BLANK

Tag: funds

Why isn’t there a child support debit card, so the funds can be tracked and itemized to prevent mismanagement?

In Utah, such a thing can be done, but I have never, in 24 years of practice, seen it ordered or agreed to (I’ve heard rumors that some parents have used this method of paying child support and accounting for the use of child support funds, but I cannot confirm them). 

There is a statute that permits a court to order a child support recipient to account for how the recipient uses the child support funds, and combined with a debit card, accounting for both the payment and the use of child support funds would be fairly easy.  

But in 24 years of practice I have never seen a Utah court invoke the statute (indeed, when I have asked that the court invoke the statute the courts have, without exception, condemned my clients and me for casting aspersions that the child support recipient would ever misspend child support funds and for wanting to “burden” the child support recipient with an accounting obligation).  

78B-12-218. Accountability of support provided to benefit child — Accounting. 

(1) The court or administrative agency which issues the initial or modified order for child support may, upon the petition of the obligor, order prospectively the obligee to furnish an accounting of amounts provided for the child’s benefit to the obligor, including an accounting or receipts. 

(2) The court or administrative agency may prescribe the frequency and the form of the accounting which shall include receipts and an accounting. 

(3) The obligor may petition for the accounting only if current on all child support that has been ordered. 

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277   

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-there-a-child-support-debit-card-so-the-funds-can-be-tracked-and-itemized-to-prevent-mismanagement/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1  

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

What would happen if there were no alimony or splitting assets in divorce without kids?

That is an interesting question. Before I answer it, know this: anyone who is motivated to marry on a “what’s in it for me?” basis and who stays married motivated by a “what’s in it for me?” basis is likely to be unhappy in his/her marriage and likely will end up divorced. Marriage success and happiness depends upon the couple’s mutual devotion to each other, to the family they make together, and placing the interests of their marriage and family ahead of their own, individual self-interest.

Here is what I believe would happen if there were no more alimony or splitting of assets in divorce proceedings when a married couple has no children:

  • the desire for certain women to marry would plummet. Why? It’s politically incorrect to state the following, but it is no less true: many women (not all) marry so that their husbands (and now, in the case of lesbian couples, their wives) will provide for them (and only for them, not for children the couple may have) financially. If this kind of woman (i.e., a woman who relied on her spouse financially) knew that she would get no alimony upon divorce and wouldn’t get half of the funds the spouse saved and half of the retirement funds the spouse accrued during the marriage, there is a certain kind of woman who would not marry.
    • Do not misunderstand me: a woman (or man) who foregoes pursuing a career so that the couple can have children and rear a family together in the best possible conditions, with one parent staying home to care for the children instead of working outside the home, is a spouse who, if she/he has lived up to that commitment, deserves alimony if the marriage ends in divorce. The traditional family, i.e., where the children have a stay at home parent, is the optimal way to rear children who will be themselves physically and mental healthy, decent, productive adults. Some families cannot afford to have a parent stay at home. There is no shame in that. But when both spouses work even though they both don’t need to work, and where such spouses have children and warehouse those kids in daycare, they are doing themselves and their children a disservice that cannot be compensated for.
  • the desire for a percentage of heterosexual men to marry would increase. Many such men have seen their fellow male friends and family members financially ruined by alimony and by losing so much of what they worked so hard for in divorce. This causes many men to fear and avoid marriage to a woman out of concern that divorce will ruin them. Many husbands of childless couples who knew that their wives would not profit from divorce would not fear divorce nearly as much as they do now.
    • Do not misunderstand me: there are many men who are devoted to their wives and children. Their wives and family are a labor of love for whom them willingly and gladly sacrifice their time, effort, and income. There are many decent men, however, whose wives are not themselves decent people who are equally devoted to their husbands and families. Men who marry gold diggers are justifiably upset when the gold diggers try to profit from divorce.

Now if, after you read this answer in its entirety, you conclude that “marriage is for suckers,” you have missed the point completely.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-were-no-more-alimony-or-splitting-of-assets-in-divorce-proceedings-and-no-kids-are-involved/answer/Eric-Johnson-311?prompt_topic_bio=1

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it more important for an attorney to have the money or the talent to litigate and win a case (example in the situation of your choosing)?

Is it more important for an attorney to have the money or the talent to litigate and win a case (example in the situation of your choosing)?

There are many factors that bear on whether an attorney will be as successful as possible in handling your case. You asked about money and talent, so I will address those factors.

An attorney obviously needs the talent and skill to handle the case successfully or he/she won’t (can’t) handle the case successfully.

The attorney needs to be solvent and have enough money to keep his/doors open or the attorney can’t handle the case successfully.

Finally, the attorney needs to be paid well enough to do the job well enough.

There are many people in every trade and profession (not just lawyers) whose guiding principle is “get the customer to pay me as much as possible.” Those kinds of people (and lawyers) are to be avoided. Not only because they don’t provide value for the money but because if they have that kind of predatory, self-interested attitude toward you and your needs, they likely don’t have enough intellectual and emotional bandwidth to give your case the attention and work it truly deserves. Which means that kind of lawyer does not have what it takes to handle the case successfully because your success isn’t really that kind of attorney’s goal.

I’m an attorney. I have also been a client. What do I look for when seeking a good attorney for me?:

Honesty and good character. Yes, there are some honest attorneys of good character out there. Yes, they are hard to find, but worth finding, given that being honest is, in my book, the most important trait a lawyer must have.

Skill. A very close second to honesty and good character is skill. No, that’s not quite right. A successful attorney must be as skilled as he/she is honest and of good character. An honest but incompetent attorney isn’t going to do you any good, and an incompetent attorney can often make your situation worse than had you never hired the incompetent attorney.

Diligence/scrappiness. A successful attorney has to be willing to do the work needed. He/she needs to be willing to do the hard things and stay vigilant. This does not mean your attorney is your slave or that your attorney must sacrifice his/her mental and physical health for you, but it does mean your attorney can’t be lazy.

Resourceful and creative, able to improvise when necessary. Litigation and your will throw you curve balls. Your attorney must be able not merely to roll with the punches, but to anticipate as many of them as possible and have the smarts and tools to react to them nimbly and as productively as possible.

One who provides an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. In other words, an attorney who delivers value for the money. It’s not always obvious whether your attorney delivers value. Keep your eyes open. Your attorney is not a wizard who can take a sow’s ear of a case and turn it into a silk purse, so don’t expect such a thing. Value is not synonymous with “miracles.” And don’t expect more from your good attorney than value for the money. Pay the attorney what the attorney is worth. No more, no less. If you try to cheat a good attorney, he/she is too wise to allow that, and your attorney will quit.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-more-important-for-an-attorney-to-have-the-money-or-the-talent-to-litigate-and-win-a-case-example-in-the-situation-of-your-choosing/answer/Eric-Johnson-311

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Click to listen highlighted text!