Did You Know? Every Dollar Of Alimony Reduces Child Support (Discussion w/RIO ROCKET)

Sydney Mitchell:

Hi. My name is Sydney Mitchell.

Matthew Brickman:

Hi, I’m Matthew Brickman, Florida Supreme court mediator. Welcome to the Mediate This! Podcast where we discuss everything mediation and conflict resolution.

Matthew Brickman:
So what this is showing now, every, every dollar on alimony reduces child support. So remember when the child support was at 2,500 with the alimony, now, now child support is reduced to 5 82. Now it does not matter anymore. It used to matter cuz people were like, well, I would rather have more child support. That’s free. I don’t wanna pay taxes on the, on the alimony. And of course, whoever’s paying it is going, I want to jack that number up as high as possible because it’s a tax deduction. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so, so looking at this scenario of generally what the courts are doing to get to that 60 40 split, well that means that, and, and this is, this is if, if, if she can show that you know, that she needs the 19 five, so 19 five would be the number plus then the 5 82.

Matthew Brickman:
So that gives her a total of $20,000. Now if we go back to look at what that, what that bill did, so remember this is more of an appropriate number. This is this, this is what we are. Cuz we don’t have a calculator. But if we go back and look at the calculator, though, the calculator had it somewhere between 24 and 32, just figured it’s actually about 20. The calculator’s not right, but the calculator also, um, is not law. And the judges have discretion. And again, the judges based on discretion, can deviate between they, and they generally move somewhere between that 35 and 45% number. So, in mediation, when we, if, if we can get past need and ability, and if we can, you know, if we can get through all the factors, well then fine, you know, we’re running a number. Now let’s talk about lifetime.

Matthew Brickman:
Let’s say that it’s lifetime. So let’s, let’s go to your second scenario where they’re 20 and now they’re 40, not 20 and 30, right? Right. So let’s say that we did figure this out, um, we’d have to run a couple of different scenarios in mediation because we’d have to, let’s just say that it’s lifetime alimony, right? So it’s 19 five. Well, we would have to say, okay, 19 five is alimony. Um, and then, um, child support then is, um, the 5 82, right? But then when the, you know, when the child emancipates, the alimony’s gonna go up. So we’d have to run another scenario and say, okay, now there’s no child. Then what does the alimony go up to? So we’d have to run some scenarios or whatnot. Now you had mentioned like, maybe, you know, the mom gets the home, you know, could that be, you know, well, can she afford the home?

Matthew Brickman:
I had one recently where the mother wanted the home with the child, but the only way she could afford the home was with the alimony. And they’re going, we’re not giving you an a marital asset that you can’t afford on your own. Because without the home, she didn’t need the alimony. She’d go get another home and she’d be fine. But to run that particular home, she’d need alimony. And the attorney was like, we’re not giving you an asset in equitable distribution that you can’t afford to keep without then demanding alimony from my client. They’re like that because if they sold the home, guess what? Now they’re on equal footing. Go get your own home. And for what a, for, you know, for go rent a place or go get a, a lesser home. Like you don’t need a big, you know, five, six bedroom home, four bathrooms when it’s you and two children. Right?

RIO ROCKET:
Okay. So,

Matthew Brickman:
So then, so then you know what her need would be lessened, you know, on her financial affidavit, she’s putting the mortgage for an asset that she can’t afford without the alimony.

RIO ROCKET:
In that scenario, and in which you recently had, and let’s just plug our numbers into that scenario, right? 41 million. And let’s say the attorneys, their response is exactly the same. We’re not giving you an asset you can’t afford without the alimony, they sell the home. Correct?

Matthew Brickman:
Correct.

RIO ROCKET:
Where do the proceeds go?

Matthew Brickman:
They get ’em 50 50.

RIO ROCKET:
How, why, why would someone get 50% of something they didn’t pay for?

Matthew Brickman:
Because the law simply says that anything you acquire from the day that you sign your marriage certificate until the day that you filed for divorce, it’s 50 50. Doesn’t matter. Because here’s the other thing, when you are married, you can’t buy a piece of property on your own. It would say a married man, Matthew Brickman. It, it can’t be that I’m just gonna go buy a piece of property by myself. No, it’s a married man, which means, uh, well then where’s your wife? Because it’s 50 50. Now I did have one recently where the title company did all kinds of screwy stuff and somehow they refinanced the home inside the marriage. It stated that the husband was a married man and the wife was not even on the deed. Forget about the, I mean, fine, she’s not on the note, but not even on the deed. And of course she’s, you know, he’s going, she’s not entitled to it. And they’re going, look, just because a title company screwed up does not mean that she’s surrendering her 50% marital interest in that piece of property.

RIO ROCKET:
Okay. So yeah. So essentially anything you do within that marriage, I mean, you just have to know you’ll be on the hook, potentially on the hook for it at the end. Yeah. Uh,

Matthew Brickman:
Unless, and let’s go to what you were asking. Premarital or post or, or prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, right? Right. So questions on that?

RIO ROCKET:
Okay, let’s just keep the same scenario. Okay, 40 million, uh, let’s marry from 20 to 40 years. Let’s do, let’s succeed that. So this is a long term marriage.

Matthew Brickman:
Yeah, let’s just say it’s a long

RIO ROCKET:
Term. Okay, husband, let’s switch it around. Wife makes 1 million, husband makes 40 k.

Matthew Brickman:
And that’s not an odd scenario because ever since about oh six seven when we had that housing crash and people lost their jobs, so many guys got laid off and they became stay-at-home dads and the wives were like, uh, what are we doing for, like, who’s working? And so he’s like, wow, you know, I was making 300,000. I’m not taking this job for a hundred. And it’s like, some money’s better than no money. And so she went out and got the job, he stayed home. Now they’re getting divorced and she’s going, I’m not paying him alimony and child support. I’m like, yes, you are <laugh>. You know, but

RIO ROCKET:
Yeah. Okay, so same.

Matthew Brickman:
We can reverse it.

RIO ROCKET:
Yeah, let’s reverse it. So the wife makes 1 million, husband makes 40 k. Exactly. Uh, yeah, let’s say it was covid or whatever other financial crisis. The wife is, she’s sophisticated. Okay. She understands what may be at risk. Here she goes, uh, to an attorney to draw up a prenup. Yep. And her goal is to eliminate an imbalanced divorce settlement.

Matthew Brickman:
Oh, so she wants more of what you’re describing. Do it right. Do it, do it pro rata. Like if I’m gonna contribute this, then this is what I get. And you’re only getting this.

RIO ROCKET:
Okay. So you call that pro rata?

Matthew Brickman:
Yeah, pro rata.

RIO ROCKET:
Okay. Let, uh, can you say

Matthew Brickman:
Percentage of financial responsibility or it would be percentage of contribution is really what you’re even looking at, like, right,

RIO ROCKET:
Right, right. let’s say she was even making a million before she was netting a million before she got married. So she, her net worth is two 3 million. Yeah.

Matthew Brickman:
She

RIO ROCKET:
Has a lot to lose. Yes.

Matthew Brickman:
She knowing, knowing that half the planes fall outta the sky.

RIO ROCKET:
Yes. Yes. So she goes into this marriage, she gets a prenup, and she says, to attorney. And now my question’s gonna be to ask what are the limits to, to how powerful and bulletproof a prenup can be. Can she, can she say, draw up a prenup in which at the end he doesn’t get anything I earned whether before or after only what I choose to give to him.

Matthew Brickman:
So, so a pre Rio, think of it like this. A prenup is simply a contract. Okay. And you can contract to do anything you want. Hmm. Okay. As long as the two people agree to the terms, you can agree to anything. Now, here’s, here’s the thing. Can

RIO ROCKET:
You agree to the statute of the law and the state in which you’re agreeing? Sure,

Matthew Brickman:
You can look, we do that, we do that all the time in mediation. We create things and, and you know, I tell people in mediation all the time, you are free to agree to do just about anything you want as long as there’s not a law that says that what you want to contract to is illegal. So Ian, you can ignore the law. Um, for example, I’ve seen a prenup that even talked about children and said, in the event that we get divorced, we will do 50 50 timesharing, even though 50 50 timesharing is not in the statute, but in their, in their contract, they say, if we have kids and if we get divorced, we’re gonna do 50 50. Okay, fine. And so yeah, it’s simply a contract to the terms. Now, how ironclad is it? Right?

Matthew Brickman:
In, in, when, when doing a prenup, you’ve got to follow the rules of contract law. Not so much family law, because we’re not following family. Like you, you can contract to do anything. So you’ve gotta file, or I mean, you have to follow the laws of contract law. So for example, you cannot sign a contract that you were coerced into. You’re under duress. So, you know, you know, I’m sure there’s movies out there, and I, I’m sure I’ve seen stuff where it’s like, you know, the day of the wedding, they are scrambling to sign a prenuptial agreement, right? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, it would never happen, right? Yeah. Like, because, because, and, and, and look, why would it not happen? Because whose ever idea it was to create it and protect it is not gonna be so stupid to create a situation where the other person has a legal loophole to get out of it.

Matthew Brickman:
They’re not gonna do that. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, no. They’re not gonna be like, okay, sign this right now so we can walk down the aisle. No, they’re not, because they could easily say, okay, well let’s look at when, when was this signed? What was the date? Let’s talk to the notary. Yeah, I was at the church. This was right before they walked down the aisle. Oh my gosh. That has coercion, duress, written all over it to the lesser, you know, whoever’s g not not gonna be receiving so much. So you wouldn’t do it. Most, most prenups are done months prior. Because, you know, and, and here’s the other thing. I don’t know any attorneys that will, um, that will not, um, do a prenup with full financial disclosure. So it’s very similar to like what we have to do in a divorce. In a divorce, you have to do full financial disclosure.

Matthew Brickman:
When we fill out a financial affidavit, you know, what is your income? What are your expenses? What are, you know, what are all your assets? Where, you know, what’s, what’s what’s, what’s your retirement? So like under this scenario, you know, this, this wife who makes a million has maybe two, 3 million in the bank. She would have to produce all of her 401ks, pensions, retirements, all of her bank accounts. Credit card, like full financial disclosure, usually a, an ironclad financial affidavit or, uh, prenuptial agreement has a financial affidavit attached to it. And there’s a wave that says both parties have exchanged documents, had time to review documents, made full financial disclosure, because you’re not contracting to something like this in the dark. You know, what you are getting into, you know, and if, and now I have seen, um, just once or twice where there was no financial disclosure done with the prenup.

Matthew Brickman:
There’s not even a waiver of financial af uh, dis disclosure. And I believe the law says that there has to be. So they were challenging the validity of it, claiming coercion, duress. They were claiming fraud because there was not full financial affidavits. Um, or full financial disclosure. Disclosure and, and, uh, corresponding affidavits. And you know what, it’s up to that judge whether they want to look at that and be like, what? It’s like, yeah, I’m gonna set this thing aside. Or they could say, we’re gonna set, you know, this term aside. Maybe it doesn’t undo the entire agreement, but usually these things are done prior. Also, one attorney can’t, like, let’s say for example, the wife wants this done, so her attorney is gonna draft this and the husband doesn’t have an attorney. And so the wife’s attorney’s sort of kind of just gonna help both of them through it.

Matthew Brickman:
No <laugh> like, no, because that seems a little shady, like coercion, duress, sneaky, like you can’t do represent somebody, you know? Um, and you know, and if the husband doesn’t want to have counsel, there would be full, there should be full waivers in there that, you know, the wife was represented by Rio Rocket and you know, you know, the husband was self represented and chose not to have counsel review this. But, you know, wife’s counsel, uh, reviewed this husband, reviewed this, had time to have, I mean, like even in my mediation agreements, I have a waiver when the people are not represented. Cuz you know, I mean I’m now up, up to about 20% of my business. There’s no attorneys involved. There’s a full waiver that says that they had time. They were encouraged by me to have an attorney look it over. They waive the right to have an attorney look it over.

Matthew Brickman:
They, they’re satisfied with the terms, the agreement. They’re not gonna seek any, uh, more additional discovery. But with a prenup, you really wanna follow all the rules to make sure that it’s ironclad. Um, and so it’s, you know, not every family attorney does prenups. In fact, in fact, most of ’em that I know don’t, and I’ve worked with over 675, they don’t do prenups. They’re like, uh, I’m not getting into that. Um, but a lot of ’em also are not totally immersed into contract law as well. You know, they understand it, but it’s not really their thing. And so they don’t want to get into all those little nitpicky words. Um, just like we were talking about the alimony statute that says, you know, the court may not shall so shall is a command, may is, well possibly it’s up to the discretion of the court. Every word we saw years ago, Hillary Clinton, you know, with with with Bill Clinton, you know, well, let’s define the word is.

Matthew Brickman:
Occasionally Sydney and I will be releasing Q & A bonus episodes where we will answer questions and give you a personal shout out.

Sydney Mitchell:
If you have a comment or question regarding anything that we discuss, email us at info@ichatmediation.com that’s info@ichatmediation.com and stay tuned to hear your shout out and have your question answered here on the show.