Honestly, I have a friend who is also a WF account holder. Her landlord has a WF account. She went to the bank and set up a monthly automatic withdrawal from her account and deposit to the landlord’s account for way over $500. They have a form you can sign. The process does not use Zelle. Every January when the rent goes up, she has to go into the bank and sign a new form.
I’m long done paying alimony, but the lump sum had me thinking that it’d be a great idea. The ex taking the lump sum and putting it all on red was something I hadn’t considered.
Spoilered cause TL and merely cathartic rambling…
[spoiler]About 8 months after my divorce was final, I was served notice I’d been named in a law suit. I was being sued as a direct result of my ex failing to honor one of the few requirements she’d been ordered to handle.
I went to my divorce attorney, who approached the judge who’d heard my divorce. He was angry. He awarded me all legal expenses, and further said I could take the expenses out of future alimony.
I was pissed off and went overboard. I hired an excellent, but horribly expensive legal team. I did everything I could think of to spend money on my defense. I called frequently for phone conferences, billed to me by the minute, with my attorney, his helper attorney, and a paralegal/secretary guy. They all billed by the minute and I used our conferences to learn stupid minutiae of Pennsylvania law.
My legal expenses exceeded the amount the other folks eventually offered to settle for, but I insisted (and my attorneys agreed) that we could win. We filed motions like crazy, and with each motion I initiated teleconferences to discuss the reason for filing, etc. My ex had her divorce attorney filing motions complaining about the cost of my representation, but it turns out you’re allowed to hire expensive lawyers if you want to in PA.
I won. When all was said and done, my legal fees chewed up my remaining alimony. I still was out the money, but I was much happier at the end. [/spoiler]
That seems…odd. Why should one person be forced to pay each month because the other isn’t good with money. Maybe the person making the payments isn’t good with money and sending a check each month is difficult for them to remember to do.
I get that people will treat $1000 a month for 48 months very differently than $48,000 all at once, but ISTM that shouldn’t be the payer’s problem. If the ex runs out and buys a brand new car with all that cash and finds out a few months later they can’t support themself anymore, that’s no one’s problem but their own. FTR, I’m assuming a childless marriage where the ex-spouse making the payments doesn’t have any vested interest in making sure the other can have and support a home.
I was under the impression you pay each month because most people aren’t going to be able to afford one giant lump sum today.
Just to demonstrate that I am not making this up, here is a screen shot of the line from my friend’s WF account. I have blacked out the landlord’s name and the transaction number.
I am absolutely sure this does not use Zelle. The landlord is a crochety old man who refuses to even use online banking. She once tried to send him money using Zelle and he refused to accept it and threatened to sue her for telling the bank his email address. He is afraid the internet is going to steal his money.
She tells me that she cannot modify or cancel the transactions online or by phone. She once tried to use their phone support to change the amount and they were confused about what was going on. She has to go into the branch and do it in person.
For someone who needs financial assistance, granting a lump sum, rather than monthly payments, would likely be much less effective for the reason you noted above.
If the person making the payments isn’t good with money, I guess having a court order to obey might help him/her get better. As I understand it, the point is to help the person receiving the payments.
She has a much lower income than me, but (thanks to our marriage and 1/2 our assets [I was Mr Breadwinner]) has tons of assets. She’s a millionaire. Most of that is liquid, not retirement accounts. She’s not poor, just incompetent with checks. And, at least in our marriage, incompetent paying bills (re getting out power cut off twice).
None of my business really, but if she is a millionaire with liquid assets, why are you paying spousal support in the first place? It wouldn’t seem like she really needs it.
Well, basically, whatever assets are brought to the marriage by each party are theirs after the marriage. Whatever is earned during the marriage is split 50/50. This is entirely separate from a) child support and b) spousal support. Me and spouse weren’t worth much when we married, but accumulated considerable wealth during the 25 year marriage because I was a high earner and we did well in investments. She got half, I got the other half.
In CA, child support is a simple formula. What each parent makes proportioned by custody%, e.g. me and spouse had 50/50 custody, so the formula said I should pay her x because of my higher income. Child support can be revisited based on changes in custody, changes in income, etc, but ultimately comes down to that formula which isn’t negotiable. I’m glossing over non-trivial side issues like who pays the children’s health insurance and so forth, but that’s the essence.
In CA, spousal support is more squishy, subject to litigation, pleading to judges etc, but ultimately again based on the difference between the spouse’s incomes. In a marriage of < 10 years, the term of spousal support is a short number of years, say 2-3. In marriages >= 10 years, the term of spousal support is basically forever. My ex could have hooked me for 13 years of support until I retire at 65, but she have me a break and I have a fixed term of less years (hence the “non modifiable” in the paragraph I quoted above).