child support payments if you make over 1 mill+ a yr

[BigDeanEvans]

Anyone here or know of anyone that has gone to court for child support payments that make over 1mill a yr.? If so, what were they ordered to pay?

Reason why i ask, the mother of my child has been giving me quite a bit of trouble regarding visitation and im thinking about taking her to court. Right now, we have a verbal agreement in regard to support payments and im currently paying around 40-50k a year.

Im sure if i take her to court she's definitely going to try to get the most amount of money possible out of me. So, do you think I'll end up paying a lot more than 40-50k a year?

[Sly]

I don't think things would be in your favor. Though I do think its totally fucked up that she's denying visitation rights. A good lawyer may be able to save your ass. That isn't right.

[broke]

Depends on the state. Where would she be filing?

[Trax]

the father has no rights on this planet
regardless the jurisdiction
sad but true

[Nodtveidt]

In most states, if visitation is denied, then child support can be frozen. I've never known anyone with income of >$1mil having to pay child support, so I can't help ya out there...

[Furious_Female]

Forget an attorney, you need a good accountant first. Set up some S corps and whatnot. I don't think it's right that she is denying you visitation but if you are serious about this, get a good attorney. I hate when people use kids as bargaining chips.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by broke

Depends on the state. Where would she be filing?

the state im in only goes up to (Earnings) $751-max $167 + 25%

[Nodtveidt]

Originally Posted by Furious_Female

I hate when people use kids as bargaining chips.

I couldn't agree with you more on this. Greed often corrupts people and they'll use anything, even their own flesh and blood, to get what they want. It's dispicable.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by Furious_Female

Forget an attorney, you need a good accountant first. Set up some S corps and whatnot. I don't think it's right that she is denying you visitation but if you are serious about this, get a good attorney. I hate when people use kids as bargaining chips.

i have several s corps, but they base it on income tax statements and honestly i really dont want to get involved with tax evasion etc.

[broke]

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

the state im in only goes up to (Earnings) $751-max $167 + 25%

If you're in MA that's per week:

1MIL = ~$19,250/week
25% of $19,250 is ~$4,800

$167 + $4800 = ~$5,000/week
$5,000 * 52 = ~$260,000/year.

[BJ]

good place to ask for advice lol

[WiredGuy]

I believe up here its upwards of 18.5% of your gross (not net) income for the first child. If your personal income is upwards of $1MM, contact an attorney and accountant to figure out the best solution, you can afford it.
WG

[spunkmaster]

Almost all states have a cap on child support and it doesn't matter how much you make once you cap out.

Alimony is where the X gets the big money not child support !

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by PureMeds

good place to ask for advice lol

I'm not asking for advice just getting opinions

[slapass]

post the state and you might get real advice. I live in a cap state. It is cool as I pay the same once you make over 125k.

[BJ]

just take care of the kid.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by PureMeds

just take care of the kid.

The child is well taken care of. I just want to make sure i have enough to sustain that lifestyle for the next decade or so and not give it to the mother and have her piss it away on clothes and pocketbooks

[pornguy]

If you make that much, then take the kids away from her.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

the state im in only goes up to (Earnings) $751-max $167 + 25%

I think this is your cap and you are already paying way too much. She takes you to court your child support will likely go down.

[Nodtveidt]

Originally Posted by pornguy

If you make that much, then take the kids away from her.

You took the words out of my mouth...this is actually a really good idea.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by pornguy

If you make that much, then take the kids away from her.

that would never happen no matter how much money i have unless she was strung out on drugs or endangering my child in some way, which she's not.

[BJ]

take care of the kid

[Sly]

Originally Posted by pornguy

If you make that much, then take the kids away from her.

What does his income have to do with taking away the child? Kids should have both parents in their lives, unless of course you're dealing with a bad element.

[Snake Doctor]

Child support and visitation are two totally separate things.
You can bring an action against her for denying visitation, even fight for custody if you so choose, and child support will not be addressed at those proceedings.

For her to get child support refigured she has to contact the appropriate state agency herself to get the ball rolling on that.

Also, you could really be fucking yourself over with a "verbal agreement" regarding child support because she could deny that you've ever paid her a dime and the court could force you to pay retroactively back to the day the child was born. The longer you let this go the more it will hurt, it's best to make your support payments through the state.

[BigDeanEvans]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Child support and visitation are two totally separate things.
You can bring an action against her for denying visitation, even fight for custody if you so choose, and child support will not be addressed at those proceedings.

For her to get child support refigured she has to contact the appropriate state agency herself to get the ball rolling on that.

Also, you could really be fucking yourself over with a "verbal agreement" regarding child support because she could deny that you've ever paid her a dime and the court could force you to pay retroactively back to the day the child was born. The longer you let this go the more it will hurt, it's best to make your support payments through the state.

ahh didnt know that it would be 2 seperate proceedings...good to know.

As far as her denying payment, everything been paid by check since day one so i'm not sure how she could deny that. plus she doesnt work

[DaddyHalbucks]

Get an attorney who specializes in these matters.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Now that I said that..

...huff and puff, and get your lawyer to huff and puff --but do everything you can do to stay out of court!!

If you sue for visitation and custody, she will counter claim for more support. Guess who will get fucked by the social workers, the womens advocates, the lawyers, the judges, and the system?

Also, get this book:

Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond from a Vindictive Ex by Richard A. Warshak

[pocketkangaroo]

You make over a million a year and are asking GFY for legal advice?

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by BigDeanEvans

ahh didnt know that it would be 2 seperate proceedings...good to know.

As far as her denying payment, everything been paid by check since day one so i'm not sure how she could deny that. plus she doesnt work

Because any monies you give to her outside of the court ordered child support is considered a gift. So you can have a pile of check stubs a mile high and it won't make a bit of difference.

You really should have hired a lawyer on day one, do yourself a favor and hire one on Monday and see what your options are.
Every state is slightly different but the things I've mentioned so far are pretty standard across the board.

[slapass]

Lenny you live in a brutal state. A cancelled check is proof of payment in my state.

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by slapass

Lenny you live in a brutal state. A cancelled check is proof of payment in my state.

Maybe it is just my state, but I've had this discussion on boards before and had other people agree with this position.

I know that if I send my check directly to her instead of to the state child support office, it doesn't count, it's considered a gift to her.

[slapass]

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Maybe it is just my state, but I've had this discussion on boards before and had other people agree with this position.

I know that if I send my check directly to her instead of to the state child support office, it doesn't count, it's considered a gift to her.

My state we can choose to go through the county(state) not sure which or just go direct. but i need to keep copies of everything.

[PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE]

She doesn't work. <--- wtf?

You make $1,000,000+ annually.

The courts would give you the kid if you asked for him/her. You'd probably spend about the same amount on the child (50k / year), but then you'd have the joys of custody.... That bitch is clearly just living off your damned child support, which is horrible, and I'm sure the judge would agree.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE

She doesn't work. <--- wtf?

You make $1,000,000+ annually.

The courts would give you the kid if you asked for him/her. You'd probably spend about the same amount on the child (50k / year), but then you'd have the joys of custody.... That bitch is clearly just living off your damned child support, which is horrible, and I'm sure the judge would agree.

Dude you have no clue. If she has only a minor drug problem and only hooks on odd days, he might win. But less then that he cannot win custody because he has a big paycheck. At least not in the USA.

[billybathgate]

Originally Posted by PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE

She doesn't work. <--- wtf?

You make $1,000,000+ annually.

The courts would give you the kid if you asked for him/her. You'd probably spend about the same amount on the child (50k / year), but then you'd have the joys of custody.... That bitch is clearly just living off your damned child support, which is horrible, and I'm sure the judge would agree.

yeah right puff daddy makes way more and cant even do that

Not sure what the law is where you live, but around here they would usually put it at about 1% of your gross income per year, payable per month. So if you made 1 million / year you would pay 10,000 per month.

[spunkmaster]

Child Support Guidelines for the High Income Parent(s):

The following table gives a brief description of how each jurisdiction in the United States establishes the guideline support amount in high income cases.

Note that in all of these jurisdictions, after determining the guideline amount (if any), the court must then consider whether to deviate from that amount. The trial courts frequently deviate from the guidelines in high income cases, and appellate courts have not hesitated to reverse trial court decisions which compute support in a mechanical rather than discretionary manner.

(1) Alabama: Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 32(C)(1): "The court may use its discretion in determining child support in circumstances where combined adjusted gross income is below the lowermost levels or exceeds the uppermost levels of the schedule." Applied in Posey v. Posey, 634 So. 2d 571 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994); Boykin v. Boykin, 628 So. 2d 949 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 617 So. 2d 694 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); Cox v. Cox, 591 So. 2d 90 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).

(2) Alaska: Alaska Rules of Court, Civil Rule 90.3(c)(2): for income over $60,000, court will presume that support at $60,000 level is correct, and may make an additional award only if it is just and proper. Applied in Farrell v. Farrell, 819 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1991); Coats v. Finn, 779 P.2d 775 (Alaska 1989).

(3) Arizona: Arizona Child Support Guidelines, adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 25-320: makes no provision for high income parents. Applied in Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 138, 796 P.2d 930 (Ct. App. 1990) (court stated that lower court is to "apply the guidelines," but did not state how that was to be accomplished, i.e., by applying a presumptive amount, a presumptive percentage, or straight-line extrapolation; in any case, the trial court has, the appellate court noted, the discretion to deviate based on the factors contained in the statute).

(4) Arkansas: In re Guidelines for Child Support, ___ Ark. ___, 863 S.W.2d 291 (1993), pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 9-12-312(a): provides that when payor's income exceeds that shown on chart, the court shall disregard the chart and apply the following percentages to the payor's income: 13&#37; for one child; 22% for two children; 32% for three children; 42% for four children; 52% for five children. The court may vary the amount calculated on specific findings.

(5) California: Cal. Fam. Code 4057(b)(3): the extraordinarily high income of the obligor parent may constitute cause to deviate from application of the formula contained in 4055. Applied in Estevez v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 423, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470 (1994); White v. Marciano, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1026, 235 Cal. Rptr. 779 (1987).

(6) Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. 14-10-15: "For cases with higher combined monthly adjusted gross income, child support should be determined on a case-by-case basis." Nevertheless, in In re Marriage of LeBlanc, 800 P.2d 1384 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990); In re Marriage of Schwaab & Rollins, 794 P.2d 1112 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990); and In re Marriage of Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988), the court adopted a presumption that the maximum amount provided in the guidelines is correct, but that the court should deviate upward where circumstances so warrant.

(7) Connecticut: Connecticut Child Support Guidelines, effective 1994: in cases of high income, the highest amount provided for in the guidelines shall be a floor, and the court may deviate upward from that amount. Overrules prior law stated in Battersby v. Battersby, 218 Conn. 467, 590 A.2d 427 (1991), whereby the court was to disregard the guidelines, and use its discretion on a case-by-case basis.

(8) Delaware: Delaware Family Court Civil Rules, Rule 52: a basic amount plus a particular percentage shall be applied. Applied in Ford v. Ford, 600 A.2d 25, 30 (Del. 1991) (child support cannot exceed reasonable needs of child in cases of high income).

(9) Washington D.C.: D.C. Code Ann. 16-916.1(f): "The guideline percentage shall not apply presumptively to a noncustodial parent with income that exceeds $75,000. The amount available to a child of a noncustodial parent with income above $75,000 shall not be less than the amount that would have been ordered if the guideline had been applied to a noncustodial parent with income of $75,000." Applied in Galbis v. Nadal, 626 A.2d 26 (D.C. 1993).

(10) Florida: Florida Civil Practice and Procedure Rules, Rule 61.30: In cases of combined income over $108,000 per year, court is to presume that maximum guidelines amount is minimum support obligation, but court may deviate. Applied in Torres v. Hunter, 592 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992); Weinstein v. Steele, 590 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991); Zak v. Zak, 629 So. 2d 187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993).

(11) Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. 19-6-15(c)(11): a particular percentage is to apply, but court may deviate downward in cases of extremely high income, which shall be construed as gross income over $75,000 per year.

(12) Hawaii: Hawaii Child Support Guidelines found in Hawaii Divorce Manual, Vol. II, Section 13: apply formula contained in guidelines for incomes greater than $10,249 per month, but court may deviate where circumstances so require. Applied in Richardson v. Richard son, 8 Haw. App. 446, 808 P.2d 1279 (1991).

(13) Idaho: Idaho Child Support Guidelines Section (c): "For combined gross income above $70,000, the Guidelines make no recommendations. . . . [T]he amounts of child support need to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

(14) Illinois: 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/550 (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 40, 505): applies a set percentage to the noncustodial parent's income, but the court may deviate downward. Applied in In re Marriage of Lee, 246 Ill. App. 3d 628, 615 N.E.2d 1314 (1993).

(15) Indiana: Indiana Rules of Court, Guideline 2: "The Guidelines provide calculated amounts of child support to a combined weekly available income level of $2,000 ($104,000 per year). For cases with higher combined weekly available income, child support should be determined as the parties negotiate or as the court orders within the mathematical progression of the Guidelines."

(16) Iowa: Iowa Code Ann. 598.21(4): "The amount of support payable by a non-custodial parent with a monthly net income of $3,001 or more shall be no less than the dollar amount as provided for in the guidelines for a non-custodial parent with a monthly net income of $3,000." Applied in In re LaLone, 469 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 1991).

(17) Kansas: Kansas Court Rules Ann., Rule 58, IV(C): "If the combined child support income exceeds the highest amount shown on the schedules, the court should exercise its discretion by considering what amount of child support should be set in addition to the amount on the child support schedule."

(18) Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 403.212: an appropriate deviation from the guidelines may be made when "(5) combined parental income [is] in excess of the Kentucky child support guideline [$10,000 per month]."

(19) Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:315.10(B): "If the combined adjusted gross income of the parties exceeds the highest level specified in the schedule contained in R.S. 9:315.14, the court shall use its discretion in setting the amount of the basic child support obligation, but in no event shall it be less than the highest amount set forth in the schedule." Applied in Preis v. Preis, 631 So. 2d 1349 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (rejected mere addition of $10,000 figure plus $5,000 figure to reach appropriate $15,000 figure); Zatkis v. Zatkis, 632 So. 2d 307 (La. Ct. App. 1993); Krampe v. Krampe, 625 So. 2d 383 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

(20) Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, 316(4)(B): "When the combined annual gross income exceeds $126,600, the child support table is not applicable, except that the basic weekly child support entitlement of a child is presumed to be not less than that set forth in the table for a combined annual gross income of $126,600."

(21) Maryland: Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. 12-204(d): "If the combined adjusted actual income exceeds the highest level specified in the schedule in subsection (e) of this section, the court may use its discretion in setting the amount of child support." Applied in Voishan v. Palma, 327 Md. 318, 609 A.2d 319 (1992); Bagley v. Bagley, 98 Md. App. 18, 632 A.2d 229 (1993).

(22) Massachusetts: Massachusetts Rules of Probate Court, Child Support Guidelines: "These guidelines are not meant to apply where the combined gross income of the parties exceeds $100,000 or where the gross income of the noncustodial parent exceeds $75,000. In cases where income exceeds these limits, the court should consider the award of support at the $75,000/$100,000 level as a minimum presumptive level of support to be awarded.

http://www.divorcesource.com/tables/...ghincome.shtml