has almost become a buisness to wed someone due to their wealth and get a convinent divorce. And I don't mean just women. Men and even same sex people do it.

Pre-nuptuals brother :03:

[Jimbuna]

My friend recently got divorced from his wife. He told me, "Marriage is like a prison."

I thought to myself, "That’s not true. At least in prison you get to have anal sex."

:O:

[ETR3(SS)]

My sister just got divorced in the great state of TX. She gets alimony and child support. Child support is not enough IMO. Kids are expensive and you know that aspect of it Neal. Homes and the necessities are expensive also. So yes, alimony is something that I can see as not crasy. At least until the are all over 18. At that point all alimony and support should stop. Over the years her husband had pissed away hundreds of thousand of dollars that wase hers. She had a million dollar home in Houston TX. This a-hole did nothing for years. Had nervous breakdowns all the time. His resume shows he was an 'entrepenuer'. That is a nice way of saying he was a slouch. Now he asked for the divorce and is busy dating an illegals.

IMO, alimony is fine to a point and should stop after the children reach 18 years of age. After all, child support stops at that age.Alimony has nothing to do with children at all. That is what child support is there for. If you believe that child support does not cover it anymore, than child support rates should go up. Awarding alimony to the wife doesn't solve the problem as legally that money is for her and not the children.

Alimony should be abolished in this country as we are an "equal opportunity" nation. I would refuse (in a legal manner of course) to pay alimony to an ex-wife because she doesn't want to go out and get a job. THAT is straight sexism.:shifty:

[Onkel Neal]

We certainly disagree here. Alimony is an antiquated concept. Today any woman should be required to support themselves, if they get a divorce. Just like men.


And child support is not far behind. I agree both parents should provide support for the children, but until age 15, children are not that expensive. In Texas, CS for one child is 20% of your income. And keep in mind, that 20% is supposed to be the non-custodial parent's portion. So, in effect, the child costs 20% from the mother too? Ha, that's one expensive kid!

And the arguement that CS should go toward providing a room and utilities for child at the mom's dwelling...so what happens when the child stays with the father? The child sleeps on the porch? No, the father has to provide a room, bed, clothes, utilities, food, entertainment for the child too, as well as hand over 20% of his income to his ex-wife, who is free to spend it any way she wishes. I'm all for supporting one's children, but the current system is wrong and biased (mothers get custody automatically). A married father gets full decision power over how much money to spend on his kids, the divorced father is expected to throw lots of money to his ex, in hopes the child will be provided for.


My sister just got divorced in the great state of TX. She gets alimony and child support. Child support is not enough IMO. Kids are expensive and you know that aspect of it Neal. Homes and the necessities are expensive also. So yes, alimony is something that I can see as not crasy. At least until the are all over 18. At that point all alimony and support should stop. Over the years her husband had pissed away hundreds of thousand of dollars that wase hers. She had a million dollar home in Houston TX. This a-hole did nothing for years. Had nervous breakdowns all the time. His resume shows he was an 'entrepenuer'. That is a nice way of saying he was a slouch. Now he asked for the divorce and is busy dating an illegals.

IMO, alimony is fine to a point and should stop after the children reach 18 years of age. After all, child support stops at that age.

[AVGWarhawk]

I understand your view of antiquated but with children working the 9-5 for the parent while the children are in school is fine however there is after care and transportation for the kids. School lets out at 3 pm. What are you to do with your 8 year old. Latch key kid? No, that can not work at that age. Dad does not worry about kids when his job is concerned. Also, are you to take the kids who lived in a nice home and then have them dumped in some place of squalar because that is all mom can afford? Then there is the emotional toll of the kids that mom has to deal with. My two nieces are seeing a specialist because of this divorce. Mom gets the bill and rest of it. Meanwhile dad is in NJ with a new place to live and an illegal screw doll. He just purchased $7000.00 for furniture. Mom, meanwhile is cleaing soiled undergarments and cleaning up puke from a sick child. Also, since dad is paying CS he gets the write off on taxes, no? In all reality dad can go deliver pizza and pay his percentage on that as CS. Also, if dad has such an issue with it, get full custody of the kids. What can I say? I know more deadbeat dads the ones that pay like ordered.

I agree though, mom does get to spend the money as she sees fit. It is just the way the system is and needs some changes for sure but in hindsight, dad can do what he wants and when he wants. No one to look after. Each case needs to be looked at an not cookie cutter law. If mom is the issue, infidelity, spending wildly, etc. Then she takes it in wallet and not the husband. Again, though, the law is to much cookie cuter and it get the same old stamp all divorces cases get.

[Dan D]

Neal,

if "she" should ever dare to garnish your rights concerning your internet domain "subsim.com" because of support payment arrears of yours, this would mean, that I have to contact some of my friends to send some field workers of the Albanian Mafia to convince her that this was a very, very bad idea.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh, I forgot, I work with a gentleman that got full custody of his kids. He asked for zero child support so she has no say in what the kids do. She gets a weekend here and there with the kids. For the most part she is free and clear to do what she want when she wants. Dads do have recourse and can get custody. It is all about how much you can spend on a lawyer. Of course, the mom has to spend for her lawyer also. Only the lawyers win in the end. My sister lawyer was $25,000.00 and the friggin case ain't over yet. He asked for another $10,000.00. Funny how the lawyers do that when the have the discovery session. It seems all they discover is your net worth. :dead:

[GoldenRivet]

I have been happily married for 7 years now.

My wife and I got lucky when we found one another.

however!!!

you single men need to stay unmarried. I dont recommend marriage for anyone!

the wife controls 50% of the money and 100% of the pu$$y... if you guys get a divorce... she controls 100% of both.

a pretty unfair arrangement if you ask me.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have been happily married for 7 years now.

My wife and I got lucky when we found one another.

however!!!

you single men need to stay unmarried.

the wife controls 50% of the money and 100% of the pu$$y... if you guys get a divorce... she controls 100% of both.

a pretty unfair arrangement if you ask me.

Not true, marital property and finances are 50/50. As far as the crotch controlling...there is plenty of crotch willing to do the deed. She ain't the only one a sausage wallet :03:

[GoldenRivet]

Not true, marital property and finances are 50/50. As far as the crotch controlling...there is plenty of crotch willing to do the deed. She ain't the only one a sausage wallet :03:

true... but she will and can prove to be an obstacle to any future female endeavors - depending of course on her level of psychosis.

i still dont recommend marriage.

think about it; you are entering into a life long business partnership with another individual based almost entirely upon one anothers emotions.

[AVGWarhawk]

true... but she will and can prove to be an obstacle to any future female endeavors - depending of course on her level of psychosis.

i still dont recommend marriage.

think about it; you are entering into a life long business partnership with another individual based almost entirely upon one anothers emotions.

Not always, depends on financial prowess as well. Hell, my brother said he was marrying into $7.50 an hour. Of course that was 20 years ago. :haha: He is still happily married and running his own business. She is the head nurse of the Hosptial in Frederick MD. They both drive fine German automobiles...the ones with peace signs on the hood. :03: Not all marriages end in ruin. Sometimes it is not cheaper to keep her. In my view, once the kids hit 18 any and all dollars going monthly to mom should stop. That includes alimony. However, the law sees thing differently than I.

[ETR3(SS)]

Here's a question to ponder, sorta OT but still pertains in a way. Why get married at all in this day and age? What would be the advantages/disadvantages?

[Onkel Neal]

Neal,

if "she" should ever dare to garnish your rights concerning your internet domain "subsim.com" because of support payment arrears of yours, this would mean, that I have to contact some of my friends to send some field workers of the Albanian Mafia to convince her that this was a very, very bad idea.


Haha, thanks, but my child support has never been in arrears even by a single day, over 14 years :) Even after being laid off over a year now.

[NeonSamurai]

Alimony was certainly important for women who had no major previous employment experience, and did not work during the marriage, but raised kids. In the olden days men could just walk out on their families, leaving the women often with many kids and no real way to support them.

Nowadays I think it is still important, if in the family one of the parents is a primary care giver with no career. You have to keep in mind that to be a stay at home parent, you totally sacrifice your career and will make far less money after the divorce then your spouse who was the breadwinner. A career takes a lot of time and effort to gain, and is not something you can just jump into later on as easily. Its just like trying to suddenly change careers to something totally different. Primary care giving is a career, just not a paying one.

I also don't disagree with splitting property, provided both parties were reasonably contributing to it, or the family structure (ie primary care giver). If one person was living off the other though, then its a different story (like a rich person marrying a 'trophy' spouse), prenuptuals are also often a good idea.

[AVGWarhawk]

Haha, thanks, but my child support has never been in arrears even by a single day, over 14 years :) Even after being laid off over a year now.

So what is it that brought up alimony? Personally I agree with you and it takes two to tango in a divorce. Alimony is antiquated at best. All should stop when the children have hit 18.

[ETR3(SS)]

...prenuptuals are also often a good idea. True, but they only cover before the marriage. If my GF took out a loan for $10,000, we got married, and no prenup was signed, than that legally becomes my debt upon her death or our divorce.

[Dan D]

It is all about how much you can spend on a lawyer. Of course, the mom has to spend for her lawyer also...

I probably misunderstood you, but given that mom has a claim for maintenance against dad, which you can easily calculate, if you know both incomes and financial burdens, part of this claim for maintenance would be that dad has to finance in advance mom's legal costs for the action for support against dad, if she can't.

This means, dad has to give mom the money mom needs to pay mom's lawyer who will then sue dad for maintenance if dad is still not encouraged to compromise after losing his first trial.

So dad pays for both lawyers under any circumstances if she has a claim for maintenance, at least over here.

Is that what you mean, did i miss the irony?

[Dan D]

Haha, thanks, but my child support has never been in arrears even by a single day, over 14 years :) Even after being laid off over a year now.

Never mind! It was just, that I had this terrible thought coming to my mind.

[AVGWarhawk]

True, but they only cover before the marriage. If my GF took out a loan for $10,000, we got married, and no prenup was signed, than that legally becomes my debt upon her death or our divorce.


I do not believe that is true. Premarital possession do not fall under marital possesson. Therefore the loan was before the marriage is hers only. Your name is not on it. How can the loan institution go after you? If they want their money just give them her new address at the cemetary to send the bill. I have seen others do that. My college roommate mom did that to the IRS. The IRS said her husband owned back taxes. She gave them the cemetary address. After all , he owned the taxes and not her. They never called again.

If you owned the house before marriage it is not marital possessions and does not fall under the 50/50 rule. She however can claim monies for improvements and such. She then might get proceeds if the house is sold.

[AVGWarhawk]

I probably misunderstood you, but given that mom has a claim for maintenance against dad, which you can easily calculate, if you know both incomes and financial burdens, part of this claim for maintenance would be that dad has to finance in advance mom's legal costs for the action for support against dad, if she can't.

This means, dad has to give mom the money mom needs to pay mom's lawyer who will then sue dad for maintenance if dad is still not encouraged to compromise after losing his first trial.

So dad pays for both lawyers under any circumstances if she has a claim for maintenance, at least over here.

Is that what you mean, did i miss the irony?

No sir, dad does not have to pay for the lawyer. Get a court appointed one if either party can not afford a lawyer. My sister paid for her own lawyer. There has been no money exchanged for alimony or child support. That comes after the judge makes the ruling. Most lawyer if not all take payment up front. :03:

[antikristuseke]

Never mind! It was just, that I had this terrible thought coming to my mind.

There is this saying here, something to the tune of if brute force was not your last resort you failed to resort to enough of it. Rings true in most cases.

[Onkel Neal]

I understand your view of antiquated but with children working the 9-5 for the parent while the children are in school is fine however there is after care and transportation for the kids. School lets out at 3 pm. What are you to do with your 8 year old. Latch key kid? No, that can not work at that age. Dad does not worry about kids when his job is concerned. Also, are you to take the kids who lived in a nice home and then have them dumped in some place of squalar because that is all mom can afford? Then there is the emotional toll of the kids that mom has to deal with. My two nieces are seeing a specialist because of this divorce. Mom gets the bill and rest of it. Meanwhile dad is in NJ with a new place to live and an illegal screw doll. He just purchased $7000.00 for furniture. Mom, meanwhile is cleaing soiled undergarments and cleaning up puke from a sick child. Also, since dad is paying CS he gets the write off on taxes, no? In all reality dad can go deliver pizza and pay his percentage on that as CS. Also, if dad has such an issue with it, get full custody of the kids. What can I say? I know more deadbeat dads the ones that pay like ordered.

I agree though, mom does get to spend the money as she sees fit. It is just the way the system is and needs some changes for sure but in hindsight, dad can do what he wants and when he wants. No one to look after. Each case needs to be looked at an not cookie cutter law. If mom is the issue, infidelity, spending wildly, etc. Then she takes it in wallet and not the husband. Again, though, the law is to much cookie cuter and it get the same old stamp all divorces cases get.


There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to begin :D Since your sister is in Texas, I guess Texas family law applies....I have a little experience with that.

School lets out at 3 pm. What are you to do with your 8 year old. Latch key kid?
After school day care, until they are 12 or 13, that's what the rest of us do.

Also, are you to take the kids who lived in a nice home and then have them dumped in some place of squalar because that is all mom can afford?
Agreed, it's not fair to the kids. But can't mom afford an apartment? Does it have to be squalor? With or without kids, mom has to live somewhere.

My two nieces are seeing a specialist because of this divorce. Mom gets the bill and rest of it.
By law, dad has to pay have the costs that exceed insurance coverage, and he has to pay all the insurance costs.

Also, since dad is paying CS he gets the write off on taxes, no?
Haha--no. Not at all. Mom gets custody and the tax exemption. You cannot write off any CS on your taxes. Who told you that?

In all reality dad can go deliver pizza and pay his percentage on that as CS.
You would think so, and in reality, any married dad can deliver pizza too, if he chooses. But an divorced dad can be ordered to pay whatever the judge feels he is capable of earning.

There has been no money exchanged for alimony or child support.
Normally, the judge orders temp CH and spousal support as soon as the wife files. I thought she was getting alimony already?

Also, if dad has such an issue with it, get full custody of the kids.
Oh reallly!! :o Sounds easy if you say it quickly. Seriously, even with unfit mothers, that almost never happens. Mom gets custody, if she wants it. She gets to keep the house, because that where the babies live. And dad pays way over and above what it takes to fully finance the kids, (not just 50% of normal costs, where mom is expected to chip in her 50%, it's more like dad pays mom about 175% of what the kids cost each month) mainly because the state wants to makes sure that they don't end up covering mom's costs. That's the facts.

What can I say? I know more deadbeat dads the ones that pay like ordered.
What kind of company do you keep? I have heard of a few deadbeat dads, but they're serious screwups who cannot hold a job. The normal men I know who are divorced pay CS as a matter of course.


I don't doubt your sister is the injured party and her ex is a useless dick. That definitely does not mean that the way custody and CS is structured is fair or even beneficial for the kids. I think of the $140,000+ I've paid in CS and really regret I could not have made sure my kids had the benefit that money could have brought them.

[Onkel Neal]

So what is it that brought up alimony? Personally I agree with you and it takes two to tango in a divorce. Alimony is antiquated at best. All should stop when the children have hit 18.

I didn't bring up CS, that was antikristuseke and you :)

I'm not arguing that CS is wrong (although it is one-sided and disproportionate), I'm talking about paying money to an ex-wife for years and years. That's crazy.

Personally I agree with you and it takes two to tango in a divorce.

Actually, not true ;)
It takes two to agree to a marriage, no one can wake up one morning and say, "You know what, we're getting a marriage tomorrow."
It only takes one to bring about a divorce. They other person has zero options. If spouse A wants to get a divorce, spouse B is going to be divorced.

Want to guess what the statistics are that women are the plaintiff? ;)

[CaptainHaplo]

Well gentleman, let me add another view here.

I have 2 children. My oldest is now 9. His mother and I split when he was 2. I won't go into alot of detail, but after an extended battle, the decision was "joint" custody - but she had "primary" - meaning I got to see my son every other weekend. I was also ordered to pay over $650 a month in CS - while being unemployed.

From the time she got him - to the time he was 7 years old - a period of 5 years (or 130 scheduled visits), he was withheld over 80 of those times. There were periods when I didn't get to see him for a year at a time. I had my ex-wife found to be in contempt, got to see my son for 2 months, then again he was withheld. I was investigated over a dozen times by Child Protective Services - mainly anytime I forced her to allow me access to my son. Every accusation in the book was leveled against me.

Finally, a very in-depth investigation, conducted by a PHD, was done. Its results, as well as the support of my son's counsellor (whom his mother had hand picked), DSS, my son's current emotional state, etc, all those factors finally resulted in custody being changed. I now have primary custody of him. 5 years of absolute hell to protect and save my little boy.

I'd do it all again in a heartbeat. Today, two years later, he sees his mother every other weekend, she gets her time with him in the summer, and he has done a 180, now being successful in school, socially and emotionally. He was released from counselling after a year, because he was thriving in a stable and healthy environment. In the two years I have had him, he has not missed a single visit with his mother.

I am so proud of him, because I know it was, and still is, ungodly tough on him.

He is on my insurance - his mother had him on medicaid - she has spent the last 7 years since I left her in "school" - and after 7 years, just this last one got a 2 year online degree. She still doesn't work though, and for the last two years - her CS has been $50 a month. She is supposed to pay for half of anything the insurance doesn't cover, as well as half the copays, etc. I could take her back for an adjustment based purely on the fact that I am paying for his insurance. I haven't ever seen a dime from her.

The system is biased - getting custody takes a long battle and a very attentive judge. Mine was a woman with kids of her own, and we were able to demonstrate beyond doubt that his mother was a horribly irresponsible person who didn't take care of her children, but instead created the emotional turmoil my son was going through.

I can't speak to alimony - in this state there is no such thing anymore I don't think. If there was, I am sure she would have asked for it when we split. But make no mistake, a custody battle for a father is probably the hardest thing to win in this life.

[Zachstar]

Pre-nuptuals brother :03:

Women and men are taught that even mentioning a pre-nup is bad bad bad. Some would even accuse you of being a sexist over it.

No if I get in a relationship. Let it be free of BS.

[AVGWarhawk]

Women and men are taught that even mentioning a pre-nup is bad bad bad. Some would even accuse you of being a sexist over it.

No if I get in a relationship. Let it be free of BS.

It is bad? That is new one on me. :hmmm: Sorry, if I make millions before the marriage those millions are not going with the x-wife if she decides screwing the gardener is much more fun. If she does not like it...well then...I will be shoving off. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

I didn't bring up CS, that was antikristuseke and you :)

I'm not arguing that CS is wrong (although it is one-sided and disproportionate), I'm talking about paying money to an ex-wife for years and years. That's crazy.



Actually, not true ;)
It takes two to agree to a marriage, no one can wake up one morning and say, "You know what, we're getting a marriage tomorrow."
It only takes one to bring about a divorce. They other person has zero options. If spouse A wants to get a divorce, spouse B is going to be divorced.

Want to guess what the statistics are that women are the plaintiff? ;)

I did not bring up CS to you, just the alimony part. Alimony is antiquated...agreed! You have first hand experience on divorce where I do not. I only speak of what I know concerning my sisters divorce. True, it only takes one to call the ball. But looking at it, should someone be stuck in an abusive relationship? Certainly not therefore the one can call the ball and file for divorce. Seems only fair. I can guarantee the number of women plaintiffs is very high. Women are fickle. Most will drop a man like a bad habit because the sky was not blue enough today and other silly synapse that go through their brains. It is like my wife, when she is losing an argument she always say, "This is just not working out." Well of course not when you are losing the argument. :doh: If she is winning...all is well in her world. :doh: That is typical of anyone really.

[Platapus]

What I don't understand about Child Support is that the parent receiving it does not have to produce receipts that the money was, in fact, spent on supporting the child.

As they say: A man is incomplete until he get's married. After that he is finished.

[AVGWarhawk]

What I don't understand about Child Support is that the parent receiving it does not have to produce receipts that the money was, in fact, spent on supporting the child.


That sir would be controlling and probably more controlling than when the couple were co-habitating. That is my sisters case. She could not do a thing without prior approval yet she was the one worth over a million dollars when it came to HER business. Her soon to be X was way over the line in controlling.

[Platapus]

That sir would be controlling and probably more controlling than when the couple were co-habitating. That is my sisters case. She could not do a thing without prior approval yet she was the one worth over a million dollars when it came to HER business. Her soon to be X was way over the line in controlling.

Yes but when the couple was co-habitating, they were not under a court ordered action. That is the significant difference.

If the court orders either party to pay money for a specific purpose, I feel that the court has the right and responsibility to ensure that the money is used for that purpose. The court does not seem to have any problems ensuring that the money was paid, but seems reluctant to ensure that it is used properly.

I am sure we have all heard stories of women taking child support and spending the money on themselves and buying the children the minimum. :nope:.

About 30 years ago, one of my troops was getting divorced from his wife. She was asking $600.00 per month child support for one child. My troop was, at the time, an E-4 bringing home around $1,000 per month total.

He tried to challenge that he was supposed to pay for 1/2 of the upkeep of his child. He was able to provide for himself, his wife and his son on $1,000 per month. How can she claim that she needs $1,200 per month just to take care of his son? The reason is that since the State did not have alimony, she wanted "child support" to be her support. He lost the challenge, and could not get any information on what she was spending on his child and what she was using for her (and her soon to be live in boyfriend).

The system is very unfair and unbalanced. I saw way too many of my troops get screwed over. :down:

[Onkel Neal]

About 30 years ago, one of my troops was getting divorced from his wife. She was asking $600.00 per month child support for one child. My troop was, at the time, an E-4 bringing home around $1,000 per month total.

He tried to challenge that he was supposed to pay for 1/2 of the upkeep of his child. He was able to provide for himself, his wife and his son on $1,000 per month. How can she claim that she needs $1,200 per month just to take care of his son? The reason is that since the State did not have alimony, she wanted "child support" to be her support. He lost the challenge, and could not get any information on what she was spending on his child and what she was using for her (and her soon to be live in boyfriend).



That's the BS aspect of "child support". It's not the father's 50% of what it takes to care for a child, it's more like 175%. Please show me how many guys here make $5000 a month and can show month in and out they spend $2000 on their child.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's the BS aspect of "child support". It's not the father's 50% of what it takes to care for a child, it's more like 175%. Please show me how many guys here make $5000 a month and can show month in and out they spend $2000 on their child.


I certainly do not pay that much for both my girls combined. I do agree the system is not balanced at all. That is why a case by case basis needs to be addressed. It is just cookie cutter and stamped with approval in the courts. Problem is this has gone of for years. Dad are always seen as the issue and get it in the end. There are those that do the right thing and then there are those like my brother-in-law who is $25000.00 behind.