Maintenance Arrangements that don't meet the norm

kelloggs36

The CSA can override such agreements - that has happened many a time before, where the parties have agreed on a full and final type of settlement and then the PWC has gone to the CSA. The legislation is quite clear - unless the agreement was made and paid prior to April 1993 then the CSA cannot take it into account to offset future maintenance. Any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

LizzieS_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

The CSA can override such agreements - that has happened many a time before, where the parties have agreed on a full and final type of settlement and then the PWC has gone to the CSA. The legislation is quite clear - unless the agreement was made and paid prior to April 1993 then the CSA cannot take it into account to offset future maintenance. Any agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

They can't override the 5 year period of career break where income is nil - I suggested further down to restrict it to those 5 years only instead of giving 25K for more years.

daska

They can't override it IF the income is nil. But what if the OP's 5 year plan changes.

kingfisherblue

If your ex is on benefits, giving him a large sum of money (if I have understood correctly) could mean that his benefits are stopped, so he could be no better off. I don't know if it would class as 'deprivation of capital' if it was used towards paying off the mortgage, but reading other threads on these forums, I think it could be viewed that way.

TBH, although I can see why you have come up with this alternative, I don't think it will work. It's too risky, as well, if your ex decides to go to the CSA in the future.

Just one other point - is the 19 year old still in full time, non-advanced education? If she is, I don't think that any money paid directly to her is recognised by the CSA. My ex tried to tell them that he was giving the children money directly to them, including my 18 year old who was studying her A levels, but they basically told him hard luck, it doesn't count (he wasn't giving the kids any money, but that's another story!)

kelloggs36

it doesn't matter about the income, it is in relation to property capital settlements - unless it was in agreement prior to april 1993 then it will be ignored.

LizzieS_2

Kell, can you explain more please - my brain has frozen.

I can get that if the sale produces 65K then it could be taken into account as income* under the variation rules - I had ruled that one out on the basis of all but 25K could be offset onto her own mortgage?

Edited to clarify - I mean a fixed interest rate on the capital can be classed as income.

smileypigface

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Just one other point - is the 19 year old still in full time, non-advanced education? If she is, I don't think that any money paid directly to her is recognised by the CSA. My ex tried to tell them that he was giving the children money directly to them, including my 18 year old who was studying her A levels, but they basically told him hard luck, it doesn't count (he wasn't giving the kids any money, but that's another story!)

She is at college - but because our divorce settlement states I stop paying maintenance when they reach 18 - and we have never involved the CSA, I did stop paying when she reached 18.

So I suppose her dad has already 'honoured' that agreement - as if he went to the CSA, I think you are correct and I would have to pay for her still.

kelloggs36

If a house is sold and she wants to offset future maintenance by giving a lump sum, then it won't be taken into account under the property capital settlements section of the Act. That used to be the norm, but since the CSA came into force it was outlawed so that even if she gives him a lump sum, it means that he can still apply for maintenance from her. You are talking about something entirely different.

LizzieS_2

kelloggs36 wrote: »

If a house is sold and she wants to offset future maintenance by giving a lump sum, then it won't be taken into account under the property capital settlements section of the Act. That used to be the norm, but since the CSA came into force it was outlawed so that even if she gives him a lump sum, it means that he can still apply for maintenance from her. You are talking about something entirely different.

I understand the above, but I was talking about the 5 years she is off with no income. For those 5 years, she is liable for no payment even if he approaches the csa, so in effect anything she does give voluntarily by lump sum wouldn't change the net result of using the csa. I did say to look at a lump sum for just those 5 years, instead of the whole amount up to youngest attaining 18.

Although the order itself is clear that she gets her 25% when the house is sold, I'm not convinced that it would automatically happen - he can apply under the childrens act for that equity to be transferred onto his new smaller home, but only a court can decide the merits of each persons circumstances.

kelloggs36

So we were talking about different things it would seem lol