the children are adults. The wife has a house, car, insurance and the husband is now making claim as the spouse which he has not been. He owes child support from when the children were young can they sue him now? Can he take the insurance from her employer which her son is legal beneficary?
203858
The general rule is that a spouse is entitled to his elective share.  If there is no will, the spouse is entitled to whatever that state says spouses get (usually at least a third if there are children; in some states 100% even with children).  The quality of the marriage is NOT an issue and is irrelevant.  If the woman didn't want him to inherit from her, she could have gotten divorced.\n\nAn insurance policy is paid to the beneficiary.  It is not a probate asset.  The spouse cannot usually claim it.  There may be some circumstances (where, for example, the wife was mandated to elect the spouse but didn't) where he might be able to claim the proceeds of insurance.\n\nIf back child support based on a child support order or agreement is due, the estate of the decedent may be able to sue the husband for it.  In some cases the children might be able to proceed directly.  States may have statutes of limitation that cut off one's ability to claim child support beyond a certain point - five years is probably a good average.\n\nIt sounds like the children need to consult a good estates attorney in their area.  Go to the website for the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and find a Certified Elder Law Attorney in your area.  http://www.naela.com/Applications/ConsumerDirectory/index.cfm
127541
She can but she has to mark the area that asks if you were claimed as someones dependent.  She will still get whatever she paid in.  It is more beneficial for her mother to claim her than to claim herself, but she still has to file.
516543
The formula for child support is each mother gets 17% of his income per child, but not more then 25% each. \n\nDepending on who files first that person gets 17% (or 25%) of his entire salary. The person who files second gets 17% (or 25%) of whatever is leftover after the first person gets their payment.\n\nWhat it tricky is who gets first dibs. It's not who's children are older, but who files first. Logic would say that your wife would get her support first (meaning she would get more) because she filed before the new wife way back when. But, because she settled for $225 before and did not modify support when his salary increased, then she may be stuck in second place.75\n\nIf he is paying her $1,000 a month it's safe to assume that he makes about $75,000 a year. Which means that if your wife gets second priority then she will receive about $875 a month. This is just a guess and depends on the number of kids each of the women have and many other factors. You won't know until a judge orders it.\n\nYou can either talk to a lawyer about taking him back to court for a support modification, or you can pick up the petition in the family court of the county where her children reside. The paperwork is fairly easy to complete.\n\nI
163465
I really sujest that you seek the advice of a tax attorney rather than a CPA on this one; asthis goes a little further than just taxes.\n\nOn the durface though, it seems simply that you can each take  turns claiming the child on a semi annual basis.  It would be in your best interest to get this in writing in your divorce decree and spell out the terms of the agreement.  On the years where the other party is claiming the child but you are still payaing 50% of the expenses, then there is not much you can do about that.  You don't want to report it as income to the other party, as this will reduce the tax benefits of your child, and inturn do the same to you.  In which case, then why go through this thing at all?\n\nHope this helps a little?\nGood Luck
405619
I don't know where you live, but in the U.S. it is not illegal for the daughter-in-law to do this. It is immoral and very unkind, but not illegal. If the parents live outside of the U.S. they should consult the company the son worked for and see what they can offer. If they have already given the wife all they will, then the parents should see a lawyer. \n\nGood luck to you. Please give the parents my sympathy.
314811
I was told by a bankruptcy trustee that child support cannot be included in a bankruptcy.  The support will still be due and continue to acrue.  As for the 401k, yes it can be taken for his back support.  All his assets can be attached for support.  Make sure you have a good lawyer, contact child support enforcement in your town, and get the money the children rightfully deserve.  Good luck and God bless.
440471
Huh?  Child support is paid BY THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE CUSTODY OF THE KIDS.   Who do the kids live with?  That person is entitled to financial assistance from the other parent to offset the cost of raising the children.
542430
California is not a common-law marriage state; nor is it a palimony jurisdiction.\n\nUnless there is something you haven't said it's hard to see a basis for her claim. If she did, contrary to what seems to have been the case, make contributions towards payment on the house or mortgage, she may have some sort of claim. Otherwise she is blowing smoke.
348410
He needs what is called a dependancy waiver.  They are making sure that you will be able to make on the starting pay in the military.  Counting you he has three dependants that he has to care for.  Even though his daughter does not live with him I'm sure he pays child support on her.  They are also going to cover her with the insurance because she is his daughter.  It's really not a big deal.  It'll be fine.
65642
If he had her sign a 8332, then there should be no trouble.\nIf the kid didn't live with him 6 month and he got the earned income credit, then he can be in big trouble. Because he can claim his son, but there are a few credits that you had to have him live with the boy for 6 month out of the year.
502982
The court really wants to have the whole history of the marriage set out in bite size pieces so that it can be easily assimilated and dealt with point by point.  Your friend seems quite able to tackle this, having given you the various points already which you have in turn been able to set down in writing.  The issues between him and the other party are \n(1)that he denies her claim to sole ownership of the house;\n(2)he wishes to recover the money represented by his wages which was paid into her bank account over the years and which has disappeared without trace;\n(3)he wishes to put her to proof as to the assets which she is holding on resulting trust for him which are represented by the assets paid into her account in this way;\n(4)he wishes to preserve his beneficial rights under her pension plans.  (She presumably named him as her beneficiary).\n\nFor the chronology, start with the date and place of the marriage, then move on to the purchase of the house, the time when it was agreed that his wages would be paid into her bank account and then just work systematically through to the time she left and embezzled (or squirrelled away) the joint savings.  A few little explanatory details (e.g. his blood pressure) would help.\n\nHe shouldn’t be doing this on his own.  Mistakes at this stage could be very costly.
127380
Okay, first... I understand the wife had an affair and your friend is hurt & angry.  That being said, what is it that the wife wants?  Is she prepared to participate in a legal battle that could drag on for years, draining income?  \n\nYour friend and his wife should make an attempt to settle this between them without a costly court battle.  Perhaps the wife is willing to compromise, and shared legal/physical custody could be arranged.  I'm certain there is much more to this story than you could tell in a paragraph.  For example, did she work to put him through university?  Did he work to put her through school?  There are many different circumstances, but it is not unheard of for a woman to pay spousal support to her ex.  She will definitely fight that, but they may agree on shared custody of the kids and if the husband babysits the children while the wife is at work, I can certainly see paying him for his time instead of spousal support.  Compromise is the name of the game when it comes to a dissolution of marriage.  \n\nMy condolences to your friend.
256441
Oh, yes m'am. He *is* still liable to pay back support. In fact, you have until the tenth anniversary of the date the child/ren graduates from high school to begin the initial process of trying to collect. This is a little known fact that every Texas mother should read.
660418
In most US states, the man's estate below about $50,000.00 would all go to the new wife.  Above $50,000.00, the new wife would share the estate with the children.  In some states, she would get 50% and the two children would split the other half.  In some states, she would get 33% and the two children would each get a third as well.  Non-probate assets like life insurance payable to the wife and a house owned as joint tenants would just go to the new wife outright and would not be counted in the above-cited split.\n\nSo long as the children are alive, the children of the children have no right to inherit anything.  If a grandchild is alive but his parent (the child) is dead, the grandchild would take in his parent's (the child's) place.\n\nYou should consult a probate attorney.
539095
Child support can not be set retroactively-so until she files--he owes her nothing.  Once she files-the court can set support back to the date of filing--but not prior to.  After that, if he does not pay 'through the system' then it can be considered 'a gift'.  He should be paying approx 34% of his gross income for 3 children.  Based on what he was earning when they split--she can figure approx what she SHOULD be getting.  I doubt he has 'overpaid' her.  Have her apply at her local child support agency.   You can look up CA guidelines for support here:\nhttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/extinf.htm
515142
If your b/f's employer has been paying a portion of his ex-wife's insurance premiums, as most employers do, it's fraud, but NOT insurance fraud.  State insurance laws define insurance fraud as theft that is perpetrated by or against a person or entity regulated by that State's insurance commissioner.  Since your b/f's employer isn't subject to the regulatory authority of an insurance commissioner, this isn't insurance fraud.  Again, if his employer paid any portion of his ex-wife's premiums, it has every right to sue him privately.\n\nHOWEVER -- there may have been fraud committed against the insurance company that covered her; this IS considered insurance fraud, since the theft was committed against an entity regulated by a State insurance commissioner.  Most insurers will settle for the amount paid out in benefits, minus the premiums paid, plus interest and attorney's fees; some will insist that a criminal case be brought.  So your b/f should get an attorney as soon as possible.\n\nOne thought about the child support Order:  if the Order simply pertained to the payment of child support, it means nothing; but if your b/f provided a copy of the divorce decree reflecting the FINAL child support Order, then his employer was put on notice that a divorce had occurred.  In such a case, his employer cannot take any action against him, nor can the insurer take action against him or his ex, since the employer is legally obligated to inform the insurer of any changes in status, such as divorce.\n\nI hope this helps.
591122
Seek advice from professionals, please! Try getting some advice from your local police or indeed, an attorney. Could there be a woman's refuge near you?\nNO-ONE should have to be abused because of someone else's problems. Your husband has problems, sorry for your dilemma.\n(if you did manage to leave, he should be required BY LAW to pay towards the children)\n\nBest of luck