As previously mentioned in this thread, my brother completed a nasty divorce nearly 18 months ago.
As part of the settlement, it was written into the agreement that he must pay 75% of the kids’ college costs, whereas she must pay 25% of these costs (until they are each 21). My brother intends on paying each of their senior years (when they are each over 21) & the mother does not have to.
This is the first year where both kids are in college at the same time. One is 18 and the other is 20. Both kids live at home with my brother over holidays/summer, and my brother pays for their car insurances and covers their health insurance.
Recently, the mom has decided not to pay her full amount of 25% per bill. She has “short changed” her kids by several hundred dollars because she believes that the children should give their summer earnings equally between both parents. However, the kids each choose to help their dad because he shoulders a burden of the financial load.
Since she is in violation of the terms of the settlement agreement (again, it is written that she MUST pay 25% of the financial obligation for college costs until they are 21), can the kids/dad sue her as a “deadbeat mother”, or does that only apply to cases of child support?
I sure wouldn’t be paying for their car insurance, but neh-ver mind. I’ll presume for the purposes of discussion that they are legal adults.
Not sure why your brother would be confused about his remedy: he’s free to spend far more than several hundred dollars’ worth of time and effort on an action to address the mother’s failure to abide by the agreement as incorporated into the decree.
The kids have no standing to sue their mother and, frankly, no one ought to be encouraging any such notion.
As for topic of kids’ earnings, who is legally entitled to expect them to cough it up would depend on what state is involved.
Yes, they are legal adults, of driving age. I guess a better way to state this is that they are both covered under his car insurance. Sometimes they will borrow my brother’s car to run errands or keep it for a week at school.
If he were to sue her for failure to pay for the kids (and, to be honest, the kids wouldn’t be involved in filing the law suit), is he just suing for back payment + late fees + court costs? Is there anything else that she would be liable for (like, his lawyer’s fees)?
Also, lets say he brings her to court. If she pays the delta just before the court date, does that dismiss the case? What about all the costs associated with retaining a lawyer, filing the lawsuit, etc., – would he be able to recoup these costs?
BTW, this is New York State. The kids earnings are separate from the parents & they can elect who to give their money to. They choose to help their father, who bears a majority of the financial responsibility. She doesn’t think this is fair, which is why she elects to “short change” her portion of the college payment.
If the settlement was rendered into a court order by the family court (also called in NY a “so-ordered stipulation”), he doesn’t have to sue her in the way we usually think if it. He just has to drag her ass to family court to complain she’s in violation of the court’s order. Courts don’t like that.
It’s extremely common and the family court website should have self-help information on how to do it.
Eta: unless the children were a party to the stip, their conduct is irrelevant. From what you’re describing it sounds like the court’s order calls for them to contribute 0%.
Mum is claiming that this cash should be offsetting the college tuition.
Kids / dad is counterclaiming it is not?
Based on this, mum is claiming that the liability for college has gone down?
i.e …
College costs $40k
Mum pays $10k
Dad pays $30k
Kids refund dad $10k
Mum claims that based on this college cost should be calculated as $30k - and is only stumping up $7,500?
Immediate thoughts -
a) I don’t know how much money is involved - but is it enough to justify the drama involved?
b) That dad decides to add kids to his insurance is irrelevant to the discussion etc is irrelevant to the discussion
I have no idea at all how it would be perceived by the courts, nor can I offer any advice, just want to make sure I am understanding the situation
Is he declaring that income from his children? On his taxes? In court documents? If not, it could be seen as him attempting to hide assets. Courts also take a rather dim view of that!
When my ex failed to meet one of the requirements of the divorce decree (not involving the kids) my divorce attorney gave me excellent advice. Although there were some large expenses up front, I went to court and was awarded $$. When we complained that the ex would not pay the money, the court ordered that I could subtract the amount plus my legal fees from support payments. That was two years ago and I haven’t sent her a check since.
Both kids file federal & state income taxes. Nothing is hidden.
When the bill comes, the boys each elect to pay part of their dad’s bill. I believe the mom is sent a separate bill, which she has “shirt changed” because both boys elect to help their dad.
All the agreement states is that dad is responsible for 75% of the bill & mom is responsible for 25% of the bill. Their dad continues to pay 75% of the bill – with the help from both kids, who elect to use money from their summer savings.
No assets have been hidden. Everything has been disclosed.
The numbers are off, but yes, you basically get the idea.
As this has only happened on the first three payments, the numbers aren’t astronomical. It’s less than $500 total. But there are 10 more payments to be made (5 for each child), and if this continues, could increase into the thousands.
Just to be clear here – this has less to do with the money (as, in a pinch, the difference can be made up). This has more to do with responsibility, for which she feels “entitled” to pay any amount she chooses, even if it goes against a court order.
All it ends up doing is pissing off the boys & alienating her more from their lives.
Currently, my brother is in year 3 of 5 of paying her roughly $1,700/month. In addition, as part of the settlement, he paid her a one-time lump sum of $60K. She can afford to pay her share for college, but she doesn’t in order to “stick it” to my brother.
One of my nephews already heard her admit to this when on the phone with a friend. Neither boy is happy with the situation, but try to make the best of it because their mom “has problems”.
Not to defend their mom or anything (because she absolutely should be paying her required amount, without question) but how big is the income disparity between the parents? I can see where she might be miffed if he is hauling in $75,000 annually and she is pulling in $22,000 and the kids are kicking in to help cover bills for their dad. If there is a big difference between their household incomes it might smooth things over if the kids sat down with their mom and explained that they give money to their dad to cover their car insurance instead of buying a policy of their own, not because they feel like he is responsible for too much of their college costs and they want to reimburse him or because they want to stick it to their mom or anything.
Um, no. No taxes are due on gifts unless the total given annually exceeds the maximum prescribed in the Federal tax code (currently 14.000 for one individual to another). Even then the tax burden falls on the giver, not the receiver.
Your $75K/$22K estimates for both parents is actually not that far off.
BUT . . . you need to remember that the father pays the mother $1700 monthly in alimony. That’s over $20K less in his annual income (as it goes to her) & $20K more in her income (what she receives from him). It essentially “balances everything out”, at least for the extent of the alimony payments (for another 2-3 years). Plus, there was a lump-sum payout of $60K given to her (without any tax penalty).
She can easily make the payments. She is just doing this to “stick it” to my brother.
I hate to say it but mom might have a point. The decree also states that dad must pay 75% and he isn’t. If the kids take it upon themselves to pay 10%, the parents should pay 75/25% of the remainder. The kids shouldn’t be only giving money to dad so he doesn’t have to pay his full 75%.
She’s going about it wrong though, she can’t just decide to pay less, she has to go through the court, but I can see the court deciding to make her pay for the short payments so far, then lowering future payments. Not sure they’d do that, but going into court saying your kids are paying you so you can meet your financial obligations but you’re mad because mom isn’t meeting hers doesn’t seem wise to me.
The agreement is very clear. After factoring in scholarships & loans, the remaining balance is split 75% / 25% between the ex-husband and ex-wife. My brother has always paid the 75%. If the kids did not elect to give their money to their dad, he would still pay the 75%. He has the cancelled checks to prove it. Whereas the ex-wife purposely pays less than 25% because of the kids’ payment argument. It doesn’t matter – according to the agreement, she is now paying less than the agreed upon 25%. If she wanted to factor in the kids’ contributions, she (or rather, her lawyer) should have clearly stated this in the agreement. It was not. It also doesn’t say that the 75% must come entirely from my brother – only that he is responsible for 75% to be paid. If the kids choose to use their money to help out their father, then how is that going against the agreement? No, legally, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Again, this comes down to responsibility, something she is trying to avoid at all costs at the expense of her kids (literally).
I’m not saying what she’s doing is right, I’m saying she can make a decent argument. She’s violating a court order which she might get in trouble for, but the whole 75/25 payment thing will be questioned and reassessed in the process and I can’t imagine a judge deciding to let the kids help one parent pay less than his share while the other has to pay their full share. As someone upthread said, have the kids pay dad for insurance or something, but paying part of their own bill in a way that only helps him and not her doesn’t seem to be a good idea.
If this goes to court, the judge is going to grill mom who is going to point at dad and say ‘the reason I’m paying less is that he’s paying less.’ Dad’s going to have to say ‘not true, I’m paying 75%, but the kids are helping me pay some of it so she should pay more’ and that seems like a very awkward argument to make. The only logical thing is to split the bills 75/25 after the kids kick in.
The kids shouldn’t give money to the dad, unless they want to give their mom some to offset what she’s paying, too. He is essentially paying less than the agree portion because he’s being subsidized by their kids.
Nice kids. I never gave a dime of my earnings to my parents. Then again- Nice parents. I never got a dime from my parents, and somehow managed to pay for college and my own house while working summers in a kitchen.
Unless, of course, the boys think their mom is an asshole, who treated them like shit for the last few years.
They worked on their own during the summer. It’s their money. They can do whatever they want with it.
It also said that both parents must pay until each turns 21. Both turn 21 before their senior year of school. Technically, neither parent has to pay that year, but their father said, yes, I will still continue to help pay for school. Their mom refuses. So you can look at it this way – the boys are helping out now, their dad is helping them out senior year.