|
My wife and I live in Ohio and we're planning on getting a dissolution. I printed and filled out all the appropriate forms, it's pretty simple until I get to the child support computation work sheet which a little over my head. We're filing shared parenting and we both have our daughter as close to 50/50 of the time as it can possibly get. My wife doesn't want me to have to pay child support, she makes about a thousand dollars a year more than I do, but from what I've read that's up to the judge not her. We are both low income making between thirteen and fourteen thousand a year. Our daughter is on state medical insurance through Medicaid but my wife is now eligible to put her on her insurance she gets from work. Health insurance is available to me through work but I don't have it because I can't afford it. My questions are: 1. Would hiring a lawyer increase my chances of getting the amount of child and medical support I have to pay lowered? 2. Will I have to pay back-support for the three months we've been separated? 3. Should my wife put my daughter on her insurance before filing the dissolution? 4. If we don't hire a lawyer who else can I have complete the child support computation work sheet for us? Thanks!
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
My girlfriend's workplace offers the ability to get a standing desk with a prescription. They give these same standing desks to managers by default. She has been having some back problems lately and her physical therapist wrote her a prescription for a standing desk. Upon presenting said prescription to her employer, they came back and requested that the doctor fill out a rather lengthy form explaining exactly why he wrote this prescription. This doesn't seem reasonable to me and I'm wondering if they have any grounds to do this. Not only does this seem to me like second guessing a medical professional's diagnosis, they're implicitly requiring that she disclose this portion of her medical records/history before they'll even consider providing the prescribed desk. Does her employer have the right to do this? My girlfriend works in DC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I have a question RE: estate/will stuff. It's a little bit complicated. I will be inheriting a large inheritance from my dad. This is not in question. He has already told me I'm getting everything. This isn't really the problem--my mom is dead and I'm an only child so there shouldn't be any estate drama after the fact. However, I am wondering if I can put my inheritance in my own will, even though I don't have it yet (and hopefully won't, for another decade or two). The thing is, my husband never learned how to budget or manage large amounts of property/assets and I fear he won't know what to do with it if I were to die. Also, I have some shady in-laws who would try to get a piece of the money if something happened to me and they got wind of the money's existence. So, is it possible to: a) outline conditions for which the money can be used and for which it can not be used? b) put in writing that I do not want certain in-laws to be gifted/loaned/otherwise benefit from the money, either directly/indirectly--like he cannot give them cash if they ask, he cannot take cash for "himself" and then buy them a new car, etc. c) require my husband to sign an NDA in exchange for the inheritance at the time of my death, so that people don't know he has money to begin with and won't ask? d) set up an annual disbursement option with conditions (like, my husband may withdraw $5,000 from the estate annually only for X, Y, or Z) e) put everything into a trust so that if someday we pop out a kid, Junior has a college fund? I am considering making one of my relatives (not my husband's family, but on my side) the custodian of the money to protect my husband from himself if that makes sense. I only say this because over the past five years or so, he's gotten 5 figures in bonuses which he has totally blown through, he has loaned money to his family (prior to our marriage--not since our marriage, with the bonus and loans to in-laws) that they never paid him back, etc. I don't want like 40 years of my parents' hard work to disappear because he doesn't know what he's doing. We now have a budget, savings, and a retirement plan because he listens to me, but I think we all know people are susceptible to stupid decisions after a loved one dies. I know people went batshit when my mom kicked the bucket. Hip Hoptimus Prime fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
You can do all (or similar) those things in a will and a trust. You will need a lawyer. Except c), that sounds bizarre. You better be talking about $100,000 plus or more though. Your state probably has an elective share law too which will complicate things. euphronius fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Horse Cock Johnson posted:My girlfriend's workplace offers the ability to get a standing desk with a prescription. They give these same standing desks to managers by default. She has been having some back problems lately and her physical therapist wrote her a prescription for a standing desk. Upon presenting said prescription to her employer, they came back and requested that the doctor fill out a rather lengthy form explaining exactly why he wrote this prescription. This doesn't seem reasonable to me and I'm wondering if they have any grounds to do this. Not only does this seem to me like second guessing a medical professional's diagnosis, they're implicitly requiring that she disclose this portion of her medical records/history before they'll even consider providing the prescribed desk. Pretty sure a standing desk isn't a right, or that failing to provide one is some OSHA violation or whatever. Sounds like her employer is just trying make sure there's justification for the expense and sort of being dicks about it. IANAL and all that, but this sounds silly. What does the form actually ask? e: By the way, two seconds of googling: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_medical.cfm quote:Once a person is hired and has started work, an employer generally can only ask medical questions or require a medical exam if the employer needs medical documentation to support an employee’s request for an accommodation or if the employer has reason to believe an employee would not be able to perform a job successfully or safely because of a medical condition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Regarding the estate/trust question, euphronius is entirely correct. A will plus trust can definitely do that. It just gets harder to justify the less there is. Regarding c), I imagine you could manage that via some sort of trust provision (no distribution to the husband unless he signs the NDA).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Hes going to be disclosing to his lawyers, accountants, his bank, his next spouse, the IRS, etc. I don't think it would be enforceable really. Also I don't think bequests can be consideration for a contract. I think I made that up but it sounds truthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Hmm. I'm not a T&E guy, so I'll defer to you on that one. Presumptions in favor of alienability of property and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You can do all (or similar) those things in a will and a trust. You will need a lawyer. You will absolutely need a lawyer for this. If you want to prepare a little for talking with your lawyer, read up on trusts. Wikipedia should be fine for starters. The NOLO books are also pretty good if you feel like spending a day or two reading. There's a very good chance that your dad will need to be involved to handle the possibility that he outlives you. Regarding the NDA thing - that's going to be tough because you need to consider what happens if he breaks the agreement. It isn't that huge an issue though because you'll probably end up with a trust and a trustee controlling the assets. The husband won't have direct access to the funds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Those conditions all amount to not wanting Husband to have actual control of the money. What you want is to have that inheritance go into a trust managed by someone not him. e: the NDA becomes an irrelevant factor then. Mixing is also an issue - no trust conditions can prevent the husband giving his own money to relatives and then dipping into the trust fund 'for the children' to make up the shortfall in his own funds he's created. If you don't trust Husband to have control of the money then don't let him have control of the money. This is perhaps a part of your will that you should not disclose until after you are dead (heh). Alchenar fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
If several people were renting a storage space from someone else, say a large open garage, and one person had some stored property damaged, who would be liable? Assuming that the person renting the property out to everyone else sent out a notice that they would be re-arranging some things inside the unit, and then after that day, one of the renters came in and saw destroyed things. Is this totally up to any lease or contract or is there some built-in understanding that your poo poo won't get wrecked? Theoretically it could be a coincidence and another renter could have been knocking stuff over so there might be a hard time proving who did what. Indiana.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
And don't forget the elective share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
beejay posted:If several people were renting a storage space from someone else, say a large open garage, and one person had some stored property damaged, who would be liable? Assuming that the person renting the property out to everyone else sent out a notice that they would be re-arranging some things inside the unit, and then after that day, one of the renters came in and saw destroyed things. Is this totally up to any lease or contract or is there some built-in understanding that your poo poo won't get wrecked? Theoretically it could be a coincidence and another renter could have been knocking stuff over so there might be a hard time proving who did what. Indiana. It'd depend on the storage rental contract and what it said. If it were silent, a bailment contract claim or a res ipsa negligence claim would be your (*cough* the "renter" *cough*) best argument for holding the landlord liable. But all that is really fact intensive, and state-law dependent, and contract-dependent, and we won't be able to give you a great answer over the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:You better be talking about $100,000 plus or more though. Yes, definitely more than $100,000. There will be two real estate properties (possibly more, pending decisions my dad is making) plus a whole load of cash. Could actually be close to $1,000,000 total value in a few years. The NDA thing--I would just mean like NDA when it comes to his shady family. Maybe it's a silly idea, though. I do want him to be able to access the money, but I just don't want him in control of it and I don't want him to be able to spend it all in a week. Everything we do now, we decide together, because he knows I'm smarter with money than him. I do think I will put a provision that he can't touch it for 2 years following my death, just because it will prevent impulsive decisions while grieving. Then after that only X amount per year for whatever approved expenses I choose. Then having one of my relatives in place as a custodian could be an additional safeguard. Mine are trustworthy to handle something like this, while his family sucks with money which is why I don't want them to know about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
What state are you in. If its PA I know a lawyer!  You def need a lawyer. There are all types of tricky issues in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:Yes, definitely more than $100,000. There will be two real estate properties (possibly more, pending decisions my dad is making) plus a whole load of cash. Could actually be close to $1,000,000 total value in a few years. Hire a lawyer. Involve your dad and your husband in the conversations as much as you are comfortable with. It sounds like you'll want to put all of your estate in a trust with one of your relatives as trustee, but the best way to do that will depend on state law & other considerations (I suggest involving your dad because of euphronius's point about elective shares - he could potentially leave the assets to you in some sort of trust arrangement that might end up a little complicated). The NDA thing, well, who knows if it's doable. But talking to your husband and getting him on board is always a good supplement to a legal solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
nm posted:Re: california probate While typically the probate process takes longer, setting up a trust is no guarantee that you are going to avoid court or avoid some time-consuming process. There are plenty of things that could happen with a trust that could turn into court proceedings or end up in some long complicated process. Probate cases do take a long time, but taking a quick look at the current probate calendar for LA, they don't appear to be taking significantly longer than normal even with court consolidation. Most cases were filed in the central courthouse before anyway. You're not going to guarantee a quicker process by choosing one over the other. Trusts are by far the quicker process when there's no complications, but if there are complications then trusts are just as capable of being tied up in court or other legal processes forever. My longest-running cases were trust cases that had been going on for almost 20 years, and a look at Monday's probate calendar for LA shows that the oldest case is a trust case first filed in 1999. quote:And don't forget the elective share. Exactly. It's really hard to control your funds in the way you want after your death. The law just simply does not encourage that. It depends on what state you are in, but you are definitely going to need to consult with a lawyer to even come close to want to do. FYI, for the person who asked this, the elective share is a portion of the state that the spouse can elect to take in place of whatever they are left in a will or trust. It is specifically meant to keep spouses from being disinherited or having their share of the estate tied up in a trust that benefits other parties. Every state handles this differently, so you would need to consult a lawyer in your state to determine how this might affect your estate plan, not to mention all the other tricky aspects to your situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Thanks for all the input. We live in NC, but we will be moving to FL hopefully in the next 12 months. So I'm unsure if I should do a will here in NC because provisions may not carry over to FL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
How can a will be tied up for decades? I don't doubt it but as a non-lawyer it's fairly incomprehensible, like many other run of the mill law things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
redacted, too much info.
TheKennedys fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
joshsboringlife posted:My wife and I live in Ohio and we're planning on getting a dissolution. I printed and filled out all the appropriate forms, it's pretty simple until I get to the child support computation work sheet which a little over my head. We're filing shared parenting and we both have our daughter as close to 50/50 of the time as it can possibly get. My wife doesn't want me to have to pay child support, she makes about a thousand dollars a year more than I do, but from what I've read that's up to the judge not her. We are both low income making between thirteen and fourteen thousand a year. Our daughter is on state medical insurance through Medicaid but my wife is now eligible to put her on her insurance she gets from work. Health insurance is available to me through work but I don't have it because I can't afford it. My questions are: I'm not licensed in Ohio, so this isn't legal advice, just general principles I've noticed. 1. Technically no - child support worksheets are presumed to be accurate, most of the work that child support attorneys do is to play with the numbers that go into the worksheets, i.e. what your actual gross income is, to affect the outcome. Courts will occasionally deviate from the worksheets, but it takes a lot to convince them to (i.e. high amount of personal bills, etc.). If you have basic jobs with easily discoverable, set salaries, no other forms of income, it's probably not worth the cost. 2. Possibly. Most states will calculate arrears from the date of separation. That's assuming that you would owe her. If you have a 50/50 split custody situation (usually determined by overnight stays per year, not just 'visited for the afternoon'), and mom makes more than dad, mom may actually owe dad. This may get knocked around due to the insurance situation, though. You'd have to see what the worksheet spits out. 3. Might not be a bad idea. 4. Your local county child support office may be able to run it through, though they might require you to sign up for their services first (which can be terminated, as long as neither of you are on welfare).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
States are beginning to legalize marijuana but it remains illegal under federal law. This is impacting institutions such as colleges and universities where students believe that pot is legal but the institution has to continue to crack down on it because their federal funding requires them to follow federal laws and regulations (The Chronicle of Higher Education just wrote about this today at http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/144091/ but it's behind a paywall). My question is what happens when the state police are called about something that is legal in the state but a violation of federal law? Do they have to actually do anything? Do they have a mandate to enforce federal laws as well as state and local laws? Do they have leeway to wave this off as relatively unimportant and pass it along to federal law enforcement personnel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
State cops don't have to do poo poo about violations of federal law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
School cops will usually be dicks though, because they're school cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Schools have their own rules aside from State/Federal laws and I'd be very surprised if pot was permitted on campuses or student housing anywhere in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Yeah, shortly after the law was passed in CO, the president of University of Colorado sent all students a hand-wringing email about how terrible it was that this had happened, and make no mistake we will bust your rear end if we catch you smoking on campus, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Legal stuff aside, college kids in CO are notorious for givin' no fucks when it comes to smoking pot. (might want to turn your volume down) e: Sorry, sort of a digression but it seemed apropos. 
kedo fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Is it possible to use a copyright as like a de facto patent, since it is much easier to get a copyright? In other words, suppose I design an automobile shock. I submit my design to the patent office and it gets rejected because it is not unique enough. In response, I submit my design to the copyright office, to protect the creative shape. I then display it as a "sculpture", and sue any auto part manufacturer who copies my sculpture. Now, I'm guessing this loophole wouldn't fly, but I can't figure out why. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Is it possible to use a copyright as like a de facto patent, since it is much easier to get a copyright? Useful articles--even aesthetically appealing ones--are not protected by copyright unless the creative or aesthetic element is separable from the functional element. Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Is it possible to use a copyright as like a de facto patent, since it is much easier to get a copyright? If your invention did not satisfy the novelty/obviousness/usefulness requirements (uniqueness is not one of them) for a utility patent, you could always get a design patent on the exact design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:State cops don't have to do poo poo about violations of federal law. True, but I fully expect state cops to enthusiastically back up their federal brethren whenever they can because tactical stuff is so drat fun. It will probably take a missive from the governor to make them back off. In some cases, local LOE do have mandates to enforce federal law, but that mandate has to come from the federal government. If lacking a mandate to enforce a law, a state LOE could decide to hold onto someone until a federal LOE comes to pick them up. In the case of pot, the state LOE could decide to enforce a different law like DUI, public nuisance, etc. In any case, it would take a federal prosecutor to bring federal charges, but state and local LOE can supply the evidence and can instigate the issue by calling in the DEA or something. The short answer here is don't be a dick and don't try lecturing a state cop about the limits of his authority because a pissed off cop will find something to charge you with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Is it possible to use a copyright as like a de facto patent, since it is much easier to get a copyright? If you put gold fringe on the shock, it will be a negatively averred sui juris shock and protected from additional enfringement, under penalty of fines of eleventy kajillion ounces of .999 fine gold. But you can't use capital letters to label the shock because that would unasseverate it, rendering it liable to further enfringement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
I have a legal question. There are five students in a classroom -- Alfred, Benny, Cassandra, Dimarco, and Eloise -- and every day they each sit in exactly one seat in a row of five seats. Eloise always sits in the fourth seat, and Benny always sits two seats from Alfred. But Benny and Eloise are not allowed to sit next to each other. My question is, why aren't Benny and Eloise allowed to sit together? And who the gently caress is Dimarco? Sorry, that was two questions. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
wshngmchn posted:I have a legal question. Look, "Benny," Eloise just doesn't want to sit next to you because she thinks you're a creep. Let it go, she's not going to go out with you. Bad Munki fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
wshngmchn posted:My question is, why aren't Benny and Eloise allowed to sit together? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
My friend might be getting a divorce. He shrugs it off that there's a chance his wife will stay (she is moving out in a week or two for her new apartment) and so far no paperwork has been filed. I've warned him to get the locks changed once she moves out, but he says that isn't going to happen. This is in AZ. If she did move out but kept the key to get back in their house, would she considered a resident of it still? They actually have TWO houses; they left one and are trying to sell it and then have their new one. I honestly don't know the details, but am trying to help the guy. Also, what happens if she serves him divorce papers and he doesn't sign?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:If she did move out but kept the key to get back in their house, would she considered a resident of it still? Considered a resident by who? By her, probably. By him, probably because he seems hopefully disposed in that direction anyway. Regardless of all that, her name is probably on the title and she'll come and go as she pleases until he changes the locks. At that point, they may have a fight over her access to the house. Cowslips Warren posted:Also, what happens if she serves him divorce papers and he doesn't sign? Doesn't sign what? The certification of service or the the divorce papers? If the certification, then the process server writes that the husband refused to sign. The papers are still officially served though. If the divorce papers, not signing them means they haven't reached an agreement. This is normal and he shouldn't sign the papers unless both he agrees with the terms and he understand the terms (lawyer up). Eventually, an agreement will be reached or decreed via court/mediation. They might go broke in the process and thereby have fewer and fewer assets to fight over. Regardless, there is no way for him to force his wife to stay married.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Regardless, there is no way for him to force his wife to stay married. What if he really loves her though? There must be a romantic comedy-style grand gesture that will work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:What if he really loves her though? There must be a romantic comedy-style grand gesture that will work. Well sure, but only if he really really truly really loves her. Otherwise, she'll feast on his soul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:00
|
|