Will remarriage affect alimony and child support in this circumstance? I'm a widowed artist. I have money in investments as a result of life insurance which I draw from when necessary - which with two kids is pretty much all the time. The investment income is under $10,000 (US) per year. Now, some artists make lots of money, but most make precisely zero dollars. I'm fine with this. But I can appreciate most women being like "I'm not going to support some guy." Fair enough; I support myself just fine, but whatever. What I'd like to know, for reference, is whether a woman receiving child support and alimony from a dissolution of marriage would have those sources of income reduced upon remarriage to a partner without an income (US). What about with investment-only income of, say, $5,000 per year? I realize this might be a case-by-case basis.
Short Answer Child support does not change upon remarriage per se, although remarriage often results in a change of circumstances that does require a change in child support. Alimony often terminates upon the remarriage of the person receiving it, but not always. Usually, it does not terminate upon remarriage only when a separation agreement reached by the parties says that it doesn't terminate. Thus, generally speaking, a man's child support and alimony obligations will not be reduced because he has a new spouse and/or her children in his household. Child Support Child support does not change based upon marital status. It is a function of the income (of all types) of each of the parents, of extraordinary expenses of the child, and of overnights spent with each parent per year (it can also change if a child, perhaps one of several provided for in the child support award, is emancipated). Special rules apply when child support is owed to more than one co-parent (e.g. someone with two ex-wives and five children from a combination of each of the prior spouses and a current spouse). Critically, child support is not a function of the expenses of the parents or of the non-extraordinary expenses of the children. Income for child support purposes does not distinguish between earned income and investment income, or between taxed and untaxed income, and has a very broad definition of income that sometimes includes untaxed gifts. But, as a matter of policy, some child support laws disregard second or third jobs, or earned income in in addition to a full time job or full time combination of part-time jobs, when calculating child support. Income for child support purposes does not include a spouse's income. Child support obligations can be updated based upon a substantial change in these factors. So, unless the remarriage results in a change in income, in a child's extraordinary expenses, or in overnights spent, it isn't going to change child support. Also, income includes income imputed to a party where someone could work but chooses not to do so. So, if a remarried mother quit her good paying job when she remarried, she might not necessarily get a reduction in child support since she could have kept her job and chose to drop it instead. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, particularly with regard to imputed income. But, federal welfare statutes require states to have relatively similar child support laws for all but the most affluent people. Alimony Alimony also known as maintenance or separate maintenance, historically terminated upon the remarriage of the person receiving it, or upon the death of either party to the former marriage. But, since this is not federally regulated (except with respect to its tax implications), it isn't as uniform among the states. Remarriage of the person paying maintenance is not historically a ground to reduce or change maintenance obligations. The majority rule is that the historic rule applies to remarriage in the case of court ordered maintenance that does not arise as a result of the agreement of the parties. But, the parties may, by agreement, provide that maintenance does not terminate upon remarriage. This applies only to maintenance payments due in the future. One cannot, for example, obtain a refund of a lump sum alimony payment that has been made already because the spouse who received it promptly remarried even though the lump sum alimony payment was set based upon assumptions by the judge that the spouse receiving it would not remarry for a long time. The minority and emerging rule is to allow courts to impose maintenance awards which are not terminated upon remarriage without an agreement of the parties to that effect. Another, basically opposite, minority rule is to forbid maintenance agreements where maintenance does not terminate upon remarriage. I don't have any good surveys at my disposal regarding which states follow which rule. There is quite a bit of variation between states regarding circumstances where de facto remarriage involving co-habitation, etc. amounts to remarriage even though the maintenance recipient is not legally remarried. Some states will treat this as a de facto remarriage, others will consider this to be the kind of change in circumstances that allows a maintenance award to be modified, and still others will ignore de facto remarriage entirely. In general, maintenance awards are much harder to modify than child support awards where modification is relatively routine when there is a change of circumstances. Usually, maintenance awards are made with consideration given to the income and broader economic circumstance of the parties when it is awarded, but is not a function of current income or expenses except to the extent that the original award because unconscionable or at least very unfair in the circumstances as they develop. One factor that could make a maintenance award unconscionable and subject to modification is the inability of the spouse obligated to pay it to pay. For example, support that the spouse obligated to pay maintenance was disabled and had a much reduced income a result - the maintenance award might be reduced. The obligation associated with supporting a new spouse for the person paying maintenance would very rarely be considered a change in circumstances requiring a change in the maintenance award. But, ultimately, this is a facts and circumstances test. I could imagine maintenance changing, if, for example, the new spouse was disabled and required extraordinary care that was costly in terms of both time and money, limiting the resources available to the person paying maintenance.
The first question would be whether those papers are indeed "legit", and we don't do product reviews. Assuming the company didn't mess up and she was legally served, the next question would be whether she responded (in the legal sense) or not. If she failed to respond at all within 21 days (add 9 days if she is out of state), then your next step would be to file default divorce paperwork (presumably that's covered in the service you paid for). If she agreed to the divorce and the courts knows that, then you file some more paperwork and she doesn't have to show up to anything. If she disagreed, there will be an "answer" and possibly a counterpetition. There is an exchange of paperwork w.r.t. assets, a mandatory mediation stage, more paperwork, disclosures etc. and a pre-trial conference, followed by a trial. If you are at this stage, attendance is mandatory. As long as you have proof of service, nobody requested a postponement, and there is some evidence to support your claim, a default judgment can be issued. It's not clear what "divorce proceeding" you are referring to that involves her attendance. However, you can file divorce paperwork yourself or using an online service, and using an online service does not render the paperwork illegitimate. It's not guaranteed that the service did what would be necessary for you to get the outcome you desire, but that's beyond the scope of what we can tell you.
Of course it doesn't work. You haven't discovered an end-around to property ownership I gave someone a car and want it back (they refuse) You no longer own this car. It is now titled in their name. Your interest in the car is now exactly zero whether or not they paid for it. I use a shell company to buy my own debt Okay. This has nothing to do with the car. You're now out of the cash it took you to set up this new entity. How are you doing this? I assume it means paying off your creditors with money you already have. You will also have to come up with some type of bogus documents that explain to the future court why this was even done. If you have the money, why do you have debt? My shell company sues me for conveying the car to conceal it from creditors Um, Ok. Now you're also out filing fees. Let's assume you know how to do this without paying an attorney to do it for you. I settle Makes sense, since you're suing yourself. The shell company now gets a court order to seize the car Seize the car how? This is a stretch. A judgement would be against you for the value of the car. You can't settle a lawsuit using assets you do not own. A court won't order something repossessed because of an unrelated squirrelly lawsuit. An exception would be a bankruptcy court that rules the item was sold or disposed of outside the court's orders. I would expect an astute court to hit you with contempt or sanctions for trying to use it to further your interests with some sort of end-around to property ownership. Expect more fees for this use of the court's time. The shell seizes the car No. Now I have the car back No.
What kind of contract would that be? One about... arbitration? One about &quot;I hereby relinquish my claim for payment of X?&quot; --- children cannot be taken away from their father, no matter what. - OP That contract is void in germany because this contract not only violates public policy, it tries to modify something that is regulated by law into a way that does offer less than the law demands as a minimum. That's not allowed in Germany. Further, a clause that gives custody to the father by default is also Sittenwidrig in Germany, and thus void under §138 BGB. So would be a clause that gives it to the mother by default by the way. In a case of controversy, only a court order can assign guardianship. And only the court can take guardianship away. When the kid is born its guardianship gets assigned to the parents as guardians by §1626 BGB. While it is possible to give your partner guardianship if you're not married under 1626a BGB it is explicitly impossible to assign guardianship for any compensation to either party (e.g. the mother or the new guardian may not receive anything other than the guardianship in the specific paper) under 1626b BGB. Thus a contract that does anything else in addition to guardianship, like a prenup, voids at least the guardianship clauses. And you have to tell the court about that assignment of guardianship under ($1626d BGB). Now comes the kicker: §1628 BGB forces the parents to apply to the court to solve any problems of huge impact, such as guardianship: So technically, mediation results are fully non-binding and you can not mandate it. Also, since all marriages are through the state, it needs a formal instrument of the state to be dissolved. The only three ways that the state ever allowed this to be done after WW2 were a) annulment through a court, which only was possible till 1998, or b) divorce through a court, c) death of one of the marriage partners. Yes, it takes a judge to divorce a marriage under $1313 BGB or one of the two married to die. Because you can't divorce without a filing in court, a clause that demands to divorce in some way that is not including §1313 BGB, that clause would be void. It might be legal to have a clause that demands to try to solve issues in arbitration before filing for divorce or sorting the belongings in such a way, but it can't supplant the court requirement.
No law in the US requires that parent and child have the same last name. It is usual that a child's name match that of at least one parent, but not required. A parent can change his or her name, without changing the names of any existing children. Also, when a child is adopted, the child's name need not be changed to match the name of the parents, or either of them. I have read of cases where a widow remarries, and takes the name of her new husband, but an adolescent child retains his or her birth surname. I suppose this would also be possible legally if it is the husband who changes name on remarriage, but i have not read of such a case. I think, but I am not sure, that a child's name could be changed to a different name than the name of either parent. It may be that this would only be done if the child is old enough to understand and agree to the change.
Because of the appeals process. By settling now he: Gets the money now rather than in 2-3 years when the appeal finishes Gets $31 million rather than whatever the appeals court decides (which may be considerably less)
The general rule is that the ability to have a valid divorce has nothing to do with where the marriage was entered into, or the citizenship of the parties. Usually, any jurisdiction with sufficient contacts with either member of the couple has jurisdiction to enter a divorce. Hence, generally, people get divorced in the place that they live. The problem in this scenario is step 5. I think that it is highly likely that the U.S. Embassy is simply wrong, unless there is some serious irregularity in step 4. An annulment after four years of marriage, as opposed to a divorce, is highly irregular and would not be allowed in the vast majority of jurisdictions. But, maybe there are facts and circumstances that make it otherwise. This fact pattern, while it on one hand sounds like a "for a friend" question based on real facts, also sounds like some important details that may be outcome determinative have been omitted.
TL;DR: It is a $100.000 lawsuit. Talk to a lawyer. If getting out of lawsuits was as easy as acting through a company and selling it afterwards, nobody would ever get paid damages. In addition to that, any answer will depend heavily on a lot of data that you do not disclose (location, kind of company, what is the basis for the lawsuit, etc.). Talk to a lawyer. But, a couple of points to help you understand the situation: the only reason she was 51% shareholder was because my father wanted a certain tax exemption for minority women owning businesses. It does not matter the reason, she was the shareholder. And in fact, I would not publicly use that reason as an excuse before checking with a lawyer, because perhaps it could be considered fraud1. she gave up her rights to the business. Exact wording of the agreement will be important for your lawyer. Did she return ownership of the stock? Or did she just agreed not to manage the business? In C corporations, stockholders are only liable for the money invested (i.e., the value of their stock may drop to zero, but no one can sue them for more). In other kind of companies (unlimited companies), owners can be forced to pay (fully or partially) for the debts of the company. does it matter if she sells her shares at this point or will she still be sued? Who exactly is going to buy the stock? It does not sound like the company is publicly traded, but just a small operation. Unless her 51% is worth more than she is being sued for -or the buyer thinks that the lawsuit will fail-, people won't be interested. Of course, it might be tempting to "forget" telling about the lawsuit to prospective buyers, but that probably will end with the buyer suing your mother when they discover that she has not fully disclosed the status of the company. Talk to a lawyer. 1But explain all of the details to your lawyer, s/he may make use of them and convince your father to take full responsability. And your lawyer will not inform the authorities. Talk to a lawyer.