hi, its regarding the interpretation of a clause in 'the minute of agreement'- it reads: the second party will make weekely payments to the first party of child support on the first day of each month and that by standing order into a bank account nominated by the first party for the said Jennifer Hunter and David Hunter the rate of 200 pounds payable weekly in advance to the first party for the maintenance of the said Jennifer & David Hunter whilst they are in the care of the first party and the said aliment is to continue until the children atain the age of 18 or if they are reasonably undergoing further or highter education until the age of 22 years. Question(i am the 2nd party)- if Jennifer is 18 and completes her HND in June then gets a full time job, do I only need to pay 100 pounds per week for David and the CSA never need contacted as an agreement exists ?
Province/Country relating to question : scotland
Already have my own solicitors understanding but not convinced he's correct
Thank you for your question.The clause is worded in a slightly loose way. It should say how much is paid for each child not the two of them together.I anticipate that there has been correspondence between solicitors concerning the amount of aliment which you are to pay. This should make it clear that the correct amount is £100 per child. If so, your interpretation is correct. This also assumes that David is still entitled to receive the aliment payment.I hope this answer helps.
Hi, I realise the clause is loose in detail and open to interpretation which is why I asked you for your thoughts. As my daughter stops college and starts work in June, I was intending to alter my standing order payment from 200 pounds per week to 100 pounds per week- if I do this with a coverling letter explaining my interpretation of the aliment clause, do you think the clause is robust enough for me to take this action.
If it is not robust enough, do you think it could potentially leave me paying 200 pounds per week until both children are 22 (ie another 6 year) ?- that seens very unfair.
At the time of negotiating, it was agreed that this claused would replace any recourse to the CSA- it is therefore my understanding they have waived there right to this under the agreement? I thought the clause would be considered in isolation in a court of law ?
Thanks for your time.
You should proceed accordingly. As far as the CSA are concerned, you should check with them if you are anxious about your position. I cannot see why they would be involved as normally they will not do so if there is an agreement in force.I hope this helps.
LL.B. (Hons.), Dip.L.P
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).