Alimony

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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. .

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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.