Ex-husband off base for trying to welsh on cost-of-living raise

My husband and I signed a property settlement and support agreement six years ago that was then made into a court order. To avoid courts and lawyers in the future, we agreed and the court ordered that any increase (or decrease) in my alimony and child support would be based on the federal cost-of-living index. My ex-husband’s payments have increased slightly, but we had no problem until he remarried. He then sued to try to remove the cost-of-living provision, which he claims he can’t afford. This reminds me of professional athletes who sign contracts this year and then hold out for more money the next year. It’s not fair for me to rely on a deal with a man who then welshes on his obligations.

Although you and your husband can agree to any terms you think are fair when it comes to alimony and property division, child support is a horse of a different color and is always modifiable upon proof of change in the child’s needs and/or the supporting parent’s financial ability to pay. It is important to remember, however, that the mere fact that the paying spouse’s income has been reduced does not, in and of itself, require a reduction in payments. Nor does remarriage, for that matter.

Generally, changes in financial circumstances that are anticipated at the time of the agreement cannot be used as a basis for modifying child support payments. As a matter of fact, child support is governed by guidelines from which there can be no deviation without specific court authorization. Because you and your ex-husband agreed to use the cost-of-living index as a way of deciding on automatic increases or decreases in your payment, it is obvious that you both anticipated that the payments would not remain the same but would go up or down based upon changes in the cost of living. Because inflation affects everyone, your ex-husband’s position seems fallacious. Although you tried to avoid lawyers, we suggest that you again saddle up and hire one.

My husband was 65 and I was 34 when we married. We signed a premarital agreement that, among other things, set up a life insurance trust to protect me and our son, who was born before we married. My husband named a bank trust department and me as trustees. When he died earlier this year, $1 million in insurance money was paid to the trust and deposited in the bank. Although I am not a financial wizard, I believe that I am being taken advantage of. In addition to charging a hefty percentage to manage the account, the trust company hired its own bank to manage the money, some of which is being put into annuities sold by the bank. My lawyer says there is nothing I can do.

We don’t agree. Because you are not only the co-trustee but also the guardian for a minor beneficiary and a beneficiary yourself, we believe that you have the right to say plenty and you should.

By definition, a trustee is a fiduciary whose first obligation is to the trust beneficiaries. As such, we believe that by directing investments to other profit centers within the bank each of which earns fees the bank as trustee may have a serious conflict of interest. You should first get a lawyer who is knowledgeable in this area and ask for the following information in writing: (1) A full disclosure of all fees being earned by all divisions of the bank on this account. (2) The bank’s money management track record over the past five years. (3) A long-range investment plan from the trustee concerning the money. If you are not satisfied, you have remedies. With that kind of money, there are good money managers who will handle your funds for less than 1 percent.