Recent Feedback
This question deals with Michigan divorce law. Our daughter is in the process of getting a divorce. She is the one instigating this long over due process from a controlling verbally abusive husband. They have three children ages 11, 9 and 4 and she is going back to work full time this fall because her youngest is entering kindergarten. She and her husband agreed to the collaberative system of divorce procedure. He earnes 108,000 a year and she will earn 44,000 a year. Our daughter has prepared a realistic, bare bones, necessitiers only, estimate of what it costs for her and the three children to live on. He has prepared an estimate for him to live on which includes money for vacations, entertainment, hobbies, luxury car, etc. Both her attorney and his attorney agreed that the minimum she should receive is $3,500 a month. The husband has refused to accept that and against the advice of his attorney offered to pay $2,200 a month and stated that he refuses to pay more than that. HELP
Already Tried: She can not stay in her house for the amount offered her as she ends up with an income of $70,000 for four people and he with $82,000 for one person. Is it possible to ask a judge to look at this and issue a ruling that is fair, or is she stuck with either: Accepting what is offered, or having the judge send them back to the negotiating table until they reach an agreement?
You daughter will just have to take him to court to allow the judge to determine what is a fair amount of child support. If his attorney agrees with the $3500 it is likely a judge will also.
Experience: Negotiate, Draft, and Review many complex commercial agreements each year.
The question we have is: is it possible to get this before a judge for a binding judgement or will the judge send them back to negotiate until they have reached an agreement because they both signed an agreement to do the collaberative process?
The judge will send them back to try to reach an agreement twice, if they are still unable the judge will decide. Alternatively, if they explain to the judge that despite their best repeated efforts they are unable, the judge will likely step in under the theory that there is no need to delay the inevitable.