Recent Feedback
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 ?
Optional Information: Province/Country relating to question : scotland Already Tried: 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.
Experience: LL.B. (Hons.), Dip.L.P