SSI Disability income and support

[wolfthing2000]

Lupos

All right guys and gals. my soon to be ex was diagnosed with Lupos in 1992.....17 years ago almost now....she collected it because she could no longer work after a brain bleed caused by blood clot disorder, a side effect of lupos. The marriage didn't work. I am sorry for that, I tried. It is over. She needs the disability. neither of our incomes are enough for the bills.

The question from the beginning was "will support diminish SSI Disability?" it will.

I am sorry to have stirred up a hornets nest.

 

[mistoffolees]

All right guys and gals. my soon to be ex was diagnosed with Lupos in 1992.....17 years ago almost now....she collected it because she could no longer work after a brain bleed caused by blood clot disorder, a side effect of lupos. The marriage didn't work. I am sorry for that, I tried. It is over. She needs the disability. neither of our incomes are enough for the bills.

The question from the beginning was "will support diminish SSI Disability?" it will.

I am sorry to have stirred up a hornets nest.

I don't think anyone has any issue with someone legitimately collecting disability.

Several people have, however, stated that it is not right to get out of paying support by dumping one's otherwise legitimate support obligations onto the government. No one is saying that's the case in your situation.

 

[OldandTired]

The hearing was today. She gets no spousal support.

Judgment was for no support.

It's refreshing to see one that can't come back in 5 years and ask for more because the ex makes 8X's the amount, came into an inheritance, and became the proprietor of a business.

 

[Bali Hai]

You can always tell when someone doesn't have any rational arguments. They lace their entire post with names like 'meathead' or 'bonehead.

Or their user ID is Bali Hai.

Or both.

You can always tell when some bonehead was brought up hanging on mommie's apron strings.

A women's libber advocate who rationalizes that men should pay women for life for no other reason than "that's the screwing they get for the screwing they got" and to save themself a few tax dollars, so I think "meathead" and "bonehead" are very appropriate, but way too kind.

 

[Bali Hai]

I don't think anyone has any issue with someone legitimately collecting disability.

Several people have, however, stated that it is not right to get out of paying support by dumping one's otherwise legitimate support obligations onto the government. No one is saying that's the case in your situation.

There is only one person who can authorize "legitmate support obligations. The JUDGE.

In this particular case the judge correctly ruled that there are NO legitimate support obligations for this OP. Finally a judge with balls. We need more of them!!

Furthermore, the government (YOU) has created this divorce mess we have in this country. A wife can file for divorce and get one if you butter the wrong side of her toast when you serve her breakfast in bed!!

Therefore, the government that created this mess should also PAY for it!!

 

[mistoffolees]

There is only one person who can authorize "legitmate support obligations. The JUDGE.

In this particular case the judge correctly ruled that there are NO legitimate support obligations for this OP.

If the judge is the only one who can authorize legitimate support obligations, then how would you know if the ruling was correct?

And, once again, I'll ask - if judges are so all-knowing and always correct, why do you spend so much time whining about how the judge ruled in your case?

 

[Bali Hai]

If the judge is the only one who can authorize legitimate support obligations, then how would you know if the ruling was correct?

And, once again, I'll ask - if judges are so all-knowing and always correct, why do you spend so much time whining about how the judge ruled in your case?

Well, speaking to this particular case, if the judge ordered OP to pay alimony and that in turn suspended or reduced the wife's SSDI, that ruling would have been incorrect.

 

[mistoffolees]

Well, speaking to this particular case, if the judge ordered OP to pay alimony and that in turn suspended or reduced the wife's SSDI, that ruling would have been incorrect.

I see. So the judge is all-knowing and 100% right - only when you think he is.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[wolfthing2000]

wow!!!!

 

[Bali Hai]

I see. So the judge is all-knowing and 100% right - only when you think he is.

Thanks for clarifying that.

You're welcome.

 

[wolfthing2000]

And what about the trial?

If the judge made this decision, for this civil evidentiary hearing wanting support for the pendency of this case, will that decision stand for the final (I hope) divorce trial in January?????

 

[mistoffolees]

If the judge made this decision, for this civil evidentiary hearing wanting support for the pendency of this case, will that decision stand for the final (I hope) divorce trial in January?????

At a divorce trial, anything can happen. However, the most likely thing is that the judge with stick with the earlier decision unless there's a change in circumstances.

 

[wolfthing2000]

right. anything can happen, and it sure has. Everyone claims divorce is simple
I believe one of the key things with this case was the soon to be ex wife has bounced in and out of court twice now with changing her mind over support. This cost a lot of money and courts time. I offered a reasonable settlement last February when she claimed not to want support but only medical insurance coverage. I offered the Cobra, 1/2 of 401k (which was 30% fatter then , than it is now!!) , and split 50/50 of property assets after sale.

I can only hope that the judge saw clearly that I have been more than honorable in offering a reasonable settlement.