Speaker 1: Hey guys, welcome back to kitchen court cases where we watch core in my kitchen. Today, we are going to check out a bit of a divorce case or custody arrangement, I think it's both.

Speaker 2: But let's find out together.

Speaker 3: So we're on today for a motion, Mr. Mr Patterson's motion motions related to child support maintenance, the use of the home out at Lilliewap and attorney fees. So I've reviewed the pleadings of the party submitted, and then we just double check there's also a proposed order that was signed by Miss Baldwin looks like Mr fuel signed off on that also. I'm seeing that in my hands I'll sign off on that. And then we can address the motion at hand unless there's any preliminary issues. Great. So we'll hear from Mr field behalf of Mr Patterson.

Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you, Your Honor. So, effectively, and I know the courts reviewed everything so I won't belabor it too much but the, the facts as they present today are pretty significantly different than they were the previous support order we're asking the court. Now that the parties have been able to exchange a little bit more proper discovery to effectively recalculate the child support, using the incomes as we've presented them to the court to the last handful of weeks. We also reassess the spousal support order as well we, we asked the court to consider terminating spouse support completely at this point. Again, with the differences in the incomes as, as they present I think it's, there's a little bit more information that the court has now. That's a updated and corrected from the previous order. Again, different numbers so different orders totally appropriate. I'd also point out that at this point, we do have about, I think nine months to 10 months of spousal support that has been been paid it is only a five year marriage I think that also weighs into a potential order for at least maybe an end date for spousal maintenance that doesn't necessarily require us going to trial and or going through settlement. The, and then in addition I think we presented evidence in our documents regarding modest change in the health insurance premiums as well. As far as the property your honor goes. Yeah, this is a circumstance where there's no. Because the no contact order that is in effect. My client has some concerns about accessing the property. He certainly would like to be able to be there in some capacity without risking some sort of violation of that no contact order. Obviously again before there was parenting time. You know it certainly, you know, maybe access was less than an issue but now that my clients having pretty regular parenting time, it would be nice for him to have some, at least some sort of order that protects his ability to go to that property again risk that mom might show up and then he would potentially be in violation of the protective order. He does have a very flexible schedule with his work and so he does intend on using that property. Presume that the court, make some sort of accommodations for him. Again, just a real brief assessment of what we filed I'm happy to answer any questions so I can your honor. I feel is it Mr Patterson's intent to live there full time or something less than something less than, but your honor he certainly, for example, because he is so flexible with his work. He had planned on again if available to spend like, for example, the majority of the summer months there certainly again when he has more access and time to the children.

Speaker 3: So, so the desire to to spend time at that he's got he has the trailer, and he's wanted to take advantage of the summer months because he has a flexible work schedule, it's not so much that he wants to move out of his parents home and kind of establish himself again or, or does it, how much does that enter into the equation.

Speaker 4: I think that that is also the case, but I don't know that that specifically is a linchpin issue on the use of the property.

Speaker 3: Okay. All right. All right, that's helpful. Thank you. And I just wanted to recognize that Miss heights on the line also. Miss Paula.

Speaker 5: Thank you. In this matter, the court should look at the fact that the temporary order was signed in November. It's not that old. This is really just an attempt to relitigate the temporary order when there haven't been any substantial changes in any. That's not reasonable to just repeatedly relitigate something, and you do that in part when you want to sort of siphon off the other parties ability to pay for the litigation, especially when we have a substantial difference in the incomes between these two parties for us the court to deny the motion and grant my client fees for responding to this. The arguments about waging increases both privacy very modest wage increases from the last temporary order those are not unanticipated. And again, they're modest as to both parties so it sort of puts both both in the same position they were in a temporary When you look at the respondent he makes $14 more per hour than my client at $42 per hour and change and that's not counting any overtime that's not counting his side work that he gets 1099 for, and it doesn't include his side business. We calculated his income, just a straight time and zero over time and over $7,000 per month. He's gotten 1099 for an additional couple hundred dollars per month and then he has a side business where he's really not disclosing that whatsoever, there are records that would be available to him through Etsy and Facebook and he's not produced those to you to prove that he's not that those aren't significant and income producing for him. So that puts them at $8,600 per month and that's with no bonuses and no overtime whatsoever, but we know he does receive bonuses, even his own materials show consistent bonuses from 2019 forward and statutes very clear that where there is a consistent structure that that is included in income. So that also should be included in the your honor's thought process. When you look at the wage sub submitted he's still contributing 8% of his income to his 401k so sort of this claim of poverty doesn't match the fact that he's putting almost 10% of his income away. And again, when you look at the incomes of these people my clients making just under $60,000 per year versus Mr. And again sort of looking at the income that he's producing at about 92,000 so again, about double what my clients And again, that's without counting any of the side work or side business. Also important to note that the spousal support in this case is 100% funding the mortgage. So the spousal support is set at the mortgage cost. So not only is the spousal support that's supporting my client but it's also preserving a community asset so they're directly related and allowing the children to have stability. So if you ask for an increase in the offset due to medical payments, they provide zero evidence of that. It's just in his declaration there's not a piece of documentation that says this is the breakdown for the child's cost versus Mr. cost versus the family cost. There's none of that. certainly an argument there, but without anything more, that argument just falls flat. So you can't just double that offset and say oh well, you know, just give it to us. So again, not reasonable. Mr. has sort of at this point a standard every other weekend type plan. So again, there's no sort of deviation there. And again, there's really no significant changes. So this is just another bite of the apple on the finances, the court should maintain the current order. It's not reasonable to change it for where we are in the current process. As far as the little walk property. And this is a property that's two hours away. It's a vacation property, he's not planning to live there, he just wants to visit there. It's not a dime for it since these parties separated. It's part of a essentially a complex of properties that my client and her family own, essentially these adjoining lots. And so Mr. then wants to go and camp, then preventing my client from being there for her family and family activities. And again, all he's not paying anything to use that property. My client says hey, order it sold. Her family members have said we'll buy it at sort of the going rate. I'm happy to do that to sort of resolve that off late. And that returns it to sort of her family who's owned it for 40 plus years. But otherwise, if the court's not ordering it to be sold at the offered price, then the court should maintain the property is to be used by my client. It's just not reasonable to order that Mr. can use this as a vacation property, then excluding my client from you know her family's Memorial Day and Fourth of July and other celebrations that they normally engage in, especially when there's a domestic violence protection order in place. There's plenty of other places that Mr. can go. If he wants to take a trip. It's just not reasonable that he specifically wants to call out the property that adjoins her parents property. So as the court to deny either or the little what property sold as requested, or the properties to remain in the use and possession of my client at least at this point in the case. I would request the court to deny the requests of the respondent and maintain the current financial orders, allow my client use and possession a little about property. She's the only one who's paid for it since separation.

Speaker 3: Thanks. Besides, do you have any, any comment. You may or may not.

Speaker 1: I do not on this issue, Your Honor.

Speaker 3: Thanks. Right, Mr fuel, any, any response.

Speaker 4: Only that we'd rely on all the evidence we provided about the changes in the income I think that, again, using our numbers my clients down over 1000 per month. Wife is up, almost 1000. And so the difference there being 2000 and these incomes I think is rather. Again, maybe significance obviously is up to the court to determine, we would say that given these incomes those are relevant numbers and certainly supports the court, considering a recalculation.

Speaker 3: Mr fuel one question, Miss Baldwin indicated that the insurance costs that was supported by by declaration. Are there any other documentary documents this substantiate the dollar amounts that are going up from his paycheck.

Speaker 4: Well I appreciate the question your honor. First of all, obviously the declaration is evidence itself but I appreciate the fact that we like to substantiate those things. Your Honor, I, I, to be as square with the court as possible. I believe that that's the case, I don't have any my possession but I'm sure I can, if the court's considering a recalculation of any kind, perhaps the court would grant leave for my client to give me those documents so I could show them to Miss Baldwin.

Speaker 3: So I was looking at a submission on May 3 sold financial source documents 56 pages on page six of that is a pay summary for Mr Patterson from 2022 the year 2022 and it talks about deductions in the middle column. And it lists a vision that shows a dollar amount. HRA 70 medical shows a dollar amount. Dental there's a dollar amount there, and the like, and basic life insurance dollar amounts associated so I don't know if that was the basis of it because there's, I didn't do any calculations related to that.

Speaker 5: You'd need the HR breakdown, to be able to do the calculation, more than just the waste of deductions just going to show you the straight deduction for the total premium cost, but the child support inclusion is only the child's portion, and that just doesn't give you the information to be able to do that calculation.

Speaker 3: Okay. All right, thanks. So, with regard to the motion to basically adjust or modify the child support based on circumstances here I think both parties, both received raises. It was known that Mr. Patterson had been receiving fairly regularly not every year, a bonus and it varied in dollar amounts the average I think was 2.48% or something of that nature. Also apparently when the child support was initially set back in September, November, pardon me. Any bonus structure from Miss Patterson was not at least wasn't clearly known so I think there's a basis to move forward with the increased incomes of both parties and also new information related to bonus structure that's coming through to Miss Patterson. As far as the paid time off to include that I think that's kind of a double dip. You know it's it's it's it's income if she, she wants to use it in vacation, do whatever she wants you can do that if she doesn't use it then the money comes her way so I'm not going to include that. As far as the the incomes I spent a lot of time with this yesterday, just working with numbers and. So this is what I can come up with. So I'm including the bonus structure for both parties in their incomes because I think it is fairly regular it may not be every year but I think it gives a fairly good approximation of what the parties are receiving. So I'm setting Miss Patterson's gross income at 5178 that takes into account for the bonus structure and spreading it out over, over 12 months. But again as I indicated I'm not including the paid time off in that calculation. So that's that's her 5178 far as far as Mr Patterson's gross income, I'm including a bonus level of about hundred 1650 so about 138 a month. Mr Patterson's gross is at 88149 plus that 1650 so that sets him at 7483 gross. So that's where I'm setting him at that I'm inclined to give him credit for the insurance premiums but I don't think there's a basis to do so. So I'll hold off on that. I'm also not taking into account the pavers business. He may be may be rocking it with those pavers with those positive reviews and I don't know. I don't know what his income is on that so I'm not taking that into account I just think at this point it's too early we don't have enough records and it's almost speculative at least from my vantage point to make a decision on that. As far as the independent contractor income. There was a representation that was used to pay down debt. I'm not going to include it at this time it may come back later to be included but for now I'm not I'm not including it. So that sets the those incomes at those levels with the proper deductions. And then that leads us to the discussion of spousal maintenance. I guess when when I'm looking at the spousal maintenance. There was a, you know, I think that the dollar figures are fairly clear of what each party is receiving, it looks like both parties have been in their jobs for for a number of years. They've been they're fairly well established they're getting regular raises. And so I guess the question that came to my mind is, is what is, you know, obviously I take into account the standard of living, the length of the relationship and the marriage. Any training or specialized education needs that need to occur. So I take all that into account, it seems that Miss Patterson is not in a position where she's needing extra training she's in a good career with a solid, solid future. And then there I also take into account the, the ability to pay and the need. Clearly there's a difference of income about as Miss Baldwin indicated about $14 per hour difference. There's an indication that Mr. Patterson is paying for. And Mr. Patterson represents that he's still living with his father. So, as far as setting an end date to the maintenance I'm going to refrain from doing that but I'm going to reduce the maintenance to $1,200 per month. And I think that's a nod to the fact that, that he's living in his folks place if he has the trailer if he wanted to rent a space he could move out and rent a space probably about 500 bucks. So I'm going to reduce that so that'll take into account be taken into account in the child support calculation. I think that's fraught with with issues. You know that just the just given the history of the case and I recognize there's dispute of what did or didn't happen. I think that that allowing Mr. Patterson to use that would be premature at this point and it just not proper, just to be inappropriate based on the past experiences that have been occasioned within the marriage. I'm not going to, I'm not going to allow that and so Miss Patterson will continue to have options to use that she's paying for it. And the like social continue to take care of the taxes utilities and the like and I'm not I'm refraining I'm not going to order that it'd be sold I think it's just premature at this time and the setting of it and the fact that there's kind of this, this familial connection to the land, and Mr. And Miss Patterson being the owners of the land. I think that we need to definitely have some type of value to third party evaluation on that on the value before the committee on arms length deal. So I'm going to hold off on that. So, that's the court's decision to do, and I'm refraining from imposing any any attorney for you so deny that request. So with that said, any points of clarification needed from the parties.

Speaker 5: I don't believe so. The. We don't dispute and it should be included that Mr would receive a credit of $142 that was proved at the last hearing. And so that would be appropriate for the insurance cost.

Speaker 3: Yes. Thanks. Mr field you have any points of clarification.

Speaker 4: No, Your Honor, although if. As I mentioned before, if we can provide updated numbers that are satisfactory to Miss Baldwin, the court allow us to put that corrected agreed number in.

Speaker 3: I mean if there's agreement between the parties, that's fine. I'm inclined you know those are those are costs that are regularly deducted from from child support because it is child support because it's going to the benefit of the children So if the party is going to agree on that and there's documentation I'm fine to sign off on that. Thank you. All right. With that, any additional items.

Speaker 5: No, just setting for presentation. I'm potentially in trial I'll find out later today on the 13th on the 20th I'm trying not to be here, so I'd ask either we set tentatively to next week or the 27th.

Speaker 4: Yeah, 13th would be much better for me I'm also not going to be available on the 20th and potentially not available on the 27th, either and then I know we've got the fourth I think the following Tuesday.

Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and shoot for the 13th and let's do that we'll set up for presentation next week June 13 at 9am. As far as the change in the, the, the spousal maintenance payment. I don't recall the specific date that it was being paid or that it was due to do the parties recall that the timing of that.

Speaker 5: I think it's half and half.

Speaker 3: Half by the way, and fifth and the 20th or something like that. Okay, so let's have this be effective. As of today, so the next payment would be that the reduced level. Thank you. Great. With that, thanks to the parties that will conclude today's today's hearing on that case. Next matter I have is Sarah Williams and Dustin Williams, because.

Speaker 2: Well, hold on judge, judge, judge. I was, I was done with you at the moment. Sorry. I thought that was interesting.

Speaker 1: We don't always see cases where spousal is even given, and to, I think it was 10 months, so that's. I guess quite a while. It was reduced in the end. I can't recall right now what the spousal amount was to begin with, but to 1200 a month, which is still a lot to tell you the truth. Please go ahead and like the video if you liked it. Dislike it if you disliked it and subscribe if you're not already subscribed. Most of my viewers are subscribed. I have the best viewers in the world, but if you're new here, hit that subscribe button. All right, I'll talk to you soon.

Speaker 2: Bye.