Check out some similar questions!

ggill · Mar 23, 2009, 01:10 PM

I had owned a company just in my name fully and my husband worked for me and received a paycheck just like all the other employees. Now his ex wife has this new lawyer and she wants all company records back two years ago. She believes my husband benefitted from some of the non business expenditures. For one how can they go back two years, when he made all his child support payments the amount that was court ordered and how can they gain access to my company records. They want the check register, cancelled checks and everything they can get their hands on. How can the judge legally allow them to do this. My husband had no money left out of his paychecks to pay bills after paying child support so I was responsible for any bills and whatever else. So because he benefitted from having a roof over his head she is entitled to more than what she got. I see this as harassment and I want to do something to stop them. Help!!

this8384 · Mar 23, 2009, 01:19 PM

The court-ordered amount was based on your husband's income at that time. This new lawyer is doing what she's paid to do: represent her client's best interest. She's trying to find out if your husband had more than he was claiming. If he wasn't, then prove it.

It's certainly not harassment and if the court requested it, you need to provide it. That's the way it works. If you don't want to, you need to hire an attorney to argue why you shouldn't have to prove anything. But that may just make him look like he is hiding something.

stevetcg · Mar 23, 2009, 01:20 PM

Im sorry to say that I can see the opponents side in this one. Since you own the business and pay your husband as an employee, that can be seen as a means to avoid paying his fair amount of owed support while maintaining a different household income.

Have you spoken to your husband's lawyer on this? If not, I would, quickly - because this might end up being a case of fraud against your husband.

JudyKayTee · Mar 23, 2009, 01:55 PM

- What they both said.

ggill · Mar 23, 2009, 03:04 PM

My husband was making the same pay he was for the company he worked for before I started my company. He was paying $200 a week and has been for 6 years.

JudyKayTee · Mar 23, 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by ggill

My husband was making the same pay he was for the company he worked for before I started my company. He was paying $200 a week and has been for 6 years.

What salary and benefits were your other employees receiving? That's going to matter - in my eyes.

If he had access to a company car and they did not, for example, I see a problem here.

this8384 · Mar 23, 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by ggill

My husband was making the same pay he was for the company he worked for before I started my company. He was paying $200 a week and has been for 6 years.

You're not understanding the situation. He may have been earning the same amount on paper, but when you're married to the boss, things are very different. That's why they want you to prove that you didn't alter documents and/or that your husband didn't receive any "extras" that he didn't account for.

I have to give credit to his ex-wife for hiring this attorney, who seems to be as sharp as a tack.

stevetcg · Mar 23, 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by ggill

My husband was making the same pay he was for the company he worked for before I started my company. He was paying $200 a week and has been for 6 years.

Has he gotten a raise in the last 6 years? Have your other employees? Is his vacation schedule the same as others? Are his responsibilities the same as they used to be?

That's the kind of thing they are trying to prove. If he hasn't gotten a raise in years, that will be looked at VERY harshly.

cdad · Mar 23, 2009, 03:58 PM

This is a double edged sword here. But as the others have said they are trying to find more money. I believe that because you're a third party your entitled to compensation for document production. Also how much of his pay was going to child support ? That may also be an issue. He may have overpaid and they will be in for a big surprise. Were the records under soupena or were they just requested as interogacies ? That too can make a difference.

ggill · Mar 23, 2009, 04:16 PM

They subpeaoned the records I gave them tax returns. He made more than the other employees did. They never put in a motion for increase in child support so they cannot go back now after two years to try and get that, his lawyer told us that. She don't know what they are after. I think they just want to harrass us.

stevetcg · Mar 23, 2009, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ggill

They subpeaoned the records I gave them tax returns. He made more than the other employees did. They never put in a motion for increase in child support so they cannot go back now after two years to try and get that, his lawyer told us that. She don't know what they are after. I think they just want to harrass us.

Its not harassment if it is a legitimate concern, and based off the number of people questioning it here, it seems legit, regardless how it turns out.

JudyKayTee · Mar 23, 2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by ggill

They subpeaoned the records I gave them tax returns. He made more than the other employees did. They never put in a motion for increase in child support so they cannot go back now after two years to try and get that, his lawyer told us that. She don't know what they are after. I think they just want to harrass us.

I can only address NY but in NY his Attorney is very, very wrong. If there was ANY fraud involved the child support shortage can go back to the date the incorrect/false papers were filed.

stevetcg · Mar 23, 2009, 04:54 PM

Here is how I view it as an outsider and probably if I were the opposing lawyer:

You two are married, so presumably equal. If hubby makes X dollars a month and you make X * 10 per month, why is the difference so great? One would surmise, you have roughly equal responsibility.

It doesn't matter if this is true or not... its how it appears. And if it appears that way to me, why wouldn't it appear that way to a judge whose first impression is going to be "gee - something is fishy here".

Just out of curiosity, why DOES he make so much less than you? Is there a tax benefit from him making a 'real wage' vs $1 and sharing in the profits?

These are the questions that the opposing counsel is trying to get answered. And please be aware, if it is proven that this is fraud, you can be held liable as well as your husband.

Editted to add: it wouldn't be at all unique to put all the assets in a non-liable person's name in order to attempt to protect them from debt.

ggill · Mar 25, 2009, 05:33 AM

There was no fraud. He did not make any more money then what he received on his paycheck. They are trying to say since he benefitted from what I made then so should she. Every married couple benefits from each other in one way or another. I am not responsible for his kids finanacially. What I make is not relovent to his kids.

ggill · Mar 25, 2009, 05:35 AM

When it came to my company there was weeks I didn't get paid. I have a regular full time job where I am an accountant. He made more than me in the company I owned. I had 8 employees working there. The company only lasted a year and a half before the recession took over and put us under I am paying on taxes still today. We don't have a huge house we rent a moderate size house. We are not living large.

stevetcg · Mar 25, 2009, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by ggill

There was no fraud. He did not make any more money then what he received on his paycheck. They are trying to say since he benefitted from what I made then so should she. Every married couple benefits from each other in one way or another. I am not responsible for his kids finanacially. What I make is not relovent to his kids.

You aren't seeming to understand what we are saying: the question isn't what he makes, the question is why he makes a different wage than you do.

No one is saying how things will turn out - he might be found to be perfectly legit. However if his pay is found to be artificially low to prevent paying child support, he might be guilty of fraud and face some stiff penalties including back support.

Bottom line: they are not harassing you and have a legitimate complaint that needs to be addressed in court. I assume your lawyer is telling you something similar.

ggill · Mar 25, 2009, 05:40 AM

I would give gas allowance to all the employees that drove every week. My husband didn't get any extra benefits from anybody else. My husbands cousins ex is married living in a $500k house that his wife bought while they were married and she owns a company paying him minimum wage and she gets everything else and my husbands cousin cannot get an increase in child support because the judge she has says that is his wives money and it is not included, so it cannot be right for one and not the other. They laws cannot change.

stevetcg · Mar 25, 2009, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by ggill

When it came to my company there was weeks I didn't get paid. I have a regular full time job where I am an accountant. He made more than me in the company I owned. I had 8 employees working there. The company only lasted a year and a half before the recession took over and put us under I am paying on taxes still today. We don't have a huge house we rent a moderate size house. We are not living large.

Then chances are they won't find anything different than what he is paying now. No one is accusing you of doing anything wrong here... just that they have the right to question it.

ggill · Mar 25, 2009, 05:43 AM

Well he was making the same pay as he was with the company before I bought it out. I was just starting so how could I afford to pay 8 employees a regular pay then pay my husband a great deal more? I didn't make that much more then him maybe $1k more at the end of the year.

ggill · Mar 25, 2009, 05:43 AM

I don't make the same amount as my boss does I make considerably less then him.