My Ex- Won't Get a Job

[EA1070a]

The burden of proof for this isn't very high. It really doesn't mean anything.

Don't know about the irs one way or the other, but otherwise I.think gam is spot on.

If dad can show a history of looking for employment sufficient to continue a UI claim, and as long as he is still receiving UI, I don't think OP has a very strong case for imputation of wages and an upwards modification.

When the UI runs out and he still isn't working, she should look into returning to court. But the assistance that dad is receiving from his parents won't count as income absent a showing consistent with current case law. A few gifts here and there, no matter how sizeable, do not income make. Support in OP's state is based purely off of NCP's income. Whether she can successfully argue wages should be imputed to dad at his pre-layoff rate based on deliberate underemployment or unemployment will depend on the judge who hears the case. It isn't outside the realm of possibility and could likely happen.

But mom going into court trying to have these gifts counted as income isn't going to fly under the statutes and case law I've read.

[llworking]

If dad can show a history of looking for employment sufficient to continue a UI claim, and as long as he is still receiving UI, I don't think OP has a very strong case for imputation of wages and an upwards modification.

When the UI runs out and he still isn't working, she should look into returning to court. But the assistance that dad is receiving from his parents won't count as income absent a showing consistent with current case law. A few gifts here and there, no matter how sizeable, do not income make. Support in OP's state is based purely off of NCP's income. Whether she can successfully argue wages should be imputed to dad at his pre-layoff rate based on deliberate underemployment or unemployment will depend on the judge who hears the case. It isn't outside the realm of possibility and could likely happen.

But mom going into court trying to have these gifts counted as income isn't going to fly under the statutes and case law I've read.

I have seen a very very small handful of cases where support from parents has been considered as income for child support purposes if someone is voluntarily unemployed. I have also seen a very small handful of cases where the income of a spouse was considered in similar circumstances. However, those cases have truly been rare.

Therefore, while its likely that your interpretation of the situation is how it will play out, there is a very slim chance that it could be considered...and a slightly better one that it would impact how much of an income a judge might choose to impute.

[gam]

[QUOTE=EA1070a;726621]

You're joking, right? I highly doubt that OP has any clue how that money was transferred to her ex. If you knew the first thing about Estate Planning you'd know that there are numerous ways to transfer money via a good, solid Estate Plan that in no way, shape or form "cheats" the IRS. Do you know anything at all about taxation, gift taxes (paid by the donor, not the recipient), and maximum lifetime gift exclusions?

You know the first thing about Estate Planning and taxes how? If your going to question what I know, then you need to offer up your expert background in these.

I do know a bit about taxes(use to do taxes, sister is a CPA and my mom did taxes as a second job). Wills and Estates in my state are handled through Probate Court and I have had numerous dealings in Probate Court. I work in mental health(my main job, numerous others over the years), and have spent much time in Probate Court with mental cases, as Probate Court also does mental division in my state. My mom worked for 30 plus years in Probate Court, prior to that she worked for 10 years in Circuit Court(family law is here in my state). She worked in the Wills and Estates division, she has taken some college courses and has some certifications, she is not a lawyer. She retired at 72(forced retirement in my state at 72), however she worked for another 8 years part time doing the same job. When she retired at 80 completely, they hired a lawyer to replace her. I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be on this site or the others I have been on for over 9 years. I have lots more if you want it?

Since we are now being questioned as to our background knowledge, just what is your background for family law?

Nope OP probably does not have a clue to how that money was transferred, but a nice little form filled out to the IRS and it could be checked out.

OP is pissed off that her ex's parents paid off his house. Based on his parent's wealth, I have no doubt that it was handled by professionals.

Yeah well there are way to many cheaters out there, specially when it comes to paying child support, so I have every doubt that it was handled by an up and up professional. As has been proven often there are many professionals that don't do things on the up and up, many get caught to. The guy does not want to pay for his children, and I will bet my last dollar that mommy and daddy would cheat the system to save their baby boy, I've seen that happen all to often in split situations.

OP is claiming her ex is out of the job market by choice, but if he's receiving UI, he has to demonstrate that he's actually looking for employment.

He started getting UI in 12/11, doubtful he is still getting it or that he has much time left. Are you serious with that, they look real hard at your job searching, again people cheat that all the time. OP is claiming her ex said he is not going to work, as I said if she has proof he said that, like an email, or a text or phone recording(if she followed rules for recording in her state), well then a Judge is going to weigh that against other things. I'm sorry I left the exact proof off my other post, but this is the proof I was talking about.

Child support in Illinois is based purely on a percentage of income. The fact that he no longer carries a mortgage is irrelevant. Take a look at the support calculator. The Court already modified support in dad's favor. OP can seek a modification and ask the court to impute wages, but unless she can prove his parents are supporting him in a way that is consistent with the ruling in Rogers, and that does not seem to be the case here, she'll have one hell of a time arguing that paying off his house and buying him a car should be counted as income.

You didn't read what I said, I said a Judge can look at all these gifts of paying off his things, and impute him with the wages he could be earning. Yes the court modified, they often will when someone becomes unemployed. But he has been unemployed for a year and half, he has a house, a car, another family, yet he has no income, so the court can impute him with what he was earning. I never said it would be used as income, read my post, matter of fact I said them paying off his house and buying him a car would not be used for income, but it could be used in convincing the Judge to impute him with what he was earning.

And unless dad was dumb enough to state in writing that he has no intention of ever working again, she'll have a hell of a time proving he ever said it.

LOL, bet he was dumb enough to state it in writing. I can't tell you how many educated people(more educated then myself), do dumb things in split situations, specially when it comes to child support. They just love to open their mouths to show you just how much smarter they are then you and leave a mile ride road of proof. What a Judge will do with that is anybody's guess, and that was my point to posting on this thread.

Again I never said that the court would count the gifts as income, and I don't recall anyone else in this thread telling her that. I actually before posting did a google search myself on case law and found the same cases you googled on up in your expert searching. Gosh it is not that hard for anyone to google laws up and even if there is no case law, that does not mean you can't attempt to try something out in court. How the heck do you think case law got there to begin with and higher courts have rules different later on or cases taken to them have created changes in how things are done.

I didn't google IL for imputing case law, but I bet there are a bunch of cases of that. We don't know what dad did prior to sitting on his butt having his mommy and daddy supporting himself and not supporting his own kids fully. Maybe his job market has lots of jobs, we don't know that, maybe his job market was hit for a short time and has now bounced back, we don't know that either. One thing I do know, IL has not suffered like some of the other really hard hit states, like my own, and there might be no good reason he does not have a job now earning what he made. Again a Judge has the ability to impute him with what he can earn, and what he was earning, had him paying over a 1000 a month, versus his 300 a month for the last year and a half. Point being these are all things mom will have some knowledge about and can check and see if it is worth it.

You posted what a Judge will do, however you left out that a Judge has other options and that is what I posted. You might not agree, but you have no clue what this Judge will do, neither do I. But I will not let someone think that there is only one possibility here, when there is not.

[EA1070a]

Defensive much?

If you used to do taxes professionally, you should know that the gift giver is responsible for filing the appropriate forms and paying any gift taxes, subject to maximum yearly & lifetime exemptions. Or maybe ask your CPA sister.

OP wanted to know if the gifts he received could be considered income and I answered her question based on case law.

The judge already modified his support. I told OP she should return to court for a modification and ask the court to impute wages. If he's still receiving UI, support may or may not be modified. The amount that is imputed is discretionary. They could impute based on minimum wage, prior earnings, or earning ability, and / or deliberate unemployment or underemployment.

Dad paid less than guideline while employed because mom wanted full custody and made a quid pro quo agreement. She states that he is paying the current court ordered amount. Her primary question was whether the money he received from his parents would be considered income for purposes of child support.

I never stated what a judge would do. Nobody can ever predict that with certainty.

[gam]

Defensive much?

If you used to do taxes professionally, you should know that the gift giver is responsible for filing the appropriate forms and paying any gift taxes, subject to maximum yearly & lifetime exemptions. Or maybe ask your CPA sister.

OP wanted to know if the gifts he received could be considered income and I answered her question based on case law.

The judge already modified his support. I told OP she should return to court for a modification and ask the court to impute wages. If he's still receiving UI, support may or may not be modified. The amount that is imputed is discretionary. They could impute based on minimum wage, prior earnings, or earning ability, and / or deliberate unemployment or underemployment.

Dad paid less than guideline while employed because mom wanted full custody and made a quid pro quo agreement. She states that he is paying the current court ordered amount. Her primary question was whether the money he received from his parents would be considered income for purposes of child support.

I never stated what a judge would do. Nobody can ever predict that with certainty.

Defensive much, I replied to your post, how is that being defensive. You said I didn't know one thing about Estate Planning or taxes, so I answered where my knowledge came from. I in return asked you if you knew the first thing about Estate planning or taxes and you didn't reply. I didn't tell OP who paid taxes, all I said was OP could fill out a lovely form to the IRS and have this checked out and see if it was done on the up and up. You didn't read my post correctly, so I corrected your mistake on my posting, so others do not take your twisted words on my posting.

I answered the same question and replied the same thing as you that it would not be counted as income. You didn't read my post correctly and went on about how it won't be counted as income, when that is not what I said to begin with. It's not being defensive correcting your reply where you made a mistake of what I said. It's correcting it so the OP or any other that comes along does not think I said it would be counted as income. Your good at twisting peoples words around on here. Yep I am defensive on this part, as I don't take kindly to someone incorrectly posting what I said.

My point was you replied to my post and other people's post and made it pretty clear that it would not happen the way we offered, on top of that you twisted what I said and incorrectly posted what I said. Her primary question was not if the money he received from his parents would be considered income, that question she posted came on page 2.

Mhmm. Oh, it's coming. Maybe OP won't complain about it here, but the inference is thinly veiled in the tone of the posts.

If the ex is still eligible for and receiving UI and the Court has already reduced support based on the fact that he was laid off, very little is likely to change until he is no longer eligible for UI. At that point she can file a request for modification based on imputed income, but once someone is out of the job market for a long period of time, their earning power is generally significantly decreased.

While answering her not primary question on page 2 of this thread, you then went and added in this lovely Mhmm. Which was garbage by you, as you have no clue what OP was going to do. OP can complain, don't recall it saying in the TOS of this site one can't do that, don't recall it being a crime to complain either. It's good therapy to complain, get it out of your system and not to direct all that built up anger at your ex, which will only harm the children. I'm moving on, cause your just going to keep going with this and it's not serving a good purpose at this point.

[EA1070a]

Now, now EA that isn't what the OP wants to hear

Apparently OP isn't the only one who doesn't like that answer either.