You are here

Stepmothers, is your income calculated for child support payments that your husband owes?

leo1234's picture
Forums: 

I married a man who has a daughter and pays child support, on time, on a monthly basis.

I own a rental property. My name is solely on the mortgage, title, leases, and everything else that has to do with my rental property. We do occupy one of the units and rent out two other units.

My question is, could that rental property income be requested by his ex to be caluclated for DH child support payments? Of course, the answer is yes - she can request anything. But can this be possible that the court would try and go after my property's income?

 

 

 

ESMOD's picture

 

Your income should not be taken into account.  The only round about way it might come into play is if you and your DH decide that he should be a stay at home husband because your income can suffice.  In that case, they may impute a salary for him.. possibly based on what he used to earn.. choosing not to be employed shouldn't release him from his CS obligation.

The other place where your income may come into play is in financial aid calculations if the choice is to use him as the primary parent.  FISA in the US does use both incomes of the household that the child resides in or is supported by.

leo1234's picture

Thanks for your response. I feel confident that my personal income from my full time job would not be caluclated for his child support payments.

However, I worry more about my rental property income. Since we are married and I purchased the property when we were married. Although, again my name is solely on title/mortgage etc. We did file joint on our taxes in 2016 - something we won't do again, but the income from my rental property was listed.

justmakingthebest's picture

As long as you can prove that your name is the only name on the title and mortgage, that income should not be calculated. 

hereiam's picture

I would even go so far as to have that rental income go into a separate account, that's in your name only. If it doesn't, already.

TwoOfUs's picture

I’d go so far as to create a simple LLC holding company for all rental properties with you as the sole shareholder. 

That way...not only will that income be untouchable by BM or skid for any reason but it’s also good liability protection for you, personally. 

It doesn’t cost much to set up an LLC...especially with just one owner. You’ll have to do separate taxes for the entity, which is a small expense...but the peace of mind is worth it. 

leo1234's picture

Thanks for all the responses. Everything is in my name, my account, etc... just trying to make sure I'm not missing anything that I could be doing to protect my income.

THANK YOU!

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Please consult an attorney. There IS a possibility that the court will consider the following...

Because you make X amount of $, you are able to support your spouse. Therefore, your spouse can afford to pay more CS.

IOW, it's a roundabout way of factoring YOUR money for CS. It happened to a friend of mine in another state. This was a number of years ago, so the laws may have changed, but you should consult an attorney to be on the safe side.

notsurehowtodeal's picture

your income is not used when your DH's child support is calculated'. However, occasionally it is - depending on the state. There have been a few horror stories about it on this site. Check your state's laws - you might find some information there.

If BM does decide to try and take your income into account, do not provide anything to her or the court without a subpoena.

Rags's picture

Generally no State stipulates that a SParents income be used in the calculation of CS.  In fact most specifically stipulate that a SParents income cannot be used in the calculation of CS.... The problem is that the States also give Judges nearly full leaway to do whatever they want in family law rulings.  Hense why I detest the idiots with the black robes and Fischer-Price wooden hammers who rarely make a decent decision.

Every time we went to court the SpermClan would attempt to have my income factored into the CS calculation in an attempt to reduce their CS obligation to my SS.  They never succeeded.  However, the Peoples Republic of SpermLand allows for the black robbed idiots to grant the NCP an income reduction credit of the CPs spouse is a high earner.  So the SpermIdiot had his income reduced by $1000/mo for CS calculation purposes because as the Judge said "Step Dad makes a good living and the (SpermIdiot) should not be penalized by being forced to contribute to an artificially elevated standard of living for this child."

So, the SpermIdiot did benefit from my income.  Which pissed me off to no end.  I was in the process of running a full page ad in the Judges home town outlinning his idiocy when his clerk called me and requested that I not run the ad.  He was in the process of running for re-election and feared that my checkbook contributions to the newspaper barring his idiot ass would adversly impact his campaign.  Apparently he had a family member at the news paper.

I agreed to withdraw the ad if he agreed to recuse  himself from all future court cases involving our Custody/Visitation/Support case.  We never saw that DipShitIot again.

Every time we went to court the SpermClan would motion for my income to be considered in CS calculation. So... we did the same thing to SpermGrandHag and SpermGrandPa since they were the ones paying their idiot son's CS obligation on my SS, raising my SS's  three younger also out of wedlock SpermIdiot spawned half sibs by two other baby mamas with no help from the SpermIdiot and allowing the SpermIdiot to live in their investment property rent free.  That make SpermGrandHad and SpermGrandPa nearly stroke out... *diablo*       Now that was some fun... let me tell ya.

The good news is that the income reduction credit only reduced the SpermIdiot's maximum CS by $50/mo but him gaining one micro-cent of benefit from my income still pisses me off 24 years later. 

CLove's picture

WE JUST got served with child support papers. Reading up on California calculations. And laws. So yeah, basically everyone gets screwed in the end. Im working full time as a temp, and he does ok, but our expenses are high, and we do more like 100% financial support of Munchkin SD12. I just hope and pray that the court throws out the case, because its just really stupid.

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

See if you can find receipts showing that you do 100% support of her. That should help.

ndc's picture

My state uses a percentage of income formula.  A spouse's income is not used in the formula, but *can* be used to justify a deviation from the formula.

Rags's picture

All states use one of three CS models. The Income Shares Model, the % of Income Model of the Melsen Model.  Sadly all of them allow Judges to do what they want regardless of the model in place for that state. 

We lived under the Income Shares Model. I had many employees when we lived in DE who were butchered under the Melsen Model.

The key is a fair and intelligent Judge.  However rare those unicorns may be.

Rylie2277's picture

It really depends on your state. Any property accumulated during marriage is considered community property, so the income from it may be considered the same. This would be different if it were something you owned prior to the marriage. I would definitely consult an attorney in your area. You can have DH sign a Quick Claim Deed (may be called something different in your area). It is a document stating that he has no interest in the property and if you all are ever divorced, it is your property and not that of the community of the marriage.  

thinkthrice's picture

And in NYS the CS papers say "income from RESIDENTS of the household."  Because the feds give kickbacks to local CSEU collection agencies for highest amount collected, the CP BM could marry Bill Gates and they don't care however the NCP bioDAD's spouse's income is considered in the sense of how much it frees up bioDAD from paying household expenses....which could be redirected to CS.

I vote for the LLC.