The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

"I'm tailgating but not going to the game. It will be on ESPN3, so I can watch it online while I'm tailgating."

Are you ******* kidding me?

(10-23-2014 06:08 PM)Broncobelt Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 05:43 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I've often wondered if we should come up with a Bronco Stampede signal that we can give in case brovol is presiding over a court case of ours

Oh, kind of like a bat signal! Bring a flashlight and a piece of cardboard, and some scissors...

Now that sounds like something that will get you held in contempt of court.

I found someone in contempt yesterday. She Called me a "fu@?ing a$$hole" three times. I showed tremendous restraint the first two times. Third time was the charm; 30 days. ....and I was in a pretty good mood up to that point.

She should have used a flashlight and some cardboard to communicate.

(10-23-2014 07:21 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 06:08 PM)Broncobelt Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 05:43 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:I've often wondered if we should come up with a Bronco Stampede signal that we can give in case brovol is presiding over a court case of ours

Oh, kind of like a bat signal! Bring a flashlight and a piece of cardboard, and some scissors...

Now that sounds like something that will get you held in contempt of court.

I found someone in contempt yesterday. She Called me a "fu@?ing a$$hole" three times. I showed tremendous restraint the first two times. Third time was the charm; 30 days. ....and I was in a pretty good mood up to that point.

She should have used a flashlight and some cardboard to communicate.

A joke is a joke and these folks have a lot of stress, but seriously? Some people just really need a little time to think things over. Glad you gave her that opportunity.

Judge - "30 days to cool off DB"
DB - "I can do that standing on my head"
Judge - " 30 more to get on your feet DB".

More judge stories please!

(10-23-2014 06:42 PM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote:  "I'm tailgating but not going to the game. It will be on ESPN3, so I can watch it online while I'm tailgating."

Are you ******* kidding me?

All that says to me is "I want to watch UM/MSU". Whoever that is will be surprised when they get booted from the lot at kickoff.

(10-23-2014 09:09 PM)thegeneral Wrote:  More judge stories please!

Sure!

Ok; today I had and older couple in for a divorce, post “separate-maintenance” judgment. The wife is apparently eligible for veteran benefits based on the death of her first husband (her first husband and current husband were apparently friends in the Army before first husband died, but I digress), but she isn’t eligible if she is currently married, hence the divorce, even though the parties had been following a judgment on the separate maintenance without issue. Because of Michigan’s no-fault divorce rules she is entitled to the divorce, which will trigger the benefits, and thus the husband has no objections, but the husband is now insisting that the anticipated veteran benefits be included as income for wife, and that spousal support be recalculated (a concept she and her attorney hadn’t contemplated). However, the benefits were actually "earned" prior to the current marriage, and therefore should at least arguably be considered "separate property", and not factored in the equitable division of assets. Nevertheless, husband’s attorney argues that it should still be calculated in the spousal support analysis, as it constitutes income, and will affect the party’s relative standard of living. He is right, of course, but that is only one factor to be considered by the court in the spousal support equation, and neither party had the benefit of that source of income during the marriage. Additionally, there were some modifications which will need to be made to the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), due to the veterans’ benefits.

Pretty sexy, huh? You guys should all grab a box of popcorn because I have lots of stories just as exciting as this one.

Women and money, always a losing proposition for a guy. (Ducking - Mr. Whinny).

Quote:Because of Michigan’s no-fault divorce rules she is entitled to the divorce, which will trigger the benefits, and thus the husband has no objections, but the husband is now insisting that the anticipated veteran benefits be included as income for wife, and that spousal support be recalculated (a concept she and her attorney hadn’t contemplated)

I'm just talking from an objective, conceptual perspective outside any legal circle... Isn't the purpose spousal support different than division of assets? (You get the couch, I'll take the TV...) I could see it bleeding into spousal support if one spouse has little income while the other one does, in terms of each party getting back on their feet in life separately, sure.

But isn't spousal support focused on post-marriage, a % of income of one toward the (lesser) other -- for the purpose of them being on their feet adequately, etc? If so, why wouldn't Any post-marriage income received by the lesser party not be factored into that equation when calculating their reasonable Needs? What if the lesser spouse to get spousal support, a month after the divorce, got a kick-arse job sitting at a desk but making $200k/year? Wouldn't that affect a monthly stipend given out by the other that's aimed as means for support, when they no longer need it so much?

Or is it like "Well, at your job of $100k a year which you had during your marriage, you have to keep giving him/her that money because he/she shares your 'job' to some degree as you both chose for you to bring in that money as the main means of income, and he/she adjusted to it -- so even if he/she won the lottery, you still owe it to her, because it's like a division of assets.."?

Again, I'm thinking out loud off the top of my head (when haven't I?). Fascinating stuff. :)

(10-24-2014 12:51 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Because of Michigan’s no-fault divorce rules she is entitled to the divorce, which will trigger the benefits, and thus the husband has no objections, but the husband is now insisting that the anticipated veteran benefits be included as income for wife, and that spousal support be recalculated (a concept she and her attorney hadn’t contemplated)

I'm just talking from an objective, conceptual perspective outside any legal circle... Isn't the purpose spousal support different than division of assets? (You get the couch, I'll take the TV...) I could see it bleeding into spousal support if one spouse has little income while the other one does, in terms of each party getting back on their feet in life separately, sure.

But isn't spousal support focused on post-marriage, a % of income of one toward the (lesser) other -- for the purpose of them being on their feet adequately, etc? If so, why wouldn't Any post-marriage income received by the lesser party not be factored into that equation when calculating their reasonable Needs? What if the lesser spouse to get spousal support, a month after the divorce, got a kick-arse job sitting at a desk but making $200k/year? Wouldn't that affect a monthly stipend given out by the other that's aimed as means for support, when they no longer need it so much?

Or is it like "Well, at your job of $100k a year which you had during your marriage, you have to keep giving him/her that money because he/she shares your 'job' to some degree as you both chose for you to bring in that money as the main means of income, and he/she adjusted to it -- so even if he/she won the lottery, you still owe it to her, because it's like a division of assets.."?

Again, I'm thinking out loud off the top of my head (when haven't I?). Fascinating stuff. :)

You are generally correct; although its a little more complicated (or maybe uncomplicated) than your explanation.. In this case, however, the terms of spousal support were already determined in the action for separate maintenance. The source of possible additional income for the wife wasn’t realized until after the judgment, and after the parties had been operating under that separate maintenance judgment for quite a while. Spousal support is decided based on a number of factors. One of the goals is to put the parties in a relatively equal standard of living, as compared to the standard they maintained during the marriage. In this case this potential, "new" veteran’s benefit, income was based on something which occurred prior to the marriage, and had no effect on the parties during to the marriage. I actually have a ton of discretion on spousal support issues. I have never been one to award it liberally in terms of amount or length of time. I don’t think though that the veteran’s income will persuade me to modify the existing support order.

You guys realize I gave that scenario as an illustration of how drab and unsexy my job can be. Was a joke. Didn’t think anyone would read it until the end. But my Stampede brethren can go on any topic. I love it!!! LOL.

(10-24-2014 01:38 PM)brovol Wrote:  You guys realize I gave that scenario as an illustration of how drab and unsexy my job can be. Was a joke. Didn’t think anyone would read it until the end. But my Stampede brethren can go on any topic. I love it!!! LOL.

I thought that may be the case but to us commoners it's actually pretty darn interesting. I just don't understand that whole spousal support thing in the first place, especially if the wife is the one that decides to leave. It's like so let me get this straight, you don't want to be with me anymore and now you deserve a prize?

Quote:One of the goals is to put the parties in a relatively equal standard of living, as compared to the standard they maintained during the marriage.

Yes, makes sense, understandable...

Quote:In this case this potential, "new" veteran’s benefit, income was based on something which occurred prior to the marriage, and had no effect on the parties during to the marriage.

True, but (to some degree), it will help balance out the standard of living to that lesser party, though, right? I mean, if we're talking pocket change (a discount at Mr Burger + $30 every month) I could see it being meaningless. :)

But if the purpose is to try and ensure a level playing field for a while between both parties -- and not an issue of "you deserve to Take/Win $$ from the other person" -- wouldn't the how/where/when of an extra revenue flow for the lesser person be moot?

Quote:You guys realize I gave that scenario as an illustration of how drab and unsexy my job can be. Was a joke.

I think if the same stuff is repeated time & time again, yeah. It's easy for me to say I find it interesting -- as I don't have to repetitively deal with such stuff. Heck, when I worked at Hooters in the 90s one summer, I ended up finding it drab and dull at a certain point (no, I was not a waitress!).

(10-24-2014 11:42 AM)brovol Wrote:  

(10-23-2014 09:09 PM)thegeneral Wrote:  More judge stories please!

Sure!

Ok; today I had and older couple in for a divorce, post “separate-maintenance” judgment. The wife is apparently eligible for veteran benefits based on the death of her first husband (her first husband and current husband were apparently friends in the Army before first husband died, but I digress), but she isn’t eligible if she is currently married, hence the divorce, even though the parties had been following a judgment on the separate maintenance without issue. Because of Michigan’s no-fault divorce rules she is entitled to the divorce, which will trigger the benefits, and thus the husband has no objections, but the husband is now insisting that the anticipated veteran benefits be included as income for wife, and that spousal support be recalculated (a concept she and her attorney hadn’t contemplated). However, the benefits were actually "earned" prior to the current marriage, and therefore should at least arguably be considered "separate property", and not factored in the equitable division of assets. Nevertheless, husband’s attorney argues that it should still be calculated in the spousal support analysis, as it constitutes income, and will affect the party’s relative standard of living. He is right, of course, but that is only one factor to be considered by the court in the spousal support equation, and neither party had the benefit of that source of income during the marriage. Additionally, there were some modifications which will need to be made to the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), due to the veterans’ benefits.

Pretty sexy, huh? You guys should all grab a box of popcorn because I have lots of stories just as exciting as this one.