legal help. lawyers??

[rattlsnak]

I have a divorce decree that has a section that can be modified according to:

KATZ v. KATZ., 258 Ga. 184, 366 S.E.2d 766 (1988)

What the heck is that?

[john70t]

Best guess: It's probably specific to previous GA state rulings.

I'd suggest a search, but not necessarily the easiest route................

Access to The Law remains a removed entity from the layman affected.

[rattlsnak]

I think its with the Ga Supreme Court, but searches just bring up mumble jumbles or legal pages you have to join and then try to interpret..

[GWN7]

A local library should have a law section that might have the case your looking for. If not a GA university that has a law library will have the case.

[john70t]

(Not a lawyer.) This was only the first Bing search result:
Browse Caselaw
"The agreement provides that child support 1 is to be continued at least until the children reach the age of twenty-one years and contains several provisions under which support can be extended even longer."

I'm confused about this State of Georgia ruling....
Child support payments until 21+ years, and beyond?

[rattlsnak]

Actually, just heard back from my lawyer. Its the opposite of above. Once the kids reach majority age (18) modification is allowed up to the age of 23. College costs are what is in question here. ( Child supports ends at 18 or upon graduation of high school, whichever happens later. ) Since she re married a wealthy doctor, she thinks its ok to send the kids where ever they want to go, ( out of state, private, etc), and simply make me pay for half. While i would love to do that, I am only prepared to pay half the normal in state fees. She is encouraging them to go elsewhere on purpose just so she can rake me over the coals again! Trying to get the original decree modified to put a limit on the amount spent, (which is standard language today, unlike mine 15 years ago.)

[Rot 911]

Here ya go:


366 S.E.2d 766


258 Ga. 184


KATZ

v.
KATZ.


No. 45402.


Supreme Court of Georgia.


April 20, 1988.

[258 Ga. 186] Andrew R. Kirschner, Bedford, Kirschner, & Venker, P.C., Atlanta, for Alvin W. Katz.

Hurt, Richardson, Garner, Todd & Cadenhead, A. Paul Cadenhead, Atlanta, for Susan E. Katz.

[258 Ga. 184] GREGORY, Justice.

Alvin W. Katz, appellant, and Susan E. Katz, appellee, were divorced September 13, 1983. June 7, 1985 appellant filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, to reduce his child support obligations. On April 27, 1987 the trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

September 12, 1983 the parties entered into an agreement which was incorporated into the final judgment and decree of divorce. The agreement provides that child support 1 is to be continued at least until[258 Ga. 185] the children reach the age of twenty-one years and contains several provisions under which support can be extended even longer. The agreement further states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the amount of child support shall be subject to reasonable adjustment from time to time as may be mutually agreed upon or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction, based upon the facts and circumstances relating to the needs of the children and the economic position of both parties."

On the date of divorce there were two minor children of the marriage. Both children have now reached majority. The issue in this case is whether the quoted provision from the agreement is sufficient to authorize a court to modify a post-majority child support obligation required by a separation agreement incorporated into a final divorce decree. We hold that it is.

[rattlsnak]

Yes, that's the short form.. Basically 'child support' in my case also includes paying for half of college up the age of 23, not just the standard monthly support until they are 18. In a nutshell, she wants them to go a private or out of state school ( $$$$ ) and I can't afford that, (she is doing this to screw me over financially, has nothing to do with what is best for kids, etc, ). The original agreement states that we will split everything, ( older out dated language ). I am taking her back to court based on the above case as to get it modified to a reasonable amount. ( like a typical in-state school )

[Rot 911]

Here is the language I typically use in Missouri to keep this issue from coming up:

"College tuition and expenses will be capped at those of University of Missouri, Columbia. These expenses will be paid so long as the child is in college and not emancipated under Missouri law."

[rattlsnak]

Well, that would have been nice to have! When I got mine done 16 years ago, it was simply: parties agree to split all college costs, including room, board, books and tuition, so you can see why this has become a problem!

Do you think i have a good chance to get this modified?

[Zeke]

"...and the economic position of both parties."

There's the key phrase right there. But, in my non-law school and humble opinion, that would not necessarily put your ex's new husband on the hook. You would likely have to prove your ex has a bunch of money of her own to modify the shared split. Now that's another interesting word: shared. Does it say 50/50 all the way down the line, or is that 'modifiable'? If she is indeed well off in her own right, it should not be your legal responsibility to step up to a much higher cost of education simply because your ex can afford a higher "share" dollar wise. Morally, this is a sticky wicket going every which way.

That's the tack that I would take. (not tactic or tact, but you could say tactic just not tact)