When you want to make your ex get a job, so you can stop paying alimony, one of the big questions is 'what work can they do?'
Most exes who are enjoying the freedom of Spousal Support claim they cannot find work, or they are not capable of working and generating enough income to meet the marital standard of living. And that may be true, but that doesn't mean they can't contribute to their own support with some type of work. In order to prove to the court that the supported spouse has the ability to contribute to their expenses, we often use a vocational exam which involves the supported spouse being interviewed by a professional career assessment professional who looks at the education, skills and experience of the supported spouse. They look at the age, health and job market for the type of work that could be done by the spouse. There are skills tests that may be performed like typing speed, language and translation skills are considered, math skills for bookkeeping, and data entry work. The exams take from half a day to a couple of days depending on how thorough the test is, and how big the prior work history is of the supported spouse. The cost is generally $3,500 - 7,500.
0 Comments
When a divorce (marital dissolution) actually goes all the way to trial, the judge will look to the standard of living of the family to determine what support should be paid. Thisis actually very rare these days,most people settle out of court or on the courthouse steps (in the hallway really). But when the judge needs to make a ruling on how much alimony one party is entitled to, they look to the way the parties lived. This is where the evidence of where did you shop as a family? Was it a high end grocery store, or was it the 99 Cent Store? Did you take regular holidays by plane to Aruba or were you a road trip family that went to national parks and camped out? Often times, in those last two years of a marriage, the party who is planning on seeking spousal support will INCREASE their living expenses and change the places that they shop. This is a strategy to demonstrate to the judge that there was a higher standard of living and that spousal support should be based on that. If you are the paying spouse, you need to demonstrate to the court that the increased expenses in the last two years are not based on an increase in income, and that over the preceding FIVE years how the family shopped and traveled is a much more appropriate indicator of the true marital standard of living. in the latest twist of the never ending Nicholas Cage romance saga, his wife of 4 days has responded to his petition for annulment with a demand for Alimony.
will she get it? Highly doubtful. Is it a negotiating tactic ? A weak one but yes. Spousal support is determined by many factors, in California they are listed at Family code 4320 and a major one is length of marriage. Read more about the short marriage here. Even when an ex is self-supporting like Jermaine Jackson’s if the marital standard of living was higher, and it certainly was for Jackson, the issue of support remains.
Alimony, spousal support or spousal maintenance is proper if the marital standard of living was higher than the post divorce ability to earn. For Hakimi Rashid, she’s only barely supporting herself and that doesn’t cut it in family court. Especially if she shows that Jermaine is hiding money. Then he would be in contempt of a court order and could be put in jail. Now if he doesn’t have any, then he has a defense to paying it, at least until he does have money again. Read more about the Jackson case here. Spousal support (alimony or spousal maintenance) is usually estimated at the early stage of a divorce by a computer program. It uses a very long very complex set of factors to come with a number that is “fair”.
When the parties are wealthy and have a very high monthly income though, the program will produce a number that is absurd. I had a client who was making about a million dollars a month, and the child support was well into the six figures. For a one year old. Obviously that would not make sense so we argued he was a “high earner” and should be allowed to step outside the guideline support awarded by the computer program. Being a high earner means the judge is goin got now look at the realistic situation and make a ruling in what is needs to support a child or a spouse. In the case of actor Jessie Williams he’s a high earner at over $500,000 a month so his ex wife is getting a big number that may have been even bigger under the Dissomaster Guidelines. Read about his case here. We know that everyone can get caught in the spousal support trap. It may seem like alimony only happens to you but the truth is even famous actors can get trapped.
Actor John Schneider had his worst year ever in 2016. “In the single worst financial year of my life, between those two floods, also the year that my mother passed away, the judge ordered me to pay $18,700 a month in temporary spousal support. And I did not because I could not. And I was guilty on 11 counts of contempt for that. So, I asked the judge to send me to jail." It's April 2019 and he's still not divorced. These cases can take a long time to resolve. Read more about "Bo" here. The call came in on Friday, at 3:30 p.m. of course, his employer was still not clear on whether or not to terminate the spousal support that we had fought so hard to end. It was a client who I had taken a great liking to, he’d been ordered to pay alimony of $2,800 a month, for 7 years, or until his ex-wife, remarried, co-habitated with a man, or died.
Granted there was a scenario that he was probably hoping for, but what he got was, an ex who moved out of state, forwarded all of her mail to a PO box, and only used a cell phone. We knew she had to be living with man, but that she wanted to keep the spousal maintenance coming. It's a common scenario today. Which is why she worked hard to hide her real whereabouts. Their daughters were kept in the dark about her home address, which was smart on her part, because her daughters liked their father, my client, more than their own mother. Knowing that someone is living with their boyfriend, and proving it are two very different things. I told my client that we had to hire a private investigator to get enough evidence to show a court the truth. Men are funny. Even after all that she had done to my client, and there was a lot, and even after she’s been taking spousal support from him that she’s not entitled to, he was still hesitant about playing hardball with her. But when I pointed out to him that the remaining $140,000 of alimony, in after tax dollars, he was going to have to pay her would put him in a new house, he was bit more amenable to stepping up the battle. I interviewed a couple of Private Investigators in her state, and finally decided on one who I could get a hold of at all hours of day and night. We started with the basics of home address, new boyfriend’s name and a background check on him. Turned out that this new boyfriend had an ex-wife of his own. And a nasty, vicious, knock-down, drag out custody battle. It’s amazing how much animosity people create. Which is a mistake, because the animosity makes people do stupid things that will come back to haunt them. Once we knew there was a vicious battle, we had to get the transcripts of the court hearings, to find out what was said. Lo and behold, she was a witness. Some days, you get winning information just served up to you. As I read through the transcripts, she testifies, under oath, that she is not only living with the new boyfriend, but that in fact they are married. I quickly read through his testimony, and he states the same thing. Game over. My guy just won a $140,000. So I file a motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court to get the spousal support terminated. You’d think that she would agree at this point, as I have her sworn testimony that she’s remarried. You’d be wrong. She filed in court, under penalty of perjury, a declaration that says she’s not married, and not living with the new boyfriend. She didn’t recall testifying that she was married evidently. On the day of the hearing, she shows up in court, looking every inch the runway Diva, with 3 inch spike heels, perfectly coiffed hair and manicured nails. She claims to be disabled, but sure didn’t look it. By contrast, her own daughter, who has come to testify against her mother, is in a wheelchair due to her neurological disorder that the government does not recognize as a disability. When we get in front of the judge, she looks at the ex-wife’s lawyer, and says, “So your client is either lying in Michigan, or she’s lying in California, either way she’s a liar. Get her out of my courtroom.” Ooops. I would never want to be that lawyer. It was one of the saddest situations I’ve seen in quite a while. When I saw a mother choose to fight for money that she is not entitled to, and force her own daughter to testify against her, I saw true evil. By stepping up the game, hiring an investigator and tracking down some prior testimony, we were able to stop the injustice of a deception. But this illustrates two points. One, like your momma told you, lying is wrong – her lies cost her $140,000 and two, you have to play hardball sometimes. My client would still be buying his ex-wife a house; instead, he gets to buy himself one. It's the question that every paying spouse wants answered - there are MANY variables that will decide how much and if you be paying alimony. When you were in the middle of your divorce or legal separation someone, probably your attorney or maybe her lawyer, proposed an amount. Usually in California this would be based on several factors that are found in California Family Code Section 4320.
This is where the "art" of negotiation and constructing arguments comes into play. There are over 20 categories to be reviewed and each of them can be a rich mine of information, or a dry well. Here's the list of them. Your state will have their own, but these are the California ones: CHAPTER 2. Factors to be Considered in Ordering Support [4320 - 4326] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. ) 4320. In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances: (a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account all of the following: (1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to acquire other, more marketable skills or employment. (2) The extent to which the supported party’s present or future earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were incurred during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote time to domestic duties. (b) The extent to which the supported party contributed to the attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license by the supporting party. (c) The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support, taking into account the supporting party’s earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living. (d) The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage. (e) The obligations and assets, including the separate property, of each party. (f) The duration of the marriage. (g) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without unduly interfering with the interests of dependent children in the custody of the party. (h) The age and health of the parties. (i) All documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties or perpetrated by either party against either party’s child, including, but not limited to, consideration of: (1) A plea of nolo contendere. (2) Emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party. (3) Any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party. (4) Issuance of a protective order after a hearing pursuant to Section 6340. (5) A finding by a court during the pendency of a divorce, separation, or child custody proceeding, or other proceeding under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200), that the spouse has committed domestic violence. (j) The immediate and specific tax consequences to each party. (k) The balance of the hardships to each party. (l) The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. Except in the case of a marriage of long duration as described in Section 4336, a “reasonable period of time” for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the length of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is intended to limit the court’s discretion to order support for a greater or lesser length of time, based on any of the other factors listed in this section, Section 4336, and the circumstances of the parties. (m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with Section 4324.5 or 4325. (n) Any other factors the court determines are just and equitable. (Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 938, Sec. 1. (AB 929) Effective January 1, 2019.) A vocational examination is to determine the potential earning capacity of a supported spouse. They are used in divorces, legal separations, spousal support, alimony, and spousal maintenance cases.
Trained professionals,who have advanced degrees in career counseling, psychology, human relations, and statistical analysis use a variety of tests, examinations, interviews and marketplace reviews to determine what a realistic expectation of earnings could be for a supported spouse. Often times there are medical examinations that are included to determine the capability of someone to perform a particular job, when there are claims of disability. The supported spouse's educational background, prior work experience, domestic experiences along with age, physical condition, computer skills, and age will all be considered in the determination of what they are capable of earning on their own. The assessment of potential Individual earnings can be used to lower or even terminate the payment of spousal support if it is shown that the supported spouse could be working but chooses instead to avoid seeking permanent employment. It is possible for a court to impute an income to a supported spouse, meaning they will assume the spouse is earning a certain dollar amount, whether they are or not, if it is shown that they have the opportunity, capability and job offers, but choose to remain unemployed. The termination of alimony is not easy, once it has been established, but if the supported spouse, could be contributing to their own support and refuses to, the court may choose to lower the spousal support obligation of the paying spouse. |