|
OK first up, if there's a better thread for questions re: child support and/or divorce, please let me know. This is a pretty easy question, I Background: I have been divorced for several years. Both my ex and I are Oregon residents living here in Portland. She needs child support and because she's currently only working one day a week, the lil child support calculator form on the oregon.gov website estimates that I should be paying uhhh A Lot per month. The problem is that the calculator only factors in monthly income and not existing assets. She inherited millions from her folks when they passed away several years ago (shortly after I left) and has pissed virtually all of it in one fashion or another (some legit expenses, some entirely voluntary/idiotic). We basically split custody of our three kids 50/50, so this would be a lot simpler if she could hold up her end of her expenses. The question: I found out today that she just sold her parents' vacation home for A Lot of money several months ago, but is still asking for A Lot in child support. Am I going to need to get a lawyer or get in front of a judge to dispute the calculator's results, or is there some other route? If you win $10M on a lottery ticket but are unemployed, are you still legally entitled to child support? Bonus Round: Assuming I do need to take this to court, is there an avenue by which I can make the case that she had a couple mill that she misspent and I shouldn't have to pay the price now for her bad spending habits over the last five years, or am I SOL on that front? Thanks in advance for any feedback.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Hire and ask a lawyer. The intent behind child support laws is to support the kid though, not to be punitive. One parent being rich previously but not now (for whatever reason), doesn't really matter for the kid in the present.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish's job and experience is basically the way zoning and development should work in the US, and the way it only does work in a handful of counties like Montgomery, MD. Developers often have far more leverage, resources, or knowledge of ways to abuse the legal system. If you want some real dire poo poo, get into the intersection of real estate development, sales, and local government. It's not a coincidence that real estate people are often on your school board! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jul 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Lol Portland, Oregon is run by developers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Just wait until you find out the ways courts contort themselves to say that, no, there really is a mens rea here, it’s just that it’s a different mens rea than you think. For instance. Statutory rape still has a mens tea requirement, it’s just the defendant has to knowingly have sex. Not knowing certain other facts-the age of the victim-courts claim is different. Or criminal discharge of various goopy environmentally unfriendly stuff doesn’t necessarily require negligent or intentional discharge (ie that you knew of the possibility, or intended, that it would get discharged), but simply require knowing storage of the goop, and then later on it gets discharged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
That sounds like 'Your Honor I was blackout drunk and had no understanding of what I was doing' is a legitimate defense for dumping toxic goo into the environment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
I mean, maybe? If you can convince a jury that you were blackout drunk from hearing about, acquiring, storing, and disposing of the goop, constantly, and then still drunk while it entirely leaked out and contaminated the environment. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Nice piece of fish's job and experience is basically the way zoning and development should work in the US, and the way it only does work in a handful of counties like Montgomery, MD. Developers often have far more leverage, resources, or knowledge of ways to abuse the legal system. Just to be real clear, I just gave the simple dumbed down version but real life gets messy. Some municipalities are downright run by developers, and I've been called into the office of some mayor or other and asschewed like three times already with no signs of stopping. And the greedy tendrils make their way into zoning to gently caress up my life, because my work hinges on zoning and regulation. The amount of shady loving poo poo developers and politicians get down to is kinda gross. That said we have a law on the books for this that really goes a long way towards limiting the damage. Also it works the other way too, I also develop, buy and sell public land and I don't ever sell any to developers. That's a different guy. So I get tell them no every day of the week. Since my last post about the topic was pretty simplified, I think it's fair to mention that there's no reason to think that the picture is all that rozy; developers are trying like crazy to circumvent long-standing and strict laws that restrict skyline usage, bunch of tree law, the building ban on shorelines, and the need for development deals at all. It's a jungle out there and I'm pretty sure their side is winning, which is exactly the problem with having that much money. Vote left, kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
Outrail posted:That sounds like 'Your Honor I was blackout drunk and had no understanding of what I was doing' is a legitimate defense for dumping toxic goo into the environment? Oh you're here for developer chat too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 06:37
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Hire and ask a lawyer. You might want to make a case for increased custody, which would change the amount you would pay (if oregon is like NJ).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Oh you're here for developer chat too? Sure. We've got a guy in town who used 'permission to put in a culvert' as a green light to bulldoze a wetland and a bunch of endangered woodland (because he has plans to build on it). He deliberately had the dozer run over a beaver lodge in winter to try and get them to gently caress off which is kind of a dick move. It's a flood zone with a big 'do not ever allow development here because it'll wash away next time it floods' recommendation from the hydrologists. He's got a history of shady poo poo and building crappy houses and people are pissed about beavers, ducks, geese, otters and other wildlife losing their homes. First time the city had ever sued anyone in the ~200+ year history of the town. They put a hold on whatever he's doing there and it looks like he's going to have to pay to restore the area. Get rekt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Sure. We've got a guy in town who used 'permission to put in a culvert' as a green light to bulldoze a wetland and a bunch of endangered woodland (because he has plans to build on it). He deliberately had the dozer run over a beaver lodge in winter to try and get them to gently caress off which is kind of a dick move. It's a flood zone with a big 'do not ever allow development here because it'll wash away next time it floods' recommendation from the hydrologists. He's got a history of shady poo poo and building crappy houses and people are pissed about beavers, ducks, geese, otters and other wildlife losing their homes. First time the city had ever sued anyone in the ~200+ year history of the town. They put a hold on whatever he's doing there and it looks like he's going to have to pay to restore the area. Get rekt. Where's that straight to jail gif? Anyway, we have criminal statutes for poo poo like that - negligent or intentional - in addition to day fines and I would for sure pursue that, but I don't think I can imagine any of our developers be that loving dumb, even the really shady ones. We have some environmental laws that you super duper don't gently caress with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 08:27
|
|
|
rivetz posted:OK first up, if there's a better thread for questions re: child support and/or divorce, please let me know. This is a pretty easy question, I
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Can I sue a woman who gave me an STD? If so, would I need to be able to prove that she knew that she had the STD when we had sex0r?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
Lil Devil posted:Can I sue a woman who gave me an STD? If so, would I need to be able to prove that she knew that she had the STD when we had sex0r? Not a lawyer, but: you would probably have to prove not only that she knew she had the STD at the time, but also that she did not warn you and that she made an effort to convince you that it would be fine not to use protection. You would also need to have one of the nastier STDs. I think, while there have been successful suits, they've all been "guy with HIV or full blown AIDS has sex with girls, does not tell them about his status and deliberately has unprotected sex in order to spread his infection". So that's the level of life-wrecking you would need to prove, most likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Lil Devil posted:Can I sue a woman who gave me an STD? If so, would I need to be able to prove that she knew that she had the STD when we had sex0r? How are you going to prove you got your STD from her?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
rivetz posted:OK first up, if there's a better thread for questions re: child support and/or divorce, please let me know. This is a pretty easy question, I Hire an attorney, that's legal advice territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 12:27
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Hire and ask a lawyer. Ask your lawyer if you can assign (impute) her potential earnings. She's working 1 day a week.. why? Does she have a degree? Can she make money but chooses not to? If your truly 50/50 custody should you be paying CS at all in your state? My ex chooses not to work but is capable of a minimum wage job / working while kids are now at school. So she has an income she doesn't make assigned to child support calculation being lazy or deciding that a new child is a good idea isn't my problem so I don't have to pay more for those decisions. (In my case it practically means nothing but it still saves me a little).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Am I going to need to get a lawyer or get in front of a judge to dispute the calculator's results, or is there some other route? The only time the answer to "Do I need a lawyer" is more urgent then "call one now and stop posting" is when its divorce/child support or you're being charged under the Espionage act.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I haven't been posting all that long in this thread but you might have already gathered: I really enjoy posts that elaborate on the deep deep pits of the law. You might even say I intentionally try to instigate them. Old editions of 1L casebooks (property, torts, contracts, constitutional law, criminal law, civil procedure) are easily-obtained and inexpensive, because most courses will use the new editions. They will vary, but will be a great starting point, and most will seem lively to a technical writer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
homullus posted:Most will seem lively to a technical writer. What is dead may never die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Dukeminier property is good Warren ( yes that warren ) Bankruptcy is good Chemerinsky conlaw is amazing. If you want to really go nuts dig into property law. It’s wild Torts and contract are boring and dumb. Torts got taken over by the Chicago school and ruined
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
If you want to be dazzled by an erudite soilless charlatan read Richard Posner. Like any of his decisions. You will be loved by old money
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Is it possible to 100% self-study and without ever going to law school, take and pass the bar? e. nevermind that whole "can't get a job because you didn't get a degree" part. I just mean like, will the Gatekeepers who are In Charge be like "you didn't go to law school, so no you may not sit the bar exams, go away"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Is it possible to 100% self-study and without ever going to law school, take and pass the bar? Maybe in California. Or if you go back in time to 1780 and claim to have read law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Is it possible to 100% self-study and without ever going to law school, take and pass the bar? You need a jd (from an accredited law school !!!) to take a bar in almost every state
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Is it possible to 100% self-study and without ever going to law school, take and pass the bar? Self-study? No. There are a few states that permit you to do what’s called “law office study” where you’re theoretically apprenticed to a lawyer and study under them for a few years, then sit the bar. (That said you could 100% self study and take and pass the bar without going near law school if someone would let you sit for the exam, which they will not.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Some bars are hardy than others You could not pass Delaware on your own Theoretically maybe
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Some bars are hardy than others what is the easiest, lowest bar of them all
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(That said you could 100% self study and take and pass the bar without going near law school if someone would let you sit for the exam, which they will not.) So, the american government says you have to be a lawyer to do the law stuff, and then to be a lawyer you have to go to an accredited school, so our government guarantees profit for law schools, have I got that right? Hmm. I guess it's no different from doctorin'. Another american institution where there's definitely nothing wrong with how its educational system is constructed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
The federal gov is not involved They are all state run. It’s an older idea that professions should be regulated by the state. Which I agree with. By the way there are only like 4 or 5 professions. Doctor, clergy, lawyer. Accountants. Officers in the military. Maybe engineer and nurse. That’s it Business people are NOT professionals. They are businesspeople . Shopkeepers No standards. No ethics. The worst of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
If I needed someone to look out for me in law matters, there's no way I'm picking some guy who read some books over someone who went to school and was theoretically screened for behavior/ethics problems
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The federal gov is not involved The oldest profession is conspicuously absent from your list. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:If I needed someone to look out for me in law matters, there's no way I'm picking some guy who read some books over someone who went to school and was theoretically screened for behavior/ethics problems going to school might not screen them for those problems in the way that you want
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:going to school might not screen them for those problems in the way that you want Canine Blues Arooo posted:I'm really curious about Richard Liebowitz. The dude seems obviously incompetent and constantly acting in bad faith, but is allowed to take up enormous amounts of court time. It sounds like he's going to probably get a pretty mighty backhand here from the courts, but is this behavior just that uncommon that it seems to take years of obviously bad behavior before real consequences start to happen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
VA still lets people without a jd "read for" the bar. They pass waaay lower than jd holders, and VA isn't NY or CA but it's still a "harder" bar. Easiest states will be like Mississippi or the Dakotas or somewhere begging for someone, anyone to come practice just to meet people's basic legal needs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:If I needed someone to look out for me in law matters, there's no way I'm picking some guy who read some books over someone who went to school and was theoretically screened for behavior/ethics problems as someone who went to not one but two different accredited colleges (not law school just regular school), lol e. out of the 535 members who make up Congress, 40% had attended law school. For senators, nearly 54% have obtained a law degree. The House contains 37% law degree holders. So uh, congress, famously behavior/ethics problem-free
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:If I needed someone to look out for me in law matters, there's no way I'm picking some guy who read some books over someone who went to school and was theoretically screened for behavior/ethics problems If I needed someone to look out for me in law matters, I'm taking the Frank Abagnale guy who can not only give themselves the self discipline to pass all on their own, but can dress up as a judge and rule in my favor before hightailing it away from the FBI agents who are somehow only moments behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
therobit posted:The oldest profession is conspicuously absent from your list. No need to say "lawyers" twice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Nonexistence posted:VA still lets people without a jd "read for" the bar. They pass waaay lower than jd holders, and VA isn't NY or CA but it's still a "harder" bar. Easiest states will be like Mississippi or the Dakotas or somewhere begging for someone, anyone to come practice just to meet people's basic legal needs. Even in VA, they still have to effectively apprentice under an existing lawyer. (And as an extra “gently caress you”, in VA you have to be in the law office effectively full time studying, but cannot be employed by or compensated by the attorney who’s supervising you. Good luck finding an attorney who’ll give up a significant number of billable to some random gently caress.) E: easiest “no law school” bar is probably Vermont. The “self study” part is still probably 99% of it in reality for the dozen or two people who still do this route, but you can’t sit in your shack in the middle of nowhere, read some books, and show up for a bar - some lawyer, somewhere, must be involved in your education.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2020 01:36
|
|