It’s true, one of those scenarios are possible (I hope the former one). So lump-summing her is a risk.
They’re ‘a gentleman’s agreement’. We take post dated (B2B) checks all the time. However, when we’re talking about a customer handing you a check, at least in Wisconsin, if it bounces it can be harder to collect if it’s post dated.
As for if the bank cares, that would probably depend on if someone between your bank and theirs made an issue of it. I’ve deposited checks that weren’t even signed (mistake) and they’ve gone through just fine.
Also a lawyer not in your jurisdiction (or country!) not giving you advice, but my opinion as a lay person:
I agree with others here that say that you should be sure this satisfies your court order which may specify you do things a certain way, or file certain things with the court to finalise the order, etc.
If you choose not to do this and to do it your way, please consider at least getting your signatures notarised/witnessed/whatever is normal in your jurisdiction. At least then you will have some proof that it is her genuine signature not given under duress, etc.
I know it’s friendly now, but it may not be later (I say as a person who’s divorce began in a friendly manner, until it was not.)
Good luck.
Well, the question is how stale the date can be before the bank stops accepting a check. My recollection is six months, but it could be less.
Post dated checks:
I believe accepting a post dated check is a promise to hold it until the date on the check … and this person forgets to pay the electric bill …
I’d suggest writing out the check for the full amount still to be paid, photocopy it and include it with the letter your send her offering this deal … “This will be yours if you sign this document in front of a notary” … that may be all that’s needed, but spend a couple hundred on a lawyer, court orders are serious business and you gotta get this right the first time … second time through is really expensive …
That’s the scenario I tried to set up. It didn’t work out. We’re both already account holders at Wells Fargo. WF has a thing called Zelle you can use to send money from one WF account to another WF account (I use this to send small amounts of money to my son). But. The daily limit to a “non-established” payee is $500, which is far to0 little. The daily limit to an “established” payee is $4000, which will work.
I called WF yesterday to ask how a payee becomes becomes an “established” payee, considering ex and I have both held accounts at this bank for >20 years. The person on the phone would only say that as I send that payee money, “over time” they become “established”. I asked what “over time” means. WF person said it means “over time”. I asked if I could speed up that process in any way. Nope.
And if I send her a wire, there’s a $25 wire fee each time. F that.
If she loses checks you have sent that would be her problem, not yours. You’ve done due diligence by sending the alimony. After that it’s on her. IMHO.
IINAL, but I believe that even if both parties agree, the Judge still has to sign off on it.
The part of the agreement you quoted above says “Husband shall continue to pay to Wife the monthly sum of $sameAmountAsAbove in non-modifiable spousal support, regardless of either party’s change in circumstances”. So it’s not really a risk, istm. Just set up some automatic bank transfer as someone said above. I can tell you just want it done with but it might be way more hassle than it’s worth to switch to lump sum.
The “change in circumstance” refers to ability to pay, meaning if they (me) lose their job or whatever, tough, keep paying.
There’s a later paragraph I’m not going to type up that says support will end upon the death or remarriage of either party.
That doesn’t sound right. You can stop paying if you get remarried? That’s a recipe for abuse.
Yeah, I’d thought the same. But it really says that:
It’s most likely moot now, but paypal would probably work for this situation.
Be that as it may, if you send someone a check and they lose it, you’ll have a hard time proving that they ever got it. Even so, it would be trivial for them to show that they never cashed it as well as you wouldn’t be able to show that it had been cashed. Just like if you mail a check to your cable company, you can be sure that you’ll have to mail them a second one (probably with late fees) if they lost it.
And above and beyond all that, if he wants to remain civil with his ex, as frustrating as it may be, he’s needs to pay the full amount, not attempt to weasel out of it because she lost a few checks. Just like if she finds those checks someday, she can’t (shouldn’t) cash them.
That’s not a bad notion. I’m not sure, but I think Paypal will even shove money into another Paypal user’s bank account if it’s attached to their Paypal.
But: a) wouldn’t Paypal then charge me a fee? b) would I get similar proof of payment as from a cashed check?
This. We’re putting our son through college together (3 years left, crossing fingers) and need to split those expenses. She’s administering our 529 (someone had to get it in the divorce, and I was told you can’t split a 529), so we have to keep decent relations. And I’m not looking to screw her out of this money, I just don’t want to hassle with the darned payments any more than necessary.
OK, I answered a): no, no fee it it’s from my linked bank account. And I already have one of those. I’ve payed Paypal to vendors (basically ones I wouldn’t trust with my CC#, or who only take Paypal). So not sure about b).
I was thinking that too. Can’t you send the checks by certified mail or something? I don’t get a paycheck from work-- I have direct deposit-- but IIRC, back when I did get a check, it was my problem if I lost it.
Also, you said electronic deposits don’t work because of “reasons.” Unless “reasons” is “her credit is so bad she can’t get a bank account, and she takes the alimony checks to one of those check cashing places,” I would really figure out some way to get around “reasons.” 10 months is not a terribly long time. You can have automatic deposits for 10 months, and not even think about it.
IANAL, or anything close to one, but it seems to me that changing the agreement without getting the court’s approval is dangerous.
One of the reasons for $XXX for YYY months is to give the ex a regular income for the specified period of time. Hopefully until she can get things sorted out so that she can support herself without the spousal support.
What happens if she takes the lump sum then blows it on something inconsequential? It sounds like she is not responsible with money, so this seems a possibility. Now she does not have that regular source of support. The court might well take the position that she still needs it and order you to continue the monthly payments even though you’ve already paid the lump sum.