For me, it will be an act of faith in the judicial system. Of course that very system completely screwed me over about 7 years ago when some maniacal judge ruled that my ex's agreement to share "agreed upon activities" for the kids, was nullified when my ex let me know he did not agree to those activities anymore. The judges suspicions were not piqued by the fact that my ex had argued that his income as a teacher was only 15K a year. When I looked at the paycheck stub and realized that it was a biweekly paycheck, and then said something to the court, and the ex responded that he didn't realize that he made more money, the judge basically saw it as an oversight.
WHAT PERSON DOES NOT KNOW THEIR FUCKING ANNUAL SALARY?
And the 4K in legal bills that I occurred leading to that insightful series of legal observations and decisions took me two years to pay off. Fortunately, that judicial idiot has retired from the court.
But it can make a sane and otherwise rational person a tad skiddish to re-enter a Colorado court room. So in spite of thiscourt decision which improves my position significantly, I am wondering whether I should try to settle for a percentage of the college contribution as a lump sum.
Bear with me cause I need advice.
The court ruled that settlement agreements are not enforceable as contracts (bad for me). They also overruled the lower court and said that in order to modify a settlement agreement, a substantial and continuous material change in circumstances must have occurred.
This could be bad or good for me, depending on the judge. Let's not forget that the ex has not held a single job for more than two consecutive years. Some have lasted only a month. This is not because he is fired, but because he quits. For the last 2-3 years his income has been below what he would have made if he actually held a job continuously for ten years as a teacher (where he, in fact would be making more than me). He most certainly will argue change in circumstances. I would argue voluntary underemployment and I should not be penalized by lifestyle choices and that he has had 10 years to save for college.
On the other hand, I could offer a lump sum settlement and relieve him of future college costs. But then I would take on the risk associated with college costs rising or aid dropping. Good idea? What percentage of the actual anticipated costs?
Advice is welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would take the lump sum. Better to get what you can now than gamble on you being able to get it in the future. And if he suddenly stops paying halfway through college, well, you'd be facing another ton of legal fees trying to get that enforced. Of course, you'd have to ask my mother about this one, since she went through all these battles in the last couple years.
As for the amount, be *very* realistic about the annual increase of tuition and fees. And keep in mind that if Graham gets a technical degree (architecture, engineering), it is very common to stay 5 years.
Lump sum would be wonderful. But, if he has not worked steadily, can he put together a lump sum? Is he willing to pay a lump sum or anything at all? Or is it just wishful thinking?
I agree. A lump sum would be better than fighting a continuous battle even if that lump sum does not cover all costs.
And...as Susan said, will he be able to come up with a lump sum? Does he have retirement or some other source to put together the money?
Post a Comment