-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Hiding behind Soldiers & Sailors Act
- Thread starter PenutButterChip
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
OK, I was just reading along here with the morning coffee and wanted to point something out.
QUOTE-Peanutbuterchip
"As fo witholding or yanking from his check, I already got that, and of course he had a fit about that because now he cant go to Officer School with the garnishment and asked me if I would take it off HA! He is soooo selfish."
granted, if he had a history of non payment before the garnishment(but being a resident, I know Ma. likes to just hand them out and if no one objects you get it) you may have needed to get the garnishment. But I don't see any mention of arrearage.
BUT, his attending officers School would mean career ADVANCEMENT, and a RAISE in pay.so the attitude of F!@# him, really ends up shooting YOU in the butt. his career advancement benefits your children.
if this is a ma. order I don't have the mass judicial website but www.supportguidelines.com does take you to it.
ma. will take I believe up to 32% of his income depending on his pay and number of kids. they take the CP income into account after 20,000. and they will factor in NCP's subsequent children. (but thats only 2% per kid) there is an easy calculator for estimate if you have his and your numbers.
As an aside the court situation sounds "bizarre" for ma. courts, having sat in the court room a 'few" times over the years. I cannot believe a simple raise in support was not granted if it was not warranted. All it requires is financial review and it is done. And pretty much if the NCP does not show up, you watch the CP get the raise that easily. Same goes for when the CP doesn't show for a request for reduction, if it is warranted the NCP will get it, if the CP is a no-show.
QUOTE-Peanutbuterchip
"As fo witholding or yanking from his check, I already got that, and of course he had a fit about that because now he cant go to Officer School with the garnishment and asked me if I would take it off HA! He is soooo selfish."
granted, if he had a history of non payment before the garnishment(but being a resident, I know Ma. likes to just hand them out and if no one objects you get it) you may have needed to get the garnishment. But I don't see any mention of arrearage.
BUT, his attending officers School would mean career ADVANCEMENT, and a RAISE in pay.so the attitude of F!@# him, really ends up shooting YOU in the butt. his career advancement benefits your children.
if this is a ma. order I don't have the mass judicial website but www.supportguidelines.com does take you to it.
ma. will take I believe up to 32% of his income depending on his pay and number of kids. they take the CP income into account after 20,000. and they will factor in NCP's subsequent children. (but thats only 2% per kid) there is an easy calculator for estimate if you have his and your numbers.
As an aside the court situation sounds "bizarre" for ma. courts, having sat in the court room a 'few" times over the years. I cannot believe a simple raise in support was not granted if it was not warranted. All it requires is financial review and it is done. And pretty much if the NCP does not show up, you watch the CP get the raise that easily. Same goes for when the CP doesn't show for a request for reduction, if it is warranted the NCP will get it, if the CP is a no-show.
PenutButterChip
Junior Member
You all are right maybe, I should allow him to advance, butbefore the garnishment he WOULD NOT PAY, so why would I give it up so he can move on and leave my child behind...again! NOt to mention if he moves up, it doesnt matter because he has the S&SA Cloak, to hide behind!! SO yes I may be nibbiling on my own nose, but it is kind of a catch 22...Right?
And yes the lawyer who was innocently sitting waiting for her own case got stuck.
And yes the lawyer who was innocently sitting waiting for her own case got stuck.
PenutButterChip
Junior Member
His taxes were given to me and covered all arreages last year. SO now he is "caught up"haiku said:
Please, I know this is BIZARRE, and irritating, and probably some where in there it is discriminatory!! But I dont know what to do. I retained a lwayer, breifly, when the whole GAL thing came up because he wanted custody. But they were barely able to do anything either. The other lawyer wouldnt return my lawyers phone calls, or would say that they cant get a hold of the loser in Germany. I racked up a nice lawyer bill that got me NOTHING and now I have to pay that too, while he is chillin in Germany eating a weinerschniztel drinking a beer!haiku said:
But anyway, that is why I posted this in the first place just to see if anyone had any experience with this or any advice.
Now snodderly, if we are to consider the benefits one receives while in the service as income (remember this is the taxpayers dollar paying this; it is government) then one must reduce the expenses of the CP by the same benefits SHE receives from the taxpayers (HUD, food stamps, insurance, job training etc.) again these are benefits paid by the tax payers.
Therefor, if she receives these benefits, her cost of raising the child has shifted, and his support obligation should be less.
If you are going to attach a value to benefits received by the government for CS calculations, then it needs to be on both sides of the equation. THIS IS KNOWN AS A BALANCED TRANSACTION!
topsidder, is that the best argument you can come back with? Any moron knows that in these situations that all income on both sides is reported and accounted for. It doesn't matter who gets what from where dear, if it is income, it is income. I'm not sure the courts would refer to it as a "balanced transaction" but every time I've been to court it has been just as important that my income is disclosed as it has that he disclose his income. In the eyes of the court system any mometary benefits the military member gets is considered income.
Stop fighting back with issues that are not pertinent to the discussion. It makes you look foolish!
snodderly
Therefor, if she receives these benefits, her cost of raising the child has shifted, and his support obligation should be less.
If you are going to attach a value to benefits received by the government for CS calculations, then it needs to be on both sides of the equation. THIS IS KNOWN AS A BALANCED TRANSACTION!
topsidder, is that the best argument you can come back with? Any moron knows that in these situations that all income on both sides is reported and accounted for. It doesn't matter who gets what from where dear, if it is income, it is income. I'm not sure the courts would refer to it as a "balanced transaction" but every time I've been to court it has been just as important that my income is disclosed as it has that he disclose his income. In the eyes of the court system any mometary benefits the military member gets is considered income.
Stop fighting back with issues that are not pertinent to the discussion. It makes you look foolish!
snodderly