OT: Any divorce lawyers out there?

[News Man]

I got divorced about 1 1/2 years ago. My wife and I settled without going to court. We could not come to terms on how to split the assets. I offered 200K and she came back with 300K. Eventually I asked why do you think you should get 300K, its more than half. She said that 200K was fine with her, but her lawyer wanted 300K. We both wanted to settle on good terms so I asked why she did not just tell her lawyer that 200K was ok. She said she was scared of her lawyer because her mom was paying the bill and she didn't have the courage to override. I told her well it looks like we are not going to be able to settle then. She said I have an idea, let's put 300K in the agreement and I will just give you 100K back. So that is what we did, I paid her 300K she paid me 100K.

Fast forward to today where she now has spent all of her money and she said that she is talking to a lawyer about getting the other 100K I owe her.

What should I do? She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. All I have on my side are the canceled checks and the truth. Should I consider trying to settle? Help.

[e-RICHIE]

What should I do? She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. All I have on my side are the canceled checks and the truth. Should I consider trying to settle? Help.
atmo -


http://www.ximtc.net/home/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/knot-hangmans-noose-black-backdrop-18mm-manila-1-ajhd.jpg

[AgilisMerlin]

.

[Frank]

What should I do? She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. All I have on my side are the canceled checks and the truth. Should I consider trying to settle? Help.

Get a local lawyer. This is too important to rely on internet advice and opinion.

[J.Greene]

Fixed can get you out of this. He knew how to handle the lawyer in his firm without getting screwed.

JG

[avalonracing]

Get a local lawyer. This is too important to rely on internet advice and opinion.


+1 !!!!!!!

[J.Greene]

200k in a year and a half.............. :beer:


is this going to turn into a POLITICAL thread ?

she'll be selling wheels in the classifieds soon.

JG

[SoCalSteve]

I got divorced about 1 1/2 years ago. My wife and I settled without going to court. We could not come to terms on how to split the assets. I offered 200K and she came back with 300K. Eventually I asked why do you think you should get 300K, its more than half. She said that 200K was fine with her, but her lawyer wanted 300K. We both wanted to settle on good terms so I asked why she did not just tell her lawyer that 200K was ok. She said she was scared of her lawyer because her mom was paying the bill and she didn't have the courage to override. I told her well it looks like we are not going to be able to settle then. She said I have an idea, let's put 300K in the agreement and I will just give you 100K back. So that is what we did, I paid her 300K she paid me 100K.

Fast forward to today where she now has spent all of her money and she said that she is talking to a lawyer about getting the other 100K I owe her.

What should I do? She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. All I have on my side are the canceled checks and the truth. Should I consider trying to settle? Help.

Offer her your place in the E-Richie or Vanilla queue, that should cover it...

Just sayin'

Steve

[stevep]

sorry about yr trouble man.
bright side is yr out.

[e-RICHIE]

hey was this locked a minute agomo?

[chuckred]

?

[Pete Serotta]

This is too important for you to rely on advice from the internet. A lot depends on the agreement that you signed when you got a divorce. (It is/was a contract and the wording and obligations listed there are the basis of any action.)


Good luck, but a local lawyer that you can trust might save you grief down the road for you do not want to go down this path with her again. (for it might be just one stop along a very long path)

[Chris]

$300K was in the agreement and you paid her that? Paying you back $100K was not in the agreement and she did? Sounds cut and dry to me. The agreement was what you would give her, not what she would do with the money. Whether she blew it on you, or bikini waxes she blew it. Too bad so sad. Of course you can sue someone for anything, so I agree with others, get an attorney, but this is not one I would sweat.

[girlie]

I don't know the law but can Internet threads be used in the legal settling of this discrepancy?

Just curious?

[News Man]

I know its too important and will certainly get a local lawyer, but I have received pretty damn good advice from this forum so I thought it might be worth a shot just to tide me over until I can speak with a local attorney.

[J.Greene]

Can you post a picture of her so we have a frame of reference?

JG

[Pete Serotta]

Do not say or offer anything until you know in writing what she wants and why she feels she should have it. Then do not say anything to her (about it) until you talk to lawyer, then you will know best case, worst case, and most likely (outcome) case. Also factor into this what you would like the outcome to be.... Present this to lawyer also and see where you go from here.


Net, is that you want this to be as iron clad agreement from this point forward. What you give her as a gift is your business but a gift is done willingly not by a legal demand.

Good luck, Take your divorce agreement, with what she is requesting - and head to a good attorney to validate the contract and terms that the two of you agreed on.

I know its too important and will certainly get a local lawyer, but I have received pretty damn good advice from this forum so I thought it might be worth a shot just to tide me over until I can speak with a local attorney.

[Ginger]

I'm no lawyer...but you need one.

What I'd say from the common sense ***** point of view is:
If you have a divorce decree that says you needed to pay her 300k and you paid her 300k, and have the canceled checks to prove it. I believe that ends any the discussion of the 100k she gave you back to be any part of the divorce settlement.

If you had no contract on the 100k? No papers, no agreement...the 100k was a gift from her to you.
:)

You'll need a lawyer when she sends hers after you...but before that, she's just making threats to get the cash without making any expenditures.

Of course, don't gifts over a certain amount come in to some sort of taxation??? May have to redo the taxes.

[Sandy]

There obviously exists a written divorce settlement.
There was an agreement between you and your wife and actions by both seemingly not done in writing.

This is too important of a matter to receive advice here, even from divorce lawyers who might frequent this forum, as no one here knows the specifics of the divorce settlement or the precise implications of what happened after the settlement was signed.

I would say (and I guess this is advice):

1. Settle nothing.
2. Stop talking to your ex-wife about it immediately.
3. Put nothing in writing.
4. Stop discussing it on this forum or on any other forum.
5. IMMEDIATELY SEE A DIVORCE LAWYER IN YOUR AREA!!!! IMMEDIATELY!


Sandy

[J.Greene]

I hope she posts here so we can read the other side of the story.

JG

[Ginger]

Would he need a divorce lawyer? Divorce is final, no? Yes? He made all payments? Yes?

As far as the legal document of the divorce goes, he'd have fulfilled his requirements? Yes no?

Sandy's right. Don't talk to her anymore about it until she sends a lawyer.
Then let your lawyer talk to her lawyer.

[Sandy]

I know its too important and will certainly get a local lawyer, but I have received pretty damn good advice from this forum so I thought it might be worth a shot just to tide me over until I can speak with a local attorney.

It seems as if no matter the topic, advice here is normally excellent as we tend to have so many geuinely helpful knowlegeable people here. However, you are talking about an obvious potential legal situation and everything that you say here is part of a "written record" and very easily could/would be used later against you. I strongly believe (not a lawyer) that you should not say anything additional herein about the situation. Read the responses but add absolutely nothing.


Sandy

[Frankwurst]

Get a damn good local lawyer. :beer:

[swoop]

butch's thread where he gets the free pancetti=campy
this thread=shimano

[e-RICHIE]

<snip> However, you are talking about an obvious potential legal situation and everything that you say here is part of a "written record" and very easily could/would be used later against you. <cut>


Sandy
if that's the case, he should edit his comment atmo -

"She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. "

[AgilisMerlin]

.
.

[girlie]

I hope she posts here so we can read the other side of the story.

JG

What should I do? She has never been overly honest so I am sure she is willing to lie. All I have on my side are the canceled checks and the truth. Should I consider trying to settle? Help.

It sounds like a bad situation though.
But there are always 2 sides....and I have to ask News Man. If she has never been very honest why would you ever think she would give the 100K back in the first place......and how long where you married....wouldn't you know if she has a spending problem....and why even take the chance and go there?
Now if all of this story is true - I am sincerely sorry...but I don't know you....so I can't feel ya on this one.

[Jack Brunk]

I'm with Mary Ann on this one. She's the fool for giving the money back to him.

[michael white]

the best family lawyer in town has been around a long long time, preferably plays golf with the judge, and is ridiculously expensive. that's the one.

the judge makes the settlement, no one else. you don't **** around with the law. end of story.

[Sandy]

I'm with Mary Ann on this one. She's the fool for giving the money back to him.

Why is she a fool for giving the money back to him? That was their agreement. She could have been considered a lot worse if she did not.


Sandy

[girlie]

Why is she a fool for giving the money back to him? That was their agreement. She could have been considered a lot worse if she did not.
Sandy

Who cares if you're "considered a lot worse" if you have 100K?
That statement is a bit naive.

[Samster]

sounds like a tough situation. i hope you get through it whole.

good luck with it.

[Fixed]

Peter Scaglione Jr., Esq.
cheers

[e-RICHIE]

Peter Scaglione Jr., Esq.
cheers
i heartmo (http://www.divorcesource.com/FL/DS/scaglione.html) google atmo


http://www.divorcesource.com/CLIENTART/scaglione.gif

[News Man]

It sounds like a bad situation though.
But there are always 2 sides....and I have to ask News Man. If she has never been very honest why would you ever think she would give the 100K back in the first place......and how long where you married....wouldn't you know if she has a spending problem....and why even take the chance and go there?
Now if all of this story is true - I am sincerely sorry...but I don't know you....so I can't feel ya on this one.

Actually there really are not two sides. She agrees that this was our agreement as evidenced by not asking for the 100k for this long. She has told me that she will say that she was emotional at the time and gave the money back in hopes that we would get back together and hope for sympathy.

I was married for 4 years and she literally spent every penny I made and I made a lot of pennies. That is the principal reason we divorced.

In fact the event that put this over the top for her was that she spent her last 40K joining a local country club.

Oh and it is the truth.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . and say nothing else here.

BBD

[coylifut]

Of course, don't gifts over a certain amount come in to some sort of taxation??? May have to redo the taxes.

it reduces the amount she can give a way tax free at her death by 88k, but at the rate she's going, there'll be nothing to pass on.

[oldguy00]

IMHO, you are screwed due to the original legal agreement you made, and if you fight it, you'll end up giving her the 100k plus a lot more money on a lawyer to find out why you need to give her the 100k.
Hope it works out for ya, thats a cruddy situation.

[e-RICHIE]

thread of the century atmo

[Fixed]

IMHO, you are screwed due to the original legal agreement you made, and if you fight it, you'll end up giving her the 100k plus a lot more money on a lawyer to find out why you need to give her the 100k.
Hope it works out for ya, thats a cruddy situation.
+1

[girlie]

Not 2-sides...I already don't like the sound of that......because these situations are usually more complicated than black and white...especially since you seem to make $ and that was probably on the table before you got married.

Was it for love or was it an agreement of two adults who looked good together. Basically I am saying.....there are all different kinds of marriage situations....we don't know the entire story.....so I can't feel ya.

We don't know what she sacrificed in the marriage and or what you told her you would provide for her once you got married. How honest you were with her during the marriage. These things are more complicated and involve feelings and intimate issues. I'm not buying you are so innocent. AGAIN IF I AM WRONG THE BEST TO YOU though wrong is a subjective term.

[Buzz]

Two agreements, one written, one oral. The oral one is to void the intent of the written one by giving money back because someone didn't want to offend mom and the lawyer? Huh? Kinda odd. Never heard of something like this. Is it really a surprise that it didn't work out?

[swoop]

was there any sort of backyard fence or dog in the agreement? i'm just askin'

[andy mac]

did anyone see the reality show 'the real housewives of orange county'?

riveting b00b-job train wreck tv!


http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/bravo-the-real-housewives-of-orange-county-premiere-march-21-3897.php

good luck. hang in there.

andy.

[rwsaunders]

A verbal agreement is worth the paper that it's written on. Best of luck.

[AgilisMerlin]

.

[swoop]

lemme take a crack.
the settlement was for 300. you paid 300.
she offered you 100 because she felt her lawyer pressured you into over paying.
you accept.
she comes back after spending it all asking for that 100k.

this is already a mess. you guys both have boundary issues. this isn't the right place for this. call your lawyer.

boundaries are your friend. some people grow up thinking love is the absence of boundaries. this will go on and on ad infinitum until one of you asserts a heathy concrete boundary. otherwise its divorce without real emotional separation.

talk to your laywer. decide if your going to help. make a contract. get into therapy and look into boundary stuff. read the drama of the gifted child.

luck.
(read this with a judge judy voice).

[Ginger]

Why is she a fool for giving the money back to him? That was their agreement. She could have been considered a lot worse if she did not.


Sandy

But you see, she didn't have to give him anything back.

Supposedly the divorce decree said: He pays her 300k

he paid it.

That is as far as I can see, the end of the divorce decree story

...except perhaps if she gets in with some lawyer who says she was pressured into giving back the money. In which case I think that goes from civil to criminal? Isn't signing a contract to pay a certain amount, then take a kickback some sort of fraud on someone's part?

So...she may have been foolish to give him the 100k, but he may have been more foolish to take it.

Hey Newsman...get yourself to a lawyer and quick!

[Fixed]

did u run over her bike ?
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=497730&postcount=81

[dekindy]

Ask the forum to delete this thread before it gets archived, if that is possible. You are more kinds of dumb than I can count for discussing it here. :crap:

[myette10]

Has anyone here suggested that she sell a kidney yet? Am I showing a lack of forum saavy by not referencing a more recent topic?

Actually, I think you should approach her lawyer and begin the conversation with something like "my faceless aquaintences on the serotta cycling forum said that I should..."

Just poking fun here, but SP is right... this is serious biz and speaking to a trusted lawyer is probably the best advice anyone could give.

bonne chance -

[Sandy]

Who cares if you're "considered a lot worse" if you have 100K?
That statement is a bit naive.

I guess this will make me sound more naive- It is called honesty, ethics, and integrity. The true measure of a person is not what he has (say $100k) but his or her word. Clearly you don't understand that. Clearly that is sad.


Sandy

PS- I am far from naive. I am 67 years old and ran a business for many years. Nothing surprises me about people. I have seen a lot in my life.

[J.Greene]

Ask the forum to delete this thread before it gets archived, if that is possible. You are more kinds of dumb than I can count for discussing it here. :crap:

Buzzkill!

JG

[jerk]

ith people like you as potential clients, the whole retainer thing makes alot of sense. no judge in their right mind is not going to see some coercion present in an exwife gifting her exhusband 100k after a divorce settlement just forced him to give her 300.

you're frucked bub and could quite possibly face criminal charges no matter how good your intentions were. at best, you are guilty if stupidity at worst your liable for circumventing a court order and perverting the course of justice.

take all this with a grain of salt, this is the interweb afterall.


jerk

[jerk]

sorry about the double post and bad grammar and spelling. iphone keys and auto correct are worse than gold digging ex wives.

jerk

[SoCalSteve]

ith people like you as potential clients, the whole retainer thing makes alot of sense. no judge in their right mind is not going to see some coercion present in an exwife gifting her exhusband 100k after a divorce settlement just forced him to give her 300.

you're frucked bub and could quite possibly face criminal charges no matter how good your intentions were. at best, you are guilty of stupidity at worst your liable for circumventing a court order and perverting the course of justice.

take all this with a grain of salt, this is the interweb afterall.


jerk

I think you need the "Jerk" to represent you...

Jerk for President!

Just sayin'

Steve

[Jack Brunk]

Jerks the man!

[girlie]

I guess this will make me sound more naive- It is called honesty, ethics, and integrity. The true measure of a person is not what he has (say $100k) but his or her word. Clearly you don't understand that. Clearly that is sad.


Sandy

PS- I am far from naive. I am 67 years old and ran a business for many years. Nothing surprises me about people. I have seen a lot in my life.

You miss the point DEAR Sandy. I said that statement was a bit naive.
My minor (yes just a minor) in college was Moral Inquiry/Political Philosophy. So ethics and honesty is something I hold very dear.
We are speaking of contemporary society and issues...not the Bible or Moral Philosophy. And for that your statement about her being considered more than a fool, as if she would care, I do consider to be a bit naive.
Oh and your judgment of me as a person I take strong offense to. I merely judged your statement.

[dirtdigger88]

Back to the OP-

post nude pix of your ex all over the internet- drum up some interest in her

then start SELLING the pix once the folks have a taste-

you will get that 100k back in a flash . . . or at least I think you will

just try it

jason

[Sandy]

First, I said "..she could be considered a lot worse if she did not." Certainly she probably would not care too much if she had the ethics not to do what she agreed to do. I was clearly saying what I think that she actually would be, not if she would care one way or the other. Not her perception or her concern but the reality of what she would be. I would have thought that would be clear to you.

Jack had said that she was a fool for giving the money back to him.

You stated-

"Who cares if you're "considered a lot worse" if you have 100K?"
"That statement is a bit naive."


I read your two statements and thought the second simply referred to the only other one you wrote- the first, indicating, I thought, that you might not really care what others thought if you had the 100k. Obviously, I misunderstood what I thought that you said as you were talking about what her feelings or concerns would be, not yours in the same situation.

My statement was directed to what I clearly, at the time, thought what you meant, and not from her perspective. You have corrected that misunderstanding so I owe you an apology. I thought I understood what you were saying. I did not.

I am sorry that I stated what I said as I did not really understand what you said, especially in the sequence of what had been said prior in the thread.

SORRY!


Sincerely Sorry Sandy

[girlie]

Sandy,
I can understand misunderstanding though the judgment from you is a bit much.....even if you were correct in assuming what you did.
It was a blow and at my person...even if I have different morals than yourself- YOU ARE NOT THE GOD OR JUDGE OF PROPER BEHAVIOR.
That being said......

Thank you kindly for your apology.
Best,
the girlie

[Sandy]

Sandy,
I can understand misunderstanding though the judgment from you is a bit much.....even if you were correct in assuming what you did.
It was a blow and at my person...even if I have different morals than yourself- YOU ARE NOT THE GOD OR JUDGE OF PROPER BEHAVIOR.
That being said......

Thank you kindly for your apology.
Best,
the girlie

You make a great point. I do have a value system as we all do. I sometimes make judgements about people when certain aspects within their value system seem genuinely in conflict with what I consider important. I lost a friend because of such and there is nothing that I can do about it. I miss that friendship. Her friendship meant a great deal to me. I learned that one has to be sensitive to the differences in people- their focus, agendas, perceptions, experience, time allocation, moral attitudes, uniqueness,....

I just totally misunderstood what you were saying. I am no judge of anything or anybody. Just one speck of sand in Serottaville. I often am too direct and too open in my thinking here. Sometimes people do not like that. I understand that. I post less and less here partially because of that.

Sorry if I temporarly hijacked the thread as we went off the focus of the initial post.


Sandy

[girlie]

Sandy,
Did you just make that story up ;)
It fits so well:)

Best,
girlie

[Sandy]

Didn't make it up. I have had two very hurtful experiences in my life- both with cyclists. My value system is not shared by the other person. I learned that if I ever am given a second chance with her, which I doubt, I must be more sensitive to precisely what I stated- more senstive to her focus, her agenda, her time allocation, her needs, her perceptions, and her values. In addition, and most importantly, I must not be as sensitive to what people say to me.


Sandy

PS- Will you marry me???? :) As old as I am, I might die soon and you might inherit the 100k. If my wife finds out about it, you both might inherit 100k, real soon! If the IRS found out that I was married to both of you, I might wind up in jail. Lots of possibilities!! :rolleyes: :)

[IXXI]

Like stevep said, you're out-- though I thought he meant you're a year out (from being done with the settlement).

In my situation (year 3 of 4!!!!) there's nothing very settled about the settlement, especially if there are kids in the equation. One of you is freaked out and thinks money will make it all better. So nothing's settled for them. You...just...keep...pedaling. Do get a legal eagle on your side; sorry we couldnt be of more help.

But you do find yourself again and that's worth a lot.

[girlie]

Sandy

PS- Will you marry me???? :)

No Sandy,
You're way to nice for me.

No more I'm outta here.
Again Best,
girlie

[girlie]

PS- Will you marry me???? :) As old as I am, I might die soon and you might inherit the 100k. If my wife finds out about it, you both might inherit 100k, real soon! If the IRS found out that I was married to both of you, I might wind up in jail. Lots of possibilities!! :rolleyes: :)

Now you are learning....little tougher....little meaner....now you're moving.
Sandy Best EDIT of a post EVER!

ok now I'm really 'honestly' outta here.

[William]

Ok, I know exactly what you need to do in this situation. First, I’ll need to charge you 300 G’s to retain me to solve this problem for you. In actuality, I only need 19.95, the first figure is for tax purposes. Write me the check and I’ll return the $299, 980.05 to you as soon as I can.




William

http://forums.hostileintent.org/style_emoticons/emoticons/ninja.gif


PS: Who wants’ to sell their places in the RS and Vanilla line? Mike, you know what I like. Ergott, build me the best wheels you’ve got….

Really, I would take this to PM’s if I were you.

[soulspinner]

Im married to a very good trial attorney who does this everyday in court. Stop putting anything that even remotely could be litigated on the net. Get a good matrimonial lawyer now.

[Elefantino]

Wouldn't it be funny if this were all made up?

I mean, think about it.

If not, then I agree with Jerk. You're screwed. And you'd better hope you declared the $100k to the IRS or you'll be Fat Tony's love ***** in the prison shower.

Pete, if you don't either a) lock this thread or b) delete it all together, then we are all compliant in watching a man self-immolate.

[Ti Designs]

Let's see if I have this right. Get a divorce, can't come to any conclusions on what your assets are, her parents pay for her lawyer, you settle on $300K with a kickback of $100K (it's a Lee Iacoca ploy - buy a divorce, get a check. Sold millions of cars a few decades ago). She spends something like $120K/year, runs out of money and returns to the well.

This is why I don't watch daytime TV...

[Ti Designs]

YOU ARE NOT THE GOD OR JUDGE OF PROPER BEHAVIOR.

It's an internet forum, EVERYBODY is the god or judge of proper behavior, 'cept for me...

[harlond]

ith people like you as potential clients, the whole retainer thing makes alot of sense.Retainers make sense with a lot of clients, but I can't see anything about the OP's post that indicates he especially should be charged one.

no judge in their right mind is not going to see some coercion present in an exwife gifting her exhusband 100k after a divorce settlement just forced him to give her 300.

you're frucked bub and could quite possibly face criminal charges no matter how good your intentions were. at best, you are guilty if stupidity at worst your liable for circumventing a court order and perverting the course of justice.

take all this with a grain of salt, this is the interweb afterall.


jerkI agree that it was imprudent of the OP to enter into this agreement, and of course, there could always be additional facts that carry the matter into the realm of the criminal. However, I am not sure what facts you see in the OP's posts that lead to the conclusion that the OP is up the creek or could face criminal charges. Again, not saying there couldn't be some, but I don't see them so far.

To the OP, while you are right that there is a wealth of talent and knowledge on this board, none of it, even that of the lawyers, is worth anything without a complete disclosure of the facts. You can't do that in a one-paragraph post and you should do it only to your lawyer. Which is just another way of saying that the only advice worth listening to here is the advice to consult with a lawyer.

[Dave B]

If you do not give any name on the internet (wife in this case) would you still be guilty of liable? I guess I understand how the mention of said person would be inferred, but unless you said the person by name, it might be any number of ex-wives someone might have had.

Let us say the OP has had 10 wives with similiar settlements. Could he be as "up the creek" becuase he could be refering to any number of them.

Just curious. legally speaking. :rolleyes:

Still I am sure glad this is not my problem!

[e-RICHIE]

Let us say the OP has had 10 wives!
the OP had had 10 wives atmo.
next -

[rphetteplace]

the OP had had 10 wives atmo.
next -

ERICHIE=GOLDDIGGER

[MilanoTom]

A verbal agreement is worth the paper that it's written on. Best of luck.

Oral contracts can be as enforceable as written ones (with exceptions, such as real estate contracts, that must be in writing). The difficulty comes with proving the terms of the contract. Every jurisdiction has its own rules on the evidence required.

I was bemused by the number of people who started their posts with "see an attorney" and then proceeded to give advice based on their own opinions on the case. I've been licensed to practice for close to 23 years, but since I haven't done any domestic/family/divorce work for about 21 years, the last thing I would do is give advice in that area. Yes, I have my opinion, but it would be somewhat harsh, and I don't think you'd want to hear it. Suffice it to say that one way attorneys make a living is to clean up the messes that are caused by the bright ideas of their clients.

Yes, you need to see an attorney, but to make the visit worth your while, you need to not let your opinions be colored by any of the advice you've read on this thread. Unfortunately, brilliance in one field (or brilliance in general) does not translate to any sort of instinctive brilliance in the legal field.

As a lesson for the rest of us, there are a few reasons that we hire lawyers in divorce matters. First, they are the only ones familiar with "the process" enough to get the client through it. They are also negotiators who understand the rights of the parties involved. Possibly most important, they are counselors (hence the long-used term "counselor at law") who can assist their clients in making rational decisions when those clients have far too much of a personal stake to make those decisions without that assistance. Sometimes that means settling a client down and asking "what do you really want out of the case?" when the client hasn't really thought about it. Yes, the client is the boss, but it's a lawyer's job to help the client make decisions that make sense.

I wish you well, and hope that the matter can be resolved equitably.

Tom

[JohnS]

There wasn't any wiggle room between 200K and 300K?

[onekgguy]

Maybe I see this differently. The divorce was an entirely separate agreement from the decision to give you 100k. She's an adult and needs to live with her decisions. She has no more right to come after you for the 100k she gave you than she has to go after the country club for the 40k she gave them.

Kevin g

[HSG Racer]

If it's not in writing or recorded anywhere then the agreement is generally not legally binding unless perhaps there was a witness and even then it could be difficult to prove. These things happen all of the time in divorce proceedings. Verbal agreements are done all of the time but lawyers know that they really don't mean anything. The judge will most likely not make a decision either way. Divorce judges more often than not would prefer that these types of arrangements be settled out of court.

You are going to have to pay substantial legal fees to get this money back, possibly more than what she actually owes you. The best thing to do in most of these cases is to cut the line and stop pouring money into an endless hole. The only winners in these cases are the lawyers. ATMO - Just learn the lesson and cut your losses. The more you get wrapped up in this situation, the more money it will cost you and the more frustrated you will become.

[davids]

lemme take a crack.
the settlement was for 300. you paid 300.
she offered you 100 because she felt her lawyer pressured you into over paying.
you accept.
she comes back after spending it all asking for that 100k.

this is already a mess. you guys both have boundary issues. this isn't the right place for this. call your lawyer.I couldn't agree more.

[gt6267a]

This smells something fierce. The pie was about 400k. So this guy cuts a deal giving an extra quarter of the pie to a soon-to-be-random chick and expects her to give that quarter back to him for giggles. No contract just because she is a nice girl. Then in some whack reality she does it. OMG. Somewhere an accountant just bought a Mercedes and a lawyer is about to buy a condo at the lake. Why did the chain of sillyness occur? Because she is afraid of her own lawyer? Dude, that is such BS. There is a back story, a not-just-her-side-but-some-other-craziness-story, something to this. A person doesn’t just give up a quarter of a non-trivial net worth because a soon-to-be-random chick makes up some BS about her mom and a lawyer. Why didn’t the OPs divorce lawyer take care of this? Please don’t tell me the OPs lawyer thought this was cool. Maybe the OP just got crazy played, but my spidey sense says there is more to this and its not just about the wife.

[e-RICHIE]

track bikes are friggin' coolmo.

[Tom Byrnes]

Oral contracts can be as enforceable as written ones (with exceptions, such as real estate contracts, that must be in writing). The difficulty comes with proving the terms of the contract. Every jurisdiction has its own rules on the evidence required.

I was bemused by the number of people who started their posts with "see an attorney" and then proceeded to give advice based on their own opinions on the case. I've been licensed to practice for close to 23 years, but since I haven't done any domestic/family/divorce work for about 21 years, the last thing I would do is give advice in that area. Yes, I have my opinion, but it would be somewhat harsh, and I don't think you'd want to hear it. Suffice it to say that one way attorneys make a living is to clean up the messes that are caused by the bright ideas of their clients.

Yes, you need to see an attorney, but to make the visit worth your while, you need to not let your opinions be colored by any of the advice you've read on this thread. Unfortunately, brilliance in one field (or brilliance in general) does not translate to any sort of instinctive brilliance in the legal field.

As a lesson for the rest of us, there are a few reasons that we hire lawyers in divorce matters. First, they are the only ones familiar with "the process" enough to get the client through it. They are also negotiators who understand the rights of the parties involved. Possibly most important, they are counselors (hence the long-used term "counselor at law") who can assist their clients in making rational decisions when those clients have far too much of a personal stake to make those decisions without that assistance. Sometimes that means settling a client down and asking "what do you really want out of the case?" when the client hasn't really thought about it. Yes, the client is the boss, but it's a lawyer's job to help the client make decisions that make sense.

I wish you well, and hope that the matter can be resolved equitably.


Tom

I agree with MilanoTom. I have been an attorney for almost 32 years.

See a reputable, local attorney and bring with you whatever documents and records you have to show what your assets and resources were worth at the time you and your ex-wife divided your community property.

Hopefully, you can find an equitable solution.

Good luck.

Tom

[Kurt]

I agree with MilanoTom. I have been an attorney for almost 32 years.

See a reputable, local attorney and bring with you whatever documents and records you have to show what your assets and resources were worth at the time you and your ex-wife divided your community property.

Hopefully, you can find an equitable solution.

Good luck.

Tom

I just did a copy/paste to Jo and this is what she said:

"They're both idiots. I don't know about Florida, but there are certain disclosures required to be made by spouses. Why didn't they do that? Or do discovery and provide documents to each other under penalty of perjury? Didn't they have a marital settlement agreement and/or judgment that specified what each was to take from the marital estate? Obviously they did not draft their settlement papers correctly because, if they had, Wife could not come back for more absent a showing of fraud or omitted assets. That's what people get when they represent themselves. So now Husband will probably spend far more in fees to extricate himself from the mess than if he just had a lawyer represent him in the divorce who could have properly done discovery or, at least, drafted the settlement papers to show what each spouse was being awarded in assets from the marital estate. Stupid."

This is my wonderful other half, high end divorce atty for 28+ years. This wonderful piece of advise would have just cost you $600 so grab a beer!

[J.Greene]

I usually don't charge to call somebody an idiot or stupid. Her response does make it seem that we are missing most of the facts and relevant information.

JG


I just did a copy/paste to Jo and this is what she said:

"They're both idiots. I don't know about Florida, but there are certain disclosures required to be made by spouses. Why didn't they do that? Or do discovery and provide documents to each other under penalty of perjury? Didn't they have a marital settlement agreement and/or judgment that specified what each was to take from the marital estate? Obviously they did not draft their settlement papers correctly because, if they had, Wife could not come back for more absent a showing of fraud or omitted assets. That's what people get when they represent themselves. So now Husband will probably spend far more in fees to extricate himself from the mess than if he just had a lawyer represent him in the divorce who could have properly done discovery or, at least, drafted the settlement papers to show what each spouse was being awarded in assets from the marital estate. Stupid."

This is my wonderful other half, high end divorce atty for 28+ years. This wonderful piece of advise would have just cost you $600 so grab a beer!

[e-RICHIE]

may divorce be with you atmo -

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/y8350_450.jpeg

[alancw3]

$300K was in the agreement and you paid her that? Paying you back $100K was not in the agreement and she did? Sounds cut and dry to me. The agreement was what you would give her, not what she would do with the money. Whether she blew it on you, or bikini waxes she blew it. Too bad so sad. Of course you can sue someone for anything, so I agree with others, get an attorney, but this is not one I would sweat.

i couldn't have said it better!!

[J.Greene]

may divorce be with you atmo -


I wonder if there was a PRI involved?

JG

[slowgoing]

I need a shower after reading this thread. Ick!

[Kurt]

I usually don't charge to call somebody an idiot or stupid. Her response does make it seem that we are missing most of the facts and relevant information.

JG

you have to know her, she can be very sweet but sometimes very direct. always in a good mood on her bike at least.

[J.Greene]

you have to know her, she can be very sweet but sometimes very direct. always in a good mood on her bike at least.

my pal says...we are all married to the same woman, they just have different names.

JG

[Kurt]

my pal says...we are all married to the same woman, they just have different names.

JG

might be on to somethere there. my lovely other half's first boss did my divorce - talk about a guy you would not like to F with. They all try to settle out here in LA, prob because they dont want to screw with each other. they are too busy to churn cases, they just want to move on. I am never getting married again, it was just awful to undo - funny they never prep you when you sign the papers...

[BURCH]

Of course, don't gifts over a certain amount come in to some sort of taxation??? May have to redo the taxes.


Anything over $10,000 is taxable to the person receiving the gift. At least that is what we were told by our acct a year ago when we were researching a very different scenerio dealing with loaned/gifted money.

[coylifut]

Anything over $10,000 is taxable to the person receiving the gift. At least that is what we were told by our acct a year ago when we were researching a very different scenerio dealing with loaned/gifted money.

please fire your accountant.

[e-RICHIE]

please fire your accountant.
yeah -
i think family members can cross gift each other up to 10k
or mebbe it's even 20k and it's non taxedmo atmo. love it!

[J.Greene]

yeah -
i think family members can cross gift each other up to 10k
or mebbe it's even 20k and it's non taxedmo atmo. love it!

12pp is the new limit as of a few years ago.
JG

[MilanoTom]

12pp is the new limit as of a few years ago.
JG

Yeah, and it's the donor who's supposed to pay the tax.

[J.Greene]

Yeah, and it's the donor who's supposed to pay the tax.

and....Coy was right yesterday. The tax is a reduction of the unified credit.

JG

[rwsaunders]

Oral contracts can be as enforceable as written ones (with exceptions, such as real estate contracts, that must be in writing). The difficulty comes with proving the terms of the contract. Every jurisdiction has its own rules on the evidence required.

I was bemused by the number of people who started their posts with "see an attorney" and then proceeded to give advice based on their own opinions on the case. I've been licensed to practice for close to 23 years, but since I haven't done any domestic/family/divorce work for about 21 years, the last thing I would do is give advice in that area. Yes, I have my opinion, but it would be somewhat harsh, and I don't think you'd want to hear it. Suffice it to say that one way attorneys make a living is to clean up the messes that are caused by the bright ideas of their clients.

Yes, you need to see an attorney, but to make the visit worth your while, you need to not let your opinions be colored by any of the advice you've read on this thread. Unfortunately, brilliance in one field (or brilliance in general) does not translate to any sort of instinctive brilliance in the legal field.

As a lesson for the rest of us, there are a few reasons that we hire lawyers in divorce matters. First, they are the only ones familiar with "the process" enough to get the client through it. They are also negotiators who understand the rights of the parties involved. Possibly most important, they are counselors (hence the long-used term "counselor at law") who can assist their clients in making rational decisions when those clients have far too much of a personal stake to make those decisions without that assistance. Sometimes that means settling a client down and asking "what do you really want out of the case?" when the client hasn't really thought about it. Yes, the client is the boss, but it's a lawyer's job to help the client make decisions that make sense.

I wish you well, and hope that the matter can be resolved equitably.

Tom

Tom...I've always liked the two key pieces of legal advice that our business counselors have given us over the years

......."in God we trust. With all others, we need a contract."


.......The most accurate response to any legal question...."It depends."

[BURCH]

The accountant was right, I just typed it wrong in terms of who pays the tax. We were concerned with the number 10,000 so maybe that is whay I got that number...

"IRS Tax Tip 2008-15

If you gave any one person gifts in 2007 that are valued at more than $12,000, you must report the total gifts to the Internal Revenue Service and may have to pay tax on the gifts. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.

Gifts include money and property, including the use of property without expecting to receive something of equal value in return. If you sell something at less than its value or make an interest-free or reduced-interest loan, you may be making a gift.

There are some exceptions to the tax rules on gifts. The following gifts generally are not taxable and do not count against the annual limit:

Tuition or Medical Expenses that you pay directly to an educational or medical institution for someone's benefit
Gifts to your Spouse
Gifts to a Political Organization for its use
Gifts to Charities
If you are married, both you and your spouse can give separate gifts of up to the annual limit of $12,000 to the same person without making a taxable gift.

Alternatively, with consent from your spouse, you can make a gift of up to $24,000 ($12,000 x 2) to the same person without making a taxable gift. This is commonly known as splitting gifts between spouses. Essentially, it means a gift by you or your spouse to a third person can be considered as made one-half by each of you provided there is consent by both spouses.

For more information, get the IRS Publication 950, Introduction to Estate and Gift Taxes, IRS Form 709, United States Gift Tax Return, and Instructions for Form 709. They are available at the IRS Web site at IRS.gov in the Forms and Publications section or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676)."

[coylifut]

12pp is the new limit as of a few years ago.
JG

more so, the recipient is not responsible for paying the tax. You can gift up to the lifetime exclusion which in 2008 is $1,000,000. If you do so, all other $ will be subject to estate taxes upon your death, but it can be done. This is all kept track on IRS form 709.

[e-RICHIE]

more so, the recipient is not responsible for paying the tax. You can gift up to the lifetime exclusion which in 2008 is $1,000,000. If you do so, all other $ will be subject to estate taxes upon your death, but it can be done. This is all kept track on IRS form 709.
so how many wives at 12K plus per gift would he need to
come out even on the 100k exchange noted by the OP atmo?

[J.Greene]

so how many wives at 12K plus per gift would he need to
come out even on the 100k exchange noted by the OP atmo?

Marital math does not work like that. The addition of a wife is nothing but subtraction atmo. It's much cheaper to spitzer.

JG

[e-RICHIE]

Marital math does not work like that. The addition of a wife is nothing but subtraction atmo. It's much cheaper to spitzer.

JG
marital math requires martial artsmo.

[News Man]

I just did a copy/paste to Jo and this is what she said:

"They're both idiots. I don't know about Florida, but there are certain disclosures required to be made by spouses. Why didn't they do that? Or do discovery and provide documents to each other under penalty of perjury? Didn't they have a marital settlement agreement and/or judgment that specified what each was to take from the marital estate? Obviously they did not draft their settlement papers correctly because, if they had, Wife could not come back for more absent a showing of fraud or omitted assets. That's what people get when they represent themselves. So now Husband will probably spend far more in fees to extricate himself from the mess than if he just had a lawyer represent him in the divorce who could have properly done discovery or, at least, drafted the settlement papers to show what each spouse was being awarded in assets from the marital estate. Stupid."

This is my wonderful other half, high end divorce atty for 28+ years. This wonderful piece of advise would have just cost you $600 so grab a beer!


Wow, this is a tough crowd. Just to clear up a few things we both used lawyers as stated earlier. Discovery was done and all assets revealed. There was a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement called for 300K to her and our agreement called for 100K back to me which we effected. I have since spoken to a local attorney who said that as long as the effective 200K was a fair settlement, we technically did nothing wrong. He would not have advised it, but it is what it is. I originally posted this because I was just venting, not because I am concerned about the relatively insignificant amount of dollars involved.

The only thing that makes me an idiot is that I continue to trust in people who haven't earned it.

Thanks for the input, I think?

[e-RICHIE]

I originally posted this because I was just venting, not because I am concerned about the relatively insignificant amount of dollars involved.
is this a typomo?

[rphetteplace]

is this a typomo?

I hear he wants to sponsor a cross team next year ismo

[MilanoTom]

Wow, this is a tough crowd. Just to clear up a few things we both used lawyers as stated earlier. Discovery was done and all assets revealed. There was a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement called for 300K to her and our agreement called for 100K back to me which we effected. I have since spoken to a local attorney who said that as long as the effective 200K was a fair settlement, we technically did nothing wrong. He would not have advised it, but it is what it is. I originally posted this because I was just venting, not because I am concerned about the relatively insignificant amount of dollars involved.

The only thing that makes me an idiot is that I continue to trust in people who haven't earned it.

Thanks for the input, I think?

You're not an idiot. You and your former spouse simply did something that a lot of people do. You hired lawyers to take care of something, but then decided to work a "side deal," so now you have to go back to make sure that everything is really settled. All of this could have been avoided had you let the lawyers do their jobs in the first place (and possibly been a bit more assertive in letting them know what you wanted to do - after all, they work for you, not the other way around).

If it's any consolation, when lawyers themselves are the clients, they aren't much better.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I wish you well.
Tom

[Dave B]

is this a typomo?


I had to read OP's comments twice too.

Man, would love to be in whatever business 100K is insignificant!

:beer:

[Kurt]

Wow, this is a tough crowd. Just to clear up a few things we both used lawyers as stated earlier. Discovery was done and all assets revealed. There was a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement called for 300K to her and our agreement called for 100K back to me which we effected. I have since spoken to a local attorney who said that as long as the effective 200K was a fair settlement, we technically did nothing wrong. He would not have advised it, but it is what it is. I originally posted this because I was just venting, not because I am concerned about the relatively insignificant amount of dollars involved.

The only thing that makes me an idiot is that I continue to trust in people who haven't earned it.

Thanks for the input, I think?

don't shoot me - shoot her! lol. no really, good luck with all this, its a world of suck we sometimes find ourselves in.

[Fixed]

I had to read OP's comments twice too.

Man, would love to be in whatever business 100K is insignificant!

:beer:
the news

[Dave B]

That must be TMZ then. :D

[JohnS]

How can the OP say that their total assets were 400k and then later say that 100k is "insignificant"? I think he's trying to blow smoke up our azzes that he doesn't really care if he keeps the money.

[girlie]

The only thing that makes me an idiot is that I continue to trust in people who haven't earned it.


Tampa....I need a get away :cool:

[News Man]

How can the OP say that their total assets were 400k and then later say that 100k is "insignificant"? I think he's trying to blow smoke up our azzes that he doesn't really care if he keeps the money.

Could another reason, just maybe as incredible as this may sound, be that I was wealthy before my marriage and retained those assets as pre-marital? What is with you guys?

[swoop]

dude... its just not the right venue for this. don't get wounded... its just all very nutty and out of context. you've been in it so its normal to you... but
it reads pretty foppish.


http://www.divorceinfo.com/blog/

[e-RICHIE]

Could another reason, just maybe as incredible as this may sound, be that I was wealthy before my marriage and retained those assets as pre-marital? What is with you guys?
we're up to 116 post so...

okay - i'm asking.
where is the wealth from?
is News Man a name that's relevant to what you do at workmo?

[Grant McLean]

Could another reason, just maybe as incredible as this may sound, be that I was wealthy before my marriage and retained those assets as pre-marital? What is with you guys?

So what's the big deal then?

Just give her the 100k and be done with it.

That's just a friday lunch bar tab at hooters in CT.

-g

[AgilisMerlin]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=41241

News Man News Man is online now
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serotta_Pete
- Is the money IRA/401k money or is it in a Tax (non retirement account)
- If non retirement IRA/401K account, are you going to need to take some of the money and use it at a specific time down the road
- Do you have thousand of $$s in credit card debt
- Do you have any big life decisions coming up such as (COLLEGE, MARRIAGE, MOVE, etc....)




GOOD LUCK.


About 250K in an IRA and 2M in cash. No credit card debt, no big life decisions coming up outside of refinancing my house sometime before September. Simple life style, except for excess in the world of cycling. I want to just do something reasonably good with the money and check up on it 10 years from now.
Reply With Quote

[Too Tall]

Could another reason, just maybe as incredible as this may sound, be that I was wealthy before my marriage and retained those assets as pre-marital? What is with you guys?
Put a deposit down for a Serotta and I'll tell you what I really think.
Seriously, it's the best advice I've got sir.
PS - Pre-nuptials aren't they for folks who plan to "get got"? Curious.

[stevep]

my advice is the see if pete will delete the whole thread and if he does i would send him $5,500.

worth it to you to make it disappear.
then try to forget it ever happened.

everybody slips up sometimes. just let it go.

then come back on as old news.

[J.Greene]

I'm glad Serotta pays for this tabloid stuff. They Rawk :rolleyes:

JG

my advice is the see if pete will delete the whole thread and if he does i would send him $5,500.

worth it to you to make it disappear.
then try to forget it ever happened.

everybody slips up sometimes. just let it go.

then come back on as old news.

[e-RICHIE]

my advice is the see if pete will delete the whole thread and if he does i would send him $5,500.

worth it to you to make it disappear.
then try to forget it ever happened.

everybody slips up sometimes. just let it go.

then come back on as old news.
Puccipedia 1.007 atmo -

[Ginger]

The internet lives forever.

[Dave B]

Could another reason, just maybe as incredible as this may sound, be that I was wealthy before my marriage and retained those assets as pre-marital? What is with you guys?


Bro you are airing some pretty heavy stuff here and I dig that 100K or whatever maybe scratch to you and I applaud you for making, saving, or however you got it. BUT, some of us do not come from that sort of Disney land and you are tossing around some crazy numbers to us average joes.

life is effin fun and if you have that kind of coin move on from this chick and run run run.

No need to get bogged down on what a bike forum thinks about your ex wife and her effed up spending habits.

:beer: good luck stay single!

[girlie]

You guys are all nuts.

Like he didn't know who he was marrying.

Play with fire get burned. I bet she's spanking HOT ;) or "once" was...... :crap:

[J.Greene]

I bet she's spanking HOT ;) or "once" was...... :crap:

That's why we want pics.

JG

[girlie]

That's why we want pics.

JG

agreed! :)
First time I've asked for pictures of a woman....

[e-RICHIE]

You guys are all nuts.

Like he didn't know who he was marrying.

Play with fire get burned. I bet she's spanking HOT ;) or "once" was...... :crap:
she?
for all we know, it could have been a lola (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMsnqQHOwFg) situation atmo.

[girlie]

she?
for all we know, it could have been a lola (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMsnqQHOwFg) situation atmo.

Still considered a she......to the public :)
and
After 4 years of marriage he better have known.

[link]

the human condition (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=501988&postcount=10)