I have a friend that has certain wording in his final, signed, divorce agreement (finalized 3 years ago) that isn't as he had thought it was... until a situation occurred that made him refer back to the papers.

This is in regards to alimony. He had discussed with his attorney as early as the first meeting that alimony would be paid until his Ex-Wife remarried ~or~ co-habitated with another.

Fast forward to now.

Ex wife is now cohabitating with someone, and has been for a few months. Friend was still paying alimony and I said to him that surely he could now cease payments since she is living with someone. He said that the papers apparently omitted the phrase "cohabitation" and referred only to remarriage... which obviously leaves him very stuck. This was an obvious error made by the attorneys (probably quite intentionally by her attorney), that wasn't caught by friend's attorney before the final papers were signed. I'm certain that my friend was given the nod that all was as discussed from his attorney and he signed on that trust.

Anyway.... doesn't the court allow you to file a motion to have prior agreements re-evaluated, so items such as this can be amended. If this was to appear before a judge, it would be changed to co-habitation/remarriage, as it in this state, either end alimony.

Can't he file a motion to have this redecided?

It's the weekend and the attorneys aren't around to ask.....
Thanks

I would imagine his attorney would be the best person to ask this question... but I personally have never heard of alimony ceasing due to cohabitation. Alimony usually ends when the ex-spouse remarries, not chooses to live with someone.

Dependant on the state -- yes you can file a motion to include *cohabitation*. If it was discussed in the court, then you can obtain the transcripts and have the order modified to reflect what was actually said in court, without having to file a motion. I believe the Prairie Law website has on board lawyers that will post on their site if a question is asked. Worth a try.

It is quite common, and only correct in my opinion, that alimony should cease upon cohabitation. It is in my agreement, but the maintenance was also dependent upon my ex staying in the marrital residence or immediately replacing it with a comparable residence. She has moved from a 4 bedroom house with a fenced yard in a great neighborhood which our children have lived in for the last 6 years, to a brand new townhome without any neighborhood what so ever. I was paying for her mortgage in the other house, and would have paid still if she had bought something good for my boys. It wouldn't have even have needed to be big or as nice. Just a yard and a little room to play.

She bought this for herself, never thinking about her children. That is just who she is and actually always has been. No grass to mow. NO flowers to plant. It is a great singles place, just not good for two young boys.

Anyway, back to the question. I doubt that he will be able to change the agreement at this time. All she would have to say is that she agreed to this and wouldn't have agreed to anything else. He signed the papers, perhaps in error, but he signed them none-the-less. He probably can't go back and change it now, because it could be that he is just angry that she has moved on, and now wants to 'strike back'. Even though I DON'T think that is the case at all. Legally, I doubt it would fly, and I suspect that is what his lawyer has told him as well.

But who knows... He should definitely ask.

I think you will have trouble winning such a motion, it sounds like sour grapes(not to me, but possibly a judge.)

My friend had his case reopened when he found out his x had skimmed large amounts of money from his business and he found out after the fact.

My x filed for evaluation of the cs she was paying me because she is now taking the kids 50% of the time. I accepted reduction as my lawyer said I could end up paying her since I make more money.

Check out with a lawyer, not necesarily yours since he missed it initially.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">She bought this for herself, never thinking about her children. That is just who she is and actually always has been. No grass to mow. NO flowers to plant. It is a great singles place, just not good for two young boys.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi....I'm been down this road -- "He's doing this for himself and not thinking about the kids." I had a very hard time wrapping my head around this concept, but I'll try and pass this on as it has saved me a whole lot of grief.

Parents all have different parenting skills, values, morals and beliefs. Your ex and my ex obviously have different beliefs in what *they* think is good for the kids, in comparision to what *we* believe is good for the kids. You believe that a yard to mow and a community is less better for the kids. She of course has a different belief. Who's right? Neither one of you! Both of you are right in your own way, thing is, you are having a hard time believing what she believes. Isn't that why you are both divorced?

The only thing I can tell you is to make sure that *YOU* are modelling good behaviour to your kids. If you want to provide that home, then you do it. Fight for custody of the kids and you become the custodial parent. I can guarantee that living in a townhouse compared to living in a single family dwelling with a yard, won't make ONE IOTA difference to a judge. The judge will look at the well being of the kids. Are they taken care of? Are they healthy? Are they attending school? Do they have friends? What kind of environment are they in? And that also goes for her having a guy living in the house.

This is about the townhouse too.
I looked at townhouses because the limited maintenance would allow me to spend more time with my children, rather than work on the house.
Many in my area are larger than most homes, and more affordable. And they have the benefit of having many children around so the kids won't feel like they are alone. Also, it's a way to meet other "divorced" families. And there are usually pools and play areas.

Rethink your comments JC. I did settle on a SF home, but the kids rarely play in the backyard, and there are no kids close enough that I'd let them run out the door to play.

Re: the divorce decree. X's lawyer "volunteered" to draft the document and get it to my lawyer for review. He never produced it in time, and we only got to look at it in court. And he totally changed much of what was discussed and agreed upon. So my lawyer and I spent an hour in court reviewing the document and handwriting changes, which all parties needed to initial. This is a ploy by the lawyers in many cases, so your friend's lawyer (and your friend) should have made sure it said what they wished.

BTW, my X is cohabiting with a 55 YO gay man who probably has AIDS and is a heavy smoker. I can't believe this is in the best interest of my children, but I have no rights regarding to whom he chooses to rent a room.

That could be so, at least about how she chooses to live. It truly is her decision how to live. She can choose it and she can pay for it. I don't want to control her, but I do want to see a return on the money that I give for a specific purpose. I told her that I would pay for her mortgage so that she would not have to worry about how she could live. I told her that I would even pay for it if she replaced it (our marrital home) with a comparable place... and I would have paid had she even come close. I gave her full title to the house without recompense... in order to try to help her and ease her strain. I took all the bills except for her student loans. I pay full CS, although I have them at least half time both legally and in reality. Oh yes... she had 4 affairs and decided to leave the marriage, lying at every turn. NOT the other way around.

You know, it would even perhaps be OK should it be that she moved there to be a better mother. Have more time, have less housework, etc. However, by boys say she just goes upstairs and watches TV in her room while talking on the phone. She has admitted this, the day before my boys going to counseling. She says it is just because of the 'hectic' life she is leading, but she forgets... I was married to her for 11 years. She always 'left' usually going into another room and reading until she fell asleep. Over the course of the summer, she gave me at least half of 'her' weedends with them because of 'great opportunities' that came up. So much so that my boys were more surprised when they were with her than when they weren't. This is just another way of separating herself from reality, but still 'keeping the money'.

It truly is her choice how to live and how she is going to be with our children while they are in her care. They are making it, with alot of my finances going to counseling each month. This has come about because of their difficulty in dealing with the divorce and the way that their mother has been ignoring them. She has turned it around a little, I think because she was seeing that she could loose her half of custody and would not have ANY money should that occur. My boys are a little better and I work every day to help them continue to improve.

But she has to realize, or if not realize, she has to deal with the fact that I offerred to pay her the extra to ensure that my boys would have a good place to live while they were with her. She didn't get it as part of some deal, she didn't give and this was the result. I offerred it to her because I was trying to ensure that she wouldn't HAVE to move to some small place in which the primary form of entertainment has become one of the 4 TVs in a townhouse. I hoped that by taking that burdon from her, she would be able to give her stress a bit of rest and my boys would be the beneficiaries. However, she just thinks she is entitled to the money, and has probably found by now, that legally, she is not.

The problem is, I really want to help her, but I find that no matter what I do, I get attacked. If I gave her a dollar, she would be upset because she thought I had two. That is just who she is and always will be. She is an angry, mixed up woman, who bites every hand that is offerred in support. My hand and my heart is scarred beyond recognition. I would love to extend it again, but I will not when I know that the smile is nothing more that gritted and bared teeth.

<small>[ December 15, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Formerly Confused ]</small>

FC, I'm sorry to say that in my view you are trying to control your wife post D with money. You have no right to say how she spends CS, nor should you expect a "return" on your investment? If you choose to give extra money to ensure that your children live a better life, then give freely, without strings. And let it go.
You can't control her actions, or make her become the mother you want her to be.
This is a hard lesson for me and for many people. Our X's are not the people, nor the parents we wish they were, but maybe they are the best parents they can be.

FC:

I have to agree with Newly here. Do what you must to fulfill your obligations. My view is to look at it as peace of mind for myself, if I were you.

In the end, you will be able to live with yourself. Why? Because you made the maximum effort.

Newly/Gregg

I appreciate your thoughts and I can see that how this was written, that you might think this way. All I can say is that I try to provide for my children in every way that I can. She does whatever she wants with CS. I pay her full, even though she is only entitled to half. I do that for them without regret or concern.

I freely offered her extra money in order to alleviate her worry about moving and 'where would she live'. Once again, I did it NOT only for my boys, but also for her. I never wanted nor want her to have to worry about her home. But the home was primarily for my boys, and what she chose was NOT for my boys but for her. My boys don't like it and have gained nothing other than being a few minutes closer to school.

So I guess since the money was written into our agreement to be for our marrital residence or a comparable residence and she has chosen to move to a completely incomparable place... why is it controlling to uphold our agreement? If you make a deal with your teenager to give them money to ensure that they have clothes and they end up buying a CD player, do you continue giving them money? Is this controlling or merely recognition that the reason for your giving is not being met?

Do I wish she had chosen differently? Of course I do. My boys can't go outside and play. They have been moved away from their friends, and have both smaller rooms and lost a play room. If the primary reason that I offered the money was to provide a good place for my children, why should I continue to pay when she has chosen something so obviously NOT meant for the good of my children?

The return that I speak of is seeing my children being able to play in a yard of some sort. Run across the street and be at their friends' house, etc. THAT is the return. This is NOT child support. This money was specifically for allowing housing NOT to be a factor in their lives, which in all actuallity, given the amount of CS that I pay, would not be an issue anyway. We had a divorcing friend who had to move to a dank, dark apartment in order to survive because of finances. I did not want that to be the case for her.

I really don't feel like I am controlling her. I said one time , the day I found she was selling 'her' house, "Please just get something good for BOTH you and the boys." She immediately became indignant and told me I couldn't tell her what to do. I didn't say a word about it, and perhaps as unbelieveable as it is to believe, that was all I said and it was in a very soft and non threatening tone. I have not said a word about it since. My lawyer sent a letter that her move was not within the parameters of the agreement, therefore payment would cease. Not a word about it has been uttered between us. I did not and do not want to control her, but I want a good place for my boys. I would have expected the same from her, especially since that place would have been FREE had she just chosen it. Yes I guess in a way that limits her choices, but obviously she still chose, and in accordance so did I.

I would love feedback on this, because I must tell you, I tossed and turned with this for some time. But she has manipulated me with money and my children for almost 2 years now, and I have slowly removed each and every tie to her. Each attack she made that hurt me showed me that by extending a hand, it would be bitten. Everything I do and have done, I have done with a pure heart. God knows this as, I believe, does she. My counselor, friends, family, etc. have all been telling me that I needed to quit setting myself up to be hurt. It has taken me almost 2 years to see this simple at least to everyone else, fact.

<small>[ December 17, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Formerly Confused ]</small>

FC, I'm writing because you asked for comments, not to bash you.
You may have made the offer in good faith, however, your offer had strings attached based on what you considered appropriate. Another thought in her mind may have been that you might pay extra in the beginning, but then realize that you couldn't afford to pay it, and she'd be stuck in a house she couldn't afford. I've read similar stories here on MB. Maybe she needed to feel independent from you and needed to find a place she could afford on her own.
Please look at some of the benefits of a condo neighborhood. I'm sure there are some, its just not what you wanted for your children.
But then, divorce is not something any of us wanted our children to experience.
If you really want to provide for your kids. Take the money you were willing to pay for housing and start a college fund. Tell noone about it until they are ready to choose a college, and everyone will appreciate it.

Good luck. Merry Christmas.