my best friend is a winemaker in CA, going through a divorce. he has two children. In CA, custody and support seem to be pretty straightforward (50/50 for custody, software determining spousal support and child support), barring any extenuating/aggravating circumstances.

here is the question. in addition to his salary, he does some consulting work for smaller wineries on the side, bringing in about $15-20k a year (and potentially a lot more, now that he'll have much more time on his hands only having the kids 3-4 days/week). is there any way for him to establish an LLC or s-corp or something and have any consulting earnings be put back into this, thereby sort of "protecting" it from going right to his ex?

based on the rough calculations done by his lawyer, he will probably be ordered to give her nearly half his paychecks every month for an indefinite period (decreasing over time as she will have to get a job/income). it doesn't seem fair that that additional "potential income" should also be hers. what if he were to get a second job laying bricks or something? is she entitled to that income too? yuck.

any thoughts are appreciated

9/5/2012 1:28:57 PM

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100330113232AA7KO71

9/5/2012 4:34:20 PM

There are a lot of things taken into consideration in an alimony/child support situation. I don't know about CA law, but in NC:
1) You cannot form a company just to shield assets. This is simplified, but it is a big no-no.
2) If he forms this company prior to divorce with "marital funds" she'll likely have a claim to the company as well so that wont get you anywhere.
3) If he's doing the consulting before and after the divorce, it doesn't really matter how much he makes at it, it's still considered a job and will be considered, regardless of where the money goes (his pocket, or corporation).

9/5/2012 4:44:41 PM

Tell him to stop trying to cheat his wife and kids out of money. Income is income. And what kind of information do you think you're going to get from this website that he can't get from his California-licensed attorney??

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2012 4:46:53 PM

nobody is trying to "cheat" anyone out of anything. she hasn't worked in 8 years (their oldest is 6) and probably won't get a job until she absolutely has to (per the court).

he would never, ever lowball his kids in his own interest.

why is she "entitled" to anything he makes beyond the spousal support (determined by his base salary and bonus), after their marriage is over? the hypothetical I raised I think is relevant. or, say she decides to better her life, go back to school, becomes a successful plastic surgeon, and in 10 years is making 10x what he makes now. is he then entitled to half of that?

and say he wanted to put 100% of the consulting income into the kids' college funds. is he supposed to put "his half" in the college funds and watch her go shopping with the other half?

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM. Reason : new2iu called me]

9/5/2012 4:58:46 PM

Quote :

"she hasn't worked in 8 years "

You mean, she hasn't acquired outside income, and instead has been providing free child-care for the relationship.

Quote :

"probably won't get a job until she absolutely has to (per the court). "

She's been out of the job market for 8 years. Do you think it's cost efficient for her to go get a low-paying job and spend more than she makes on child care?

Quote :

"why is she "entitled" to anything he makes beyond the spousal support (determined by his base salary and bonus), after their marriage is over?"

Spousal support is based on more than just base salary. It takes into consideration all income made, the potential to make income, and the quality and status of life they have all previously enjoyed.

Quote :

"back to school, becomes a successful plastic surgeon, and in 10 years is making 10x what he makes now. is he then entitled to half of that?"

Why would he be entitled to something she does AFTER their relationship is over? If she had earned her plastic surgeon degree prior to the relationship ending then he would arguably have an investment in the future income. Which is why I asked you when he started the consulting. Timelines matter for alimony.

Quote :

"and say he wanted to put 100% of the consulting income into the kids' college funds. is he supposed to put "his half" in the college funds and watch her go shopping with the other half? "

If it's alimony, he has no say over what she does with her money. If it's child support, he can ask for an accounting of where the funds are spent.

9/5/2012 5:30:22 PM

Quote :

"She's been out of the job market for 8 years. Do you think it's cost efficient for her to go get a low-paying job and spend more than she makes on child care?"

of course not. but is it cost-efficient for her to sit on her ass the 50% of the time she WON'T have the children?

Quote :

"Why would he be entitled to something she does AFTER their relationship is over? If she had earned her plastic surgeon degree prior to the relationship ending then he would arguably have an investment in the future income. Which is why I asked you when he started the consulting. Timelines matter for alimony."

he's been doing the consulting for a couple years. but say he goes out, busts his ass to come up with more clients, and spends his free time (time not spent with the kids), and doubles his consulting income? why would she be entitled to that, but he wouldn't be entitled to her plastic surgery income?
I get the point that she has "invested" in him allowing him to grow in his career (although that could be argued, as she could have been working this whole time with them paying for childcare). but it has to be a completely new/different venture, separate to anything either of them did during the marriage, for it to not be considered in spousal support?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, btw, just trying to understand this.

9/5/2012 5:42:17 PM

Quote :

" but it has to be a completely new/different venture, separate to anything either of them did during the marriage, for it to not be considered in spousal support? "

Pretty much. And the length of the marriage also matters. If he'd been doing consulting for 10+ years, and they'd been married for 3+, then it wouldn't make a big difference. But the fact is, she's likely relied on that money for the length of time he's been making it, and that's what the court is going to look to.

9/5/2012 6:19:18 PM

it just seems pretty fucked up that for the next however many years, he has to go to work every day (and in theory consulting on his free time), pay for both their living expenses (plus spending money), and the entirety of the childrens', while she continues to live the same lifestyle she did before the divorce, but only having them half the time (and less when they're in school). all the while benefitting from him going out and working even harder.

9/5/2012 6:44:17 PM

You're not getting it. She's given up the lat 8+ years of her life raising the kids instead of getting another degree, having a job of her own and saving money, and/or getting work experience/building a resume. I'd also guess that it was a mutual decision for her to do that.

Now they're divorced and she has to start all over while your friend can continue to build on his lucrative career.

It's the price of divorce and it's more fair than your biased friend's opinion is making it out to be. Maybe he should have tried harder to save the marriage or been more careful in picking his "life" partner.

9/5/2012 6:51:19 PM

Quote :

"She's given up the lat 8+ years of her life raising the kids instead of getting another degree, having a job of her own and saving money, and/or getting work experience/building a resume. "

That's one way to look at it.

9/5/2012 7:53:42 PM

What's another way, slappy?

9/5/2012 8:05:15 PM

Interesting discussion on tww


What if he were to quit his job/consulting and took a low wage job instead? is alimony a static figure or a percentage of income?

9/5/2012 8:08:04 PM

It is mostly a static figure, unless there is a serious change of condition. So, if he loses his job for a genuine reason, the number can be re-evaluated. Or if someone comes into an inheritance (mostly for child support, not alimony). But if he quits and get a lower paying job "just because", then it doesn't change his obligation. The law tries to prevent people from being dicks and just trying to screw over their former family.

9/5/2012 8:21:36 PM

^ that's where the "potential income" is designed to be applied


I'm not saying he shouldn't have to pay her anything, but family law in general, and particularly alimony and child support, are fucked up.

I've spent about $20,000 with my lawyer over the last 5 years. Child support used to be about 1/4 of my pay (for 1 child). Even now, it's $825/month even though my daughter lives with me half the time.

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 8:40 PM. Reason : His best bet would be if he could demonstrate that it isn't regular, steady income.]

9/5/2012 8:39:57 PM

There was an excellent news article a while back discussing this very issue. While I understand alimony payments are required to help sustain the mode of life the woman enjoyed I dont believe in all cases she 'gave up' 8 years of her life to raise the kids. Many times I hear the woman or man mention it's a privilege. The argument could also be made that the husband gave up 8 years without enjoying his kids as much by having to provide for his family. Maryland and a few other states require unlimited alimony payments for [i]life[i/] as required by centuries-old laws that haven't been modernized and it's a travesty in situations where common sense is overruled by outdated legal requirements.

IMHO, your friend is screwed on additional income unless maybe he could 'consult' for free with a business partner who would hold his share of the money until the payments stop at which time the partner could gift it back to your friend.

9/5/2012 9:08:46 PM

Quote :

"It's the price of divorce and it's more fair than your biased friend's opinion is making it out to be. Maybe he should have tried harder to save the marriage or been more careful in picking his "life" partner."

Alternatively, since she's the one who (free country and all that) chose not to build her resume, maybe she should have tried harder to save the marriage, rather than walking out and relying on him to support her. Presumably there are two sides to this story ...

9/5/2012 9:09:26 PM

^^^ That is pretty messed up. If she can't afford the kid on her own you should get full custody.

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 9:11 PM. Reason : too slow]

9/5/2012 9:11:27 PM

Quote :

" The argument could also be made that the husband gave up 8 years without enjoying his kids as much by having to provide for his family"

Word.

And like I said, she's been not working for eight years. Their oldest is 6. she quit her job by choice.

Additionally, he worked all day, then had to come home (usually after stopping at the grocery because she was unwilling or unable to meal plan and go to the store during the day), make dinner, clean up the house, and bathe and put his kids to bed. He was basically Mr. Mom and Mr. Dad, with a glorified daytime nanny.

I know these laws are in place to protect women from assholes, but I think a lot of them are completely antiquated and often err way too much on the side of the women.

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ...]

9/5/2012 9:21:31 PM

^

Quote :

"It's the price of divorce and it's more fair than your biased friend's opinion is making it out to be. Maybe he should have tried harder to save the marriage or been more careful in picking his "life" partner."

Fuck. That.

9/5/2012 9:43:07 PM

Yeah, that was a really dumb response

9/5/2012 9:44:15 PM

Quote :

"Additionally, he worked all day, then had to come home (usually after stopping at the grocery because she was unwilling or unable to meal plan and go to the store during the day), make dinner, clean up the house, and bathe and put his kids to bed. He was basically Mr. Mom and Mr. Dad, with a glorified daytime nanny. "

Of course, that's what he says now. But it doesn't sound like he protested too much when she quit her job to have kids... or else he probably wouldn't have agreed to have kids with his "glorified daytime nanny".

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it is designed to protect the person who makes less money and the children from the relationship. Cheating the system will get you nowhere.

Did you know the ex-wife at all? Or just the husband?

9/5/2012 9:46:47 PM

To a large extent, the person who makes less money should suck it the fuck up. There should be a little bit of help for a little while in cases where people were married for a long time and one person forewent a career or education and stuff to raise children (or something similarly benefiting the relationship).

I'm all for protecting and providing for the kids, but what's prescribed most of the time goes WAY beyond that.

9/5/2012 9:53:20 PM

I'm not trying to imply that she doesn't deserve spousal support, or that the kids shouldn't be protected. And like I said, I know the system is designed to protect women and children from assholes. But I also think it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and I also think its bullshit that she has a "right" to future potential earnings above and beyond the support the courts decide she "needs" to maintain current quality of life (or that she should be able to not work for the next 4 years while the kids are in school and he has them half the week, all the while he is working full-time...based purely on the fact that that WAS their arrangement before the divorce).

And yes, I know them both.

9/5/2012 9:53:34 PM

Exactly why I would never marry anyone who wishes to stay home full time with kids indefinitely.

9/5/2012 9:54:51 PM

I'm so sick of that shit.

"Nanny"?

Is she qualified or something? OR was she simply a baby sitter?
Was it a planned birth, or did she forget to take birth control?

A life she is accustom to? How about the evenings she received her old man's pecker?

Alimony is BS, it's like welfare, it's a great system if you want to force the people to stay down in the ditches and not have a way out. This is why I'm against marriage in all forms.

Why do homosexuals get fought so much on this whole marriage thing, if they want to be this miserable just let them. Bet they won't be so "gay" after a few of them go through divorce court.

9/5/2012 9:59:20 PM

Quote :

"I'm all for protecting and providing for the kids, but what's prescribed most of the time goes WAY beyond that."

I think that's definitely true. Part of it falls on the shoulders of family law attorneys out to scratch the eyes out of men. Part of it can be blamed on the justice system that doesn't have the time to sort out a truly equitable result for every case. And part of it falls on the idiots who are ultimately writing and enforcing the laws.

BUT, regardless of the above, you can't cut "consulting" out of the money you earn, and expect it not to be taken into consideration, when it has been a part of the household finances in the past, and is expected to be in the future. All future earnings are "anticipated". No one can guarantee they're going to have a job going forward. And to suggest setting up a corporation to prevent those assets from being considered is fraud.

And ^^^, perhaps it's in the best interest of the children to have their mother stay at home with them, and continue the status quo. Maybe it's not. But most courts will agree that maintaining status quo, in whatever manner that takes on, is the best. I've seen plenty of stay at home Dad's have their status maintained in the same fashion, so it's not *always* a gender role thing.

Interesting tidbit, for those of you contemplating marriage in NC, if you are married for less than 10 years, alimony will be awarded for half of that amount of time. Marriage for 10 or more years results in lifetime alimony (or until the lesser earning spouse remarries).

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 10:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2012 9:59:29 PM

No offense duke, but your situation is completely different. I sympathize with you, but a lot of out of wedlock kids are screwed, and the system tries to prevent that. Alternatively, if you truly have split custody, then i dont think you should be paying that much. You might want to shop around for a different attorney.

As for slappy...I'm sure your friend does it all...makes the money, raises the kids, blah blah. He lives across the country, I'm sure you know everything that has happened in their marriage. Everybody always blows themselves up and makes the other person look like Satan reincarnated....especially in divorces.

I've heard it all..from both sides. I've got a female client right now who is losing primary custody and having to pay out the ass for child support and she can barely pay her bills as a secretary. Our first meeting she described herself as mother fuckin theresa. But the truth finally came out and turns out she's made some dumb mistakes. And although I think she is a good mom and a better parent than the dad, she's done bad things in the eyes of the family court and will face the consequences.

Bottom line is that although family law is not perfect, it's not that bad and it's not completely geared towards the moms either. If you fuck up and are in the wrong, the courts will figure it out. And if all things are equal, the mom will have the better shot, but the courts will mainly make sure the kids are taken care of. Your friend might say he will pay for this and pay for that...but so would every person when forced with mandatory child support. I would say that less than half would pay if it wasn't court mandated (this is from seeing so many parents magically come up with child support when faced with jail time).

Your friend seems to be extremely successful. I think he'll be fine and his kids well provided for. Tell him to be focused on being a good dad instead of hiding his assets from the court...it will work out better in the end.

9/5/2012 10:09:40 PM

Quote :

" I would say that less than half would pay if it wasn't court mandated (this is from seeing so many parents magically come up with child support when faced with jail time)."

Yep... NC is one of the few states that doesn't garnish wages for child support, and I don't know how many people I have seen with liens upwards of $20k in back due child support.

9/5/2012 10:16:04 PM

Can you put stuff overseas?

tax havens...etc?

9/5/2012 10:24:55 PM

Quote :

"No offense duke, but your situation is completely different. I sympathize with you, but a lot of out of wedlock kids are screwed, and the system tries to prevent that. Alternatively, if you truly have split custody, then i dont think you should be paying that much. You might want to shop around for a different attorney."

How is it different? A woman and I who are not married to each other have a child. The only difference between a divorced couple and us is that alimony and division of mutual assets were never a consideration.

Quote :

"I've got a female client right now"

What? You're a family law attorney and believe that It's the price of divorce and it's more fair than your biased friend's opinion is making it out to be. Maybe he should have tried harder to save the marriage or been more careful in picking his "life" partner?

The system really is fucked.

Quote :

"If you fuck up and are in the wrong, the courts will figure it out."

Maybe. I could write a book about the fucked up stuff my ex pulled; what finally got me equal custody was a change in FL law, not all the shit she pulled. I would have eventually probably gotten it by continuing to take her to court, but it would have take more years and tens of thousands of dollars. Not everybody can do that on just a hope that they win in the end.

Quote :

"Your friend seems to be extremely successful. I think he'll be fine and his kids well provided for. "

Sure, I mean I've always done fine even with my ex collecting money for nothing. That doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. The child support amounts I've been mandated to pay effectively have me paying for everything for my daughter, with my ex pocketing $100-200 per month on top of that.

Quote :

"I would say that less than half would pay if it wasn't court mandated"

Anecdotal, I know, but I created a secondary checking account, started putting money in it, and gave my ex full access to it months before my daughter was even born, let alone before she saw those dollar signs and decided to sue me for child support. I asked that she put $50/month into the account; I think she did it once.

9/5/2012 10:32:09 PM

^^^ Would a post-nup hold up against the lifetime alimony?

9/5/2012 10:32:29 PM

^It really depends on whether or not it's "equitable". The court will nullify a post-nup (or pre-nup) that isn't fair to both parties, or if one party ends up being destitute because of the divorce. There isn't really an ironclad way to prevent alimony.

9/5/2012 10:39:13 PM

I don't consider myself a family law attorney...I hate that shit.

But I worked for one of the best and I'll take a few cases to get me through the slow months. Mostly uncontested to lightly contested stuff. I don't have it in me to go through a knock down drag out divorce.

And duke...I said it wasn't perfect. Most guys in your situation drop the ball...and the courts are there to make them pick it up. Sucks that they've seem to have overdone it a bit. I'll still go out on a limb (not knowing the details) and say that her attorney did a much better job than yours.

9/5/2012 10:44:03 PM

Quote :

"There isn't really an ironclad way to prevent alimony."

Oh yes there is.

Quote :

"And duke...I said it wasn't perfect. Most guys in your situation drop the ball...and the courts are there to make them pick it up. Sucks that they've seem to have overdone it a bit. I'll still go out on a limb (not knowing the details) and say that her attorney did a much better job than yours."

I'm arguing against the amount. The system could work exactly the same, except with reasonable, defensible dollar amounts.

...and actually, in the 2 times I've been to court and 2 times to mediation, I have won EVERY contested issue, except that I conceded the specific parenting schedule at the last mediation, once she agreed to 50/50 custody (I wanted 1 week on, 1 week off; I agreed to her convoluted plan of getting the time evenly split).

Child support is formulaic. Both of our incomes are very clear-cut. The problem there is FL law.

[Edited on September 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM. Reason : I make about triple what she does]

9/5/2012 11:01:36 PM

Quote :

" Oh yes there is. "

Maybe so, but I'm beyond the point of no return in that regard.

9/5/2012 11:32:16 PM

I don't think you understood what he meant

9/5/2012 11:42:15 PM

Haha, i didn't mean to make a broad disappear

9/5/2012 11:46:37 PM

haha, guess i was the one who didn't understand

9/5/2012 11:49:31 PM

I guess that would work too, but as they say, an ounce of prevention is better than 230 grains of cure.

9/5/2012 11:54:48 PM

lol

9/6/2012 12:13:51 AM

Quote :

"The problem there is FL law."

True.

9/6/2012 6:34:33 AM

Quote :

"Sure, I mean I've always done fine even with my ex collecting money for nothing. That doesn't mean it isn't fucked up. The child support amounts I've been mandated to pay effectively have me paying for everything for my daughter, with my ex pocketing $100-200 per month on top of that. "

Just curious, but were you using any sort of protection when banging this bitch? I used to work with a guy that had kids from three different women, was constantly complaining about his child support getting eaten up, but then would say "real men" don't use condoms I wouldn't be surprised if he has another kid or two by now with different women. I feel little sympathy for people who don't insure themselves from getting screwed by family court in the first place but if the condom breaks then it's just shitty luck.

9/6/2012 9:34:53 AM

without going into too much detail, his attorney just talked to hers. apparently, they (and the 3rd party co-parenting counselor they've been seeing) are in agreement that she is completely emotionally unstable. her attorney's office said in so many words that if they can't get her "under control" they are going to dismiss her as a client.

we're still not sure who is paying for her legal fees, but that would be a financial mess if she had to start over. when my friend asked his attorney a few days ago about the cost issue, he just said the fees need to be equitable, ie one party can't go out and get some johnnie cochran while the other gets a court appointed dildo. but not sure if this will come out of her "allowance", or if both of their legal fees will be considered a joint liability and split down the middle (but even then, will she have to pay that debt? or does he have to foot that bill too?)

[Edited on September 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ...]

9/6/2012 12:54:45 PM

Sounds like her attorney is an unethical dick.

9/6/2012 12:57:23 PM

well, I'm definitely paraphrasing here.


and I'm guessing they're basing this on the volume and content of emails and phone calls they've been receiving, much like what my friend and the co-parenting counselor receive and/or are copied on. all I can picture is the counselor and the attorney's office just rolling their eyes or laughing every time they get an email ping.

I shouldn't have said that her attorney SAID she's emotionally unstable, but it sounds like that is the general consensus (this was brought up in regards to a temporary custody agreement, not just shooting the shit about a client).

[Edited on September 6, 2012 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ...]

9/6/2012 12:58:53 PM

Quote :

"all I can picture is the counselor and the attorney's office just rolling their eyes or laughing every time they get an email ping. "

i.e. what family law attorneys do 90% of the time they get an email.


What was the cause of the divorce, btw?

[Edited on September 6, 2012 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2012 1:04:34 PM

he fell out of love with her for plenty of tangible reasons, but was trying to "stick it out" for the kids. realized that was not in anyones' best interest in the long term. she didn't take the news very well, although it's been a long time coming. they had been going to therapy on and off for years, making no progress, resentment building, etc. They had not been physically intimate more than a handful of times in the last couple years. it was just an all-around really sad situation, and is getting sadder (for her) by the day.

[Edited on September 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM. Reason : ...]

9/6/2012 1:10:06 PM

That does sound sad for all of them involved. But it's really bad for her attorney to make comments on her mental state, regardless of whether he is presently representing her, or if she's a past client.

9/6/2012 1:22:46 PM

set em up

9/6/2012 1:46:33 PM