A Once and Always Father - Debt Deserting (Chapter 10)
A Once and Always Father - Debt Deserting (Chapter 10)
Like sand in a desert, debt was the lot of this divorcee. Debt was born, or largely accrued, by the exploits of my now ex-wife; but, as already described, I bore the penalties. Debt was incurred through the unforeseen or unrealized tax status changewhich gave the full tax credit of all the children to her. Debt was also transferred to my sole responsibility for the car note; and though it was the one thing of value that I took from the divorce, it ended-up being an albatross because she would not agree to authorize title transfer for re-registration in another state.
Living in the adjoining state at the time, vehicle registration required a transfer with signatures of the owner(s). Under the provisions or instructions of the Final Judgment, I was to re-finance the vehicle as possible or feasible; but with registration occurring so quickly (after the divorce)and only being re-employed for a few weeksI was not able. The registration was due and, as a matter of practicality, I needed my ex-wife to authorize the transfer. But before I continue with this "next hurdle" in the post-divorce life, let me share a similar storythough with roles somewhat reversed.
Only weeks after our divorce, my ex-wife called to tell that me that our mini-van (excuse me, her) mini-van was not workingthat she had stalled nearby. On hearing the news, I drove to the location and replaced the broken serpentine belt. Back in operation, the van was otherwise in good working order. But this was not the first time that I had come through with a repair during the course of her divorce.
Between the time of her "final decision" (or after telling me that she was not going to divorce me) and "D-day" (the day of divorce), the car was experiencing another problem; and, as the first of two acts of road-side service, I went over to her house (excuse me, our "marital residence") to do a good deed. Sometime after my arrival, the local police showed-up in response to her call. Bear-in-mind that there was not a restraining order in-effect in Georgia (or where we were living); the restraining order has been filed in Florida months earlier. The police were naturally confused as to why I was repairing the car while purportedly putting my family at risk; but wouldn't you bewouldn't anybody? I explained that she called me on the matter; but in their confusion, a team of one female and one male officer politely ask me if I would leave so as to alleviate any problem.
I left; but the problem persistedand still does. By "problem", what I mean is hypethat migrates to liesin order to pose as a victim of one sort on another. If I haven't said it already, this behavior or practice is what I've called: "abusing the system designed to help to abused"; other terms that may have been (or will be) applied include: "Recurring Themes"; "The Ruse"; "Devices" and maybe, "Much Ado about Dodo ".
Why would I try a second a time to help after having been burned the first time; or as I like to frame it, why would I do anything to directly or indirectly help my children? Yes, that's why I have taken such risks amid the repeated (or recurring) themes of alleged victimization. It's for the children's sake! Do you hear me? Everything at this point of the marriage was for the benefit of my childrenwho neither understood (nor agreed to) divorce. Let's consider who the victims were (and are)and let's consider why they're victims. I will return to these questions or subject at a later time; and I will explain how their mother, who claims to love them, has used the children like pawns.
Within a few weeks of the second repair (of the van), the vehicle was being traded-in by her. Did I mention that the van was in both our names too? So, she calls me at work and politely ask me if I would head-on down to Auto-Nation and co-sign the title of van for her new vehicle. What do you think I did? It's for the children.
Back to the vehicle that I owned (so to speak); in June of 2001, I received a letter from her attorneya reply to my request for her co-signature to re-register.
The letter included her refusal to co-signor otherwise, to authorize the registration:
I (the attorney) have reviewed the circumstances of the Mercury. However until or unless she is off the loan, we are not willing to transfer the title of this vehicle to you or to anyone else. The divorce decree contemplated refinancing or paying off this debt. When that occurs.
Not that it matters at this time, since the ordeal is long over with, but for posterity and my continued view of the legal community, the Final Judgment in "actual terms" regarding the Mercury:
The Husband shall make a good faith effort to refinance the Mercury.In the event that refinancing would cause great hardship the Husband shall so document the hardship to the Wife.
She could have done the right thing; she could have authorized the registration to enable use of the vehicle. I chose to do the right thing; but she chose not to.
During the time in question, I had paid over $5,000 in taxeswhich was paid entirely from my remaining retirement account. What's more, I was only day's into re-employmentthus making qualification for a loan (or re-financing) impossible at the time. She was well-aware of these circumstances (and the terms of the decree) on the matter of re-financing. The basis for this refusal was the potential liability that she would incur should I default on the car note. In marriage, we had never defaulted on a care loan. What benefit or purpose would default provide to me? I was re-employed; and the loan in good standingand would remain so over the next four monthswhile the car remained parked and I borrowed my parent's car to drive to work and to Atlanta to see my children. With the help of a local credit union and a sympathetic bank officer, I was finally able to re-finance and to register the vehicle without her cosigning.
Perhaps I have not done a good job of explaining the details of this feature of my debt, but the upshot is this: the attorney's reply had nothing to do with liability or default, but was simply another opportunity to make life more difficult for a divorced dad. My ex-wife could have signed the document to enable me to register and use the car; her choice (or reply) not to sign was simply out of maliciousness and nothing else. Once, twice, three times, I was there to service the vehicle and to co-sign for her car purchase. With a similar need to register my car, she was not there. As for the children, I will also be thereas providence allows.
Debt, debt and still more debt: after three years into our divorce, she takes me back to court for more child support. During this period, my income had increased about 17 percent. A marginal increase in child support may have been reasonable; but what occurred was an increase of 54 percent or from $1400 to $2160 per month! Yes, her attorney and her judge (excuse me, the judge) raised my child support to the maximum allowable ratewhich was 60 percent of my after-tax income. I did not receive any tax credit for my children but, from my net income, 60 percent went to child support. I know, I know; but please remember, "It's for the children's sake".
Besides the radical increase in child support was: "the creation" of some back-due amount or arrears, some late-breaking out-of-pocket medical expenses that she claimed and, as well, the outstanding balance of the debt attached to the house in Georgia. Let me address the last item firstand the first item last.
Just over a year after "her divorce", my ex-wife decided to move back to Florida; and having to provide a reason, she subsequently informed her judge (excuse me, the judge) that, as a CPA, she could not find employment in Atlanta. With her alibi post-entered (several months following her move), she was free-and-clear to resume life back in Floridawhere the aging restraining order sat quietly waiting to be resurrected on command of the voice of the "victim".
Florida was ideal: it enabled her to be closer to her family, and it provided the full backing of the courtswhere precedence had been established for her victim status. Returning to her hometown was never a consideration (for me), but was certaingiven the inevitable and indomitable relationship between her and her mother. She was able to return under the dubious honor of being yet another victim of an already deeply victimized family; and with the open-arms and empathy of somewho knew all too well, the vile acts of men. A few family members may have thought otherwise had they been at the divorce trial; or if in court, they would have seen another sidethat was anything but a real victim. Yes, there (at court), good-Christian virtue would have been tested to the point of re-considering the tenet that blood runs thicker than water.
You may recall the quit deed. In the decision to return to Florida, she decided to sell the house. The debt that she accumulated through a second mortgageas described in previous chapterswas now retired through the proceeds. You may recall that I was given liability for that debt. From the divorce until the sell of the house, I had paid on the loan reducing the balance. In settling this matter, she tacked on the balance to alleged back-due medical expenses for the sum of approximately $15,000. Her judge (I'm sorry, again the judge) levied the total as a one-sum bill due within four months of the court appearance and judgment.
I could offer some details about the disclosure of my financial status; about how I could not qualify for a non-collateral loan of the amount in question. But before taking my financial status too much further, allow me to elaborate on the $15,000.
I had been scrupulous on the out-of-pocket medical expenses. With the arrival of her bills, I would make copies and provide an itemized statement. This "system" seemed to have been working: for each batch of bills that she forwarded by mail, she received a money order and statement. Ironically, "the accountant" was the least organizedwith the bills arriving in a bundle of paper. The precautious "system" was just another extreme that a non-custodial may take in an attempt to ward-off the "black magic" of those attorneys (and accountants). I describe the "system" to submit thatuntil the time leading-up to the court appearance or child support modificationI had every reason to believe that the account was in good standing. In other words, I had no reply from her as to any outstanding or unpaid out-of-pocket expenses.
Low and behold, she now alleged that I was delinquent by thousands of dollarsof which she now had organized and complied into a reasonable package for the court. Oh, and did I mention that the courtswhich order a full-discloser of financialsseemingly gave little attention or credence to the details. Yep, they took her package without considering the two years of statements and correspondence that I had maintained in earnest.
As you may have had the misfortune of divorce (or similar trauma), a financial disclosure is customary in the extortion (excuse me, "division) of assets. So too are these disclosures required in subsequent shakedowns (excuse me, "modifications) of child support and other ritualistic sacrifices offered to the goddess of victimization. If you have not had the misfortune, then perhaps you can imagine it as somewhat like the ceremonies of some ancient tribe where, not once but repeatedly, a sacrifice is offered for appeasement (not atonement).
Remember though, that happiness can never be achieved through the expectations levied on another; such a notion is not doomed to failbut is just doomed! Happiness can never be achieved through the distress or destruction that one imposes on the other person. When a child, now grown-up, does not resolve their deep-seeded anger with a parent or parents, the "other person" plays Hell trying to make-up for it. Married, divorced or dead, the "other person" can never replace what was lost so much earlier in the life and soul of the oppressed. Forgiveness must be the course for any future, substantive relationships.
I know, I know; it was perfectly legal for her to collect on this second mortgage debt. In my simple mind is the realization that I gave her the house; she decided to selland accept a lossand the second mortgage debt was her doing. Again, she created the vast majority of this debt, or $11,000 dollars ostensibly to finance her divorce. I had paid some of this debt post-divorce, but now she wanted the rest of it. The problem was that I did not have the money to pay the $15,000, and I did not have the collateral to bower the amount! But of course, her attorney and her judge (excuse me, the judge) knew that I did not have the meanspresuming that they considered the disclosure of my personal finances. Though such disclosure is customary, the process is lost or broken by my observations and experiences of the courts.
At the time of this "reconciling of accounts", I had not seen my children in about three years. Yes, that's right; on her return to the land of restraining orders, a voice of the victim roused the resting restraining order to resurrection; thus making it illegal for me to be a parent to my children. Life is wonderful when the law works in your favor; when you call-up the compliant courts with little or no causeother than what you testifyregardless of the truth. But I wouldn't know because, to begin, I have learned that telling the truth is foremost. As Mark Twain said, "Telling the truth (or being honest) is best; that way, you don't have to remember anything."
Several years after my estrangement from my children (or the alienation), the courts re-commenced with the ceremonial, sacrificial rights of the modification and post-divorce sacrifice: my offering or duty was to pay my now-levied debt without any possibility of an installment planor without a reasonable consideration of my financial status. Let's think about this situation; let's do what the courts do not do. They knew that I could not pay, yet they (the courts) proceeded with such terms anyway. They did the victim's bidding.
Rather than face the consequences of this debt service, I filed for bankruptcy (Chapter 7) in the weeks to come. I didn't want to do this because, for one thing, it cost me nearly a $1,000. What could I do; what would you do? Bankruptcy was the only recourse to debt unserviceable.
"Debt Deserting" insinuate the endless losses (like the sand of the desert). "Deserting" began with the borrowing of the large sum of money (from a joint account). Incidentally, this withdrawal would have required two signaturestwo valid signatures! These losses continued with a series of lies to include her basis for her restraining orders, the initial cause or basis for her divorce, and that used to inculcate the children's understanding both prior to and post the divorce. These losses continue at the writing of these wordsand will continue so long as fear and control are the motivation. How can a relationship predicated on fear be in the best interest of our children?
The Pros And Cons Of Debt Settlement Hassle Free Debt Settlement Chocolate Diamond Jewelry - Prime Factors Before You Purchase Check-list To Purchase Rental-units Volkswagen purchases Porsche Holding Debt Problems Even Affect The Seemingly Well Off How to Purchase a Cheap Dress for a Party Are You Sinking In Debt ? Front Load Washer vs. Top Load Washer or Why Purchase a Front Load Washing Machine? Access control system--Product Features to Consider before Making a Purchase Seniors, Do You Still Have a Debt Problem? How to Submit a Debt Validation Request Buy Proextender - Discover Where to Purchase It for Cheap