Relationship split - differing incomes

Forums › Off topic › Relationship split - differing incomes

1 | 2 | 3

Handle9

2010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 858

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2194119 9-Mar-2019 08:48

surfisup1000:
Handle9:
In all likelihood it was child support, not part of the settlement. There may have been other circumstances but that is the most likely reason.

I don't think it was child support as they equally share the children.

It sounded fairly complex to me as children were involved, his career skyrocketed while hers fizzled due to being the main carer for the kids.

And, she was going for future earnings too. Don't know if she got that though.

Even now, after everything is supposedly settled, she goes to her lawyer to see if she can get more money out of him.

Equal care still results in child support. The amount isnt fixed, its dependent on the relative incomes and number of kids.

solutionz

667 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 188
Inactive user

Reply # 2194328 9-Mar-2019 11:19

The thing is @dejadeadnz I don't actually dispute a lot of what you are saying - however you make a few leaps in logic so context veers off into fallacious strawman argument, appeals to authority etc).

Nothing you've said is mutually exclusive with the Op's initial canvas of "what is reasonable?" - the fact many here seem to have difficulty differentiating between what is "reasonable" (fair, moral, conducive to avoiding long term guilt / regret etc) and what is "legally obliged" is probably telling of the legal & IT professions.

You know what will likely kill the possibility of an early agreement? One party's lawyer telling his/her client that the other party's offer is patently unfair and out-of-step with the law.

I probably could have been clearer in my initial post when I said "I don't think a lawyer needs to be your first step...any agreement definitely needs to be in writing" however I have clarified a lawyer is recommended (and I don't see anyone arguing against this despite what you're implying) to implement the actual agreement - at which time any competent professional would raise any other issues and ensure both parties have their independent representation in accordance with the act etc.

What the OP is interested in (this being in-line with what most would judge to be his objective long term interest) is avoiding long term pain/cost, maintain civil relations with the ex, and get a binding/fair agreement done.

You make a valid point to look through to the Op's underlying motivations however again I think you're having trouble separating the moral from the legal question.

In many cases (short of committing a crime or being arrested) a lawyer is definitely NOT the first port of call. Educating yourself to a degree on some of the possible options, coming in informed and with a view of your ideal outcomes is going to save a truckload of time, money and help you catch any oversights (I've seen many).

You're looking at this from the side of counsel; I'm looking at it from navigating a range of complex regulation daily for clients & my business and dealing with lawyers & regulators, regularly. It's the difference between spending 1000's vs 10's of 1000's on legalwork and resulting in weeks vs months. However I'm no stranger to litigation and from working in that field for a number of years know how cynical one can become when you're only dealing with the cases where civil relations have broken down - you don't see the 99.9% cases where people can engage reasonably.

I'm not sure what value is brought to the thread after the 10th "go see a lawyer" post...

"Geekzone" (n Geek - "a knowledgeable and obsessive enthusiast") implies a place for competent individuals to discuss ideas, opinions, hack things, void warranties, "do it yourself" etc however for some reasons these threads often devolve in a barrage of "go see a lawyer", "you need xyz professional", "follow the authorised procedure" etc ad nauseam.

You could do this with virtually any thread on here...

Vodafone question > "Ask Vodafone"

IT Question > "Pay an IT pro"

Electronics Project > "Get an electrician"..

Is this the Yellow Pages or a geeks forum? We should assume a certain degree of intelligence of the members here, provide them with relevant advice if we have it and also assume unless otherwise stated the respondents are not LLB, QC, AFA, CA, MD, LBP, ECANZ, MCP or acting as reps of any organisation (avoiding the need to prefix every post with "IANAL" etc) - however that's a call for @BDFL

dejadeadnz

1464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1159

Subscriber

Reply # 2194395 9-Mar-2019 12:45

solutionz:

Nothing you've said is mutually exclusive with the Op's initial canvas of "what is reasonable?" - the fact many here seem to have difficulty differentiating between what is "reasonable" (fair, moral, conducive to avoiding long term guilt / regret etc) and what is "legally obliged" is probably telling of the legal & IT professions.

For the umpteenth time, how about you have a read of what people have written, calmly have a think, and then respond? You can't somehow just assert that a settlement is "fair" without regard to the other party's objective legal entitlements. You have this absolutely absurd notion in your head that the law is somehow entirely divorced from morality and objective reasoning -- it's not. The point I and many others have made to you is that most people, when confronted with their own biases/lack of knowledge, are unlikely to be able to devise an offer in the circumstances that the OP is in that is truly fair to himself and the soon-to-be ex, without a degree of professional assistance. None of this means that the lawyer needs the dictate the whole process, that the OP can't think/shouldn't think for himself, or whatever other rubbish strawmen that you want to throw at it.

You're looking at this from the side of counsel; I'm looking at it from navigating a range of complex regulation daily for clients & my business and dealing with lawyers & regulators, regularly. It's the difference between spending 1000's vs 10's of 1000's on legalwork and resulting in weeks vs months. However I'm no stranger to litigation and from working in that field for a number of years know how cynical one can become when you're only dealing with the cases where civil relations have broken down - you don't see the 99.9% cases where people can engage reasonably.

Nice assumption but you're wrong. I am not looking at this from the POV of counsel. I am looking at this from the POV of someone who actually engages with the law as an informed, educated, and professional with a legal background who nonetheless does his level best daily in his professional life to avoid litigation. I don't even work as a pure lawyer anymore and whilst I was a litigator, litigation was always the last resort. The vast majority of lawyers actually find that even when they are engaged, the parties can nonetheless engage with their counterparts reasonably and sensibly, either through us or directly, but in all cases after getting some informed advice as to their real entitlements.

It's time that you really stop spouting off on things that you don't understand. For that matter, stop trying to pretend that you understand what background I have or what I am trying to say before reading what is written properly.

nathan

5076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1405

Trusted

Microsoft

Reply # 2194438 9-Mar-2019 13:05

3 people support this post

my suggestion is to at least read up on the Relationship Property Act, and there are a lot of FAQs etc about it on NZ lawyer websites

Read up so you at least are grounded in the basics of how its designed to work

Personally I think the 3 years "together" thing and you're effectively married, is a crock of shizer, but that's irrelevant to your situation and thanks Helen Clark

PS INAL, but I have a pretty nice armchair

solutionz

667 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 188
Inactive user

Reply # 2194506 9-Mar-2019 14:41

dejadeadnz: You can't somehow just assert that a settlement is "fair" without regard to the other party's objective legal entitlements. You have this absolutely absurd notion in your head that the law is somehow entirely divorced from morality and objective reasoning -- it's not.

This speaks volumes. You also have no legal requirement to render assistance to someone dying in the street, nor do you even have to inform anyone that could - however objectively I would not consider this (inaction) fair, reasonable, moral etc.

Psychopaths (as Lawyers typically rank highest only behind CEOs) can happily conduct themselves up to the limits of (what they can get away with in) a court of law however many others derive peace and satisfaction in life taking a higher moral position - even if that means putting their own life and liberties at risk (crazy! I know??).

OP asked what is "reasonable" (not what is legally required) and I suggested "a" path of objective reasoning and "some" considerations - not "the" only factors or legal considerations. Your line of reasoning basically rests on lawyers being the moral arbiters. In that case you may as well consult a JP, Samaritan, Priest, MP or MD etc?.

Given the OP's chosen to "support" (+) my posts and (presumably him) mark it as the correct "answer" before someone else (presumably you) removed it I would say I have thoroughly read and understood the posts and responded directly and appropriately to the question - however It's up to OP to clarify that if he choses.

Nevertheless as you continue to appeal to your own authority on the matter you may as well clearly disclose your qualifications and experience to the OP for his own verification rather than expect him (or anyone else) to accept your pontifications, and/or help him directly yourself.

And to be honest I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for. Everyone here is saying "yes go see a lawyer" however you're basically saying "ignore any suggestions from anyone else other than a lawyer" like they are gods - perhaps a bit of an occupational bias I think.

Anyway I won't perpetuate the deviation of this thread however hopefully this discourse and been insightful to some.

Handle9

2010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 858

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2194600 9-Mar-2019 16:59

solutionz:

dejadeadnz: You can't somehow just assert that a settlement is "fair" without regard to the other party's objective legal entitlements. You have this absolutely absurd notion in your head that the law is somehow entirely divorced from morality and objective reasoning -- it's not.

This speaks volumes. You also have no legal requirement to render assistance to someone dying in the street, nor do you even have to inform anyone that could - however objectively I would not consider this (inaction) fair, reasonable, moral etc.

In this case (not the completely unrelated and totally condescending example you have given) the entire purpose of the law is to give a fair settlement to both parties in a separation. How is what is has been said wrong, morally or legally?

solutionz:

Psychopaths (as Lawyers typically rank highest only behind CEOs) can happily conduct themselves up to the limits of (what they can get away with in) a court of law however many others derive peace and satisfaction in life taking a higher moral position - even if that means putting their own life and liberties at risk (crazy! I know??).

What is the point of these potshots at lawyers? It's pretty apparent that you don't like them but making broad and sweeping statements doesn't help the OP or the conversation.

You're basically taking the position in this thread it is better to be uninformed. Geekzone is generally better than most of society but some of the opinions that people have on here are astonishingly inaccurate, especially regarding the law.

solutionz: I probably could have been clearer in my initial post when I said "I don't think a lawyer needs to be your first step...any agreement definitely needs to be in writing" however I have clarified a lawyer is recommended (and I don't see anyone arguing against this despite what you're implying) to implement the actual agreement - at which time any competent professional would raise any other issues and ensure both parties have their independent representation in accordance with the act etc.

Even this statement is wrong, it isn't that a lawyer is recommended for a settlement, it is that a lawyer is must be involved for the settlement to be binding. The reason for this is a moral one - otherwise one party or the other has a very good chance of being screwed out of what is fair by the other party.

This is a complex and highly emotional area and what "fair" and "moral" is very subjective. It doesn't take much for this to go pear shaped.

If both parties are amicable and fair then getting correct advice makes it go faster and smoother and if it gets nasty taking informed advice at the front end protects both parties.

pctek

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Reply # 2194708 9-Mar-2019 18:55

I earn 85k (+car), she earns about 40k. Assets aside, what would be a reasonable recognition of this imbalance in incomes in terms of a lump sum payment in the settlement?

payment? Pretty much it's a 50/50 split unless there are reasons not to - as in one did not work at all and did not pay a mortgage or some such.

Yes you earn more, but you are not responsible for her income now.
Nice of you though.

dejadeadnz

1464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1159

Subscriber

Reply # 2194736 9-Mar-2019 19:51

solutionz:

This speaks volumes. You also have no legal requirement to render assistance to someone dying in the street, nor do you even have to inform anyone that could - however objectively I would not consider this (inaction) fair, reasonable, moral etc.

The pomposity with which you regularly assert highly controversial positions is both depressingly familiar (because, regrettably, I have to agree with @Handle9 that ignorant ravings about the law is commonplace on GZ) and appalling, for someone who doesn't spare one moment pontificating on what is fair, reasonable and moral etc. Have you paused for a moment to consider that in a liberal and democratic society, people of goodwill and reasonable intelligence (actually can disagree -- whilst acting reasonably -- on what is fair? This is why the law exists to put some boundaries around each issue and has processes to help parties to work disagreements through.

For a laugh, there are actually infinitely good arguments against imposing a legal duty to render assistance. For example, in cases involving someone who is drowning, statistics actually tell us that a lot of drowning victims are well-meaning good samaritans who over-estimate their ability to render useful assistance. As a matter of social policy, reasonable people can certainly come to the view that it's undesirable to have the police make intrusive inquiries of people near the scene of a disaster etc on whether they possessed sufficient abilities to render useful assistance and whether they did enough in the circumstances. And we actually know from human experiences that many people do try to help. This doesn't settle one way or another whether there should be a legal duty to render assistance but at least shows that issue is far more debatable than you seem to think.

Nevertheless as you continue to appeal to your own authority on the matter you may as well clearly disclose your qualifications and experience to the OP for his own verification rather than expect him (or anyone else) to accept your pontifications, and/or help him directly yourself.

Here's the funny part. I am actually telling everyone that notwithstanding the absolutely objective fact that I could run rings around you in terms of legal knowledge and notwithstanding having at least moderately decent legal qualifications, I am actually not capable of helping him. Compare your and my approach -- you come from a starting point of an amateurish (at best) understanding of the law, yet this has never stopped you from repeatedly asserting legal notions that are easily proven to be wrong. Who's the one appealing to authority again? I suppose in your case, the authority would be entirely imaginary.

And you're the one practically descending to the level of trying to tell everyone that because the OP "+1"ed your post, you must be on to something. What do you think this is? Primary school popularity contest? Here's the brutal, objective reality. The OP and his soon-to-be-ex, depending on their asset base and where in NZ they live, are around middle-class(ish) and maybe in some circumstances even somewhat vulnerable. It only takes a protracted dispute for things to become quite emotionally, financially, and god-knows-what-more ruinous for them. Some of us are seriously trying to help them. You seem to want to use his plight as an opportunity to have a rant about lawyers. And you have the gall to call people out as being sociopathic?

surfisup1000

4037 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1352

Reply # 2194762 9-Mar-2019 20:51

One person supports this post

dejadeadnz:

What do you think this is? Primary school popularity contest?

Ouch! And verbose :)

martyyn

1219 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 124

Subscriber

Reply # 2195207 10-Mar-2019 19:11

4 people support this post

My wife is a family lawyer with over 20 years experience. She runs her own practice and is highly respected in both her profession and the community.

Her advice is to always engage a professional and do it as early as possible.

It's encouraging the OP and former partner wish to have an amicable split, but if you create an agreement which is then pulled to pieces when you both seek independent legal advice you could be starting from square one anyway.

Not all of them are sharks, pretty much every family lawyer I've met over the years are lovely people who really want to help their clients.

Take advantage of their expertise to make it as simple and painless as possible.

BTR

1502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 453

Reply # 2195779 11-Mar-2019 12:22

One person supports this post

It depends if children are involved. If not then simply assets split 50/50 and no future payments needed.

As mentioned you are going to need to involve a lawyer to get assets equally split.

1 | 2 | 3