Getting Sued using I864

[Mimino 2]

Well they wouldn't really have to sue... they would just send you a bill.

I meant, in case you don't pay up. Either way, I'd have to tell him no. It sucks, but this whole situation makes me feel uneasy.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I meant, in case you don't pay up. Either way, I'd have to tell him no. It sucks, but this whole situation makes me feel uneasy.

It does suck but I've just read way too many horror stories... including ones about going bankrupt after being sued and having ####### all to live on and just... it being sucky.

[Brian1967## 119]

Not only does it expose you to the government sending you a bill it might lead to you being sued in federal court if they divorce, tell this friend, and I am asking you, after all I have been through do not do this, it could be VERY risky and could have effects for a very long time.

[Villanelle 4,121]

Good info. I was asked to be a joint sponsor for a friend's wife. Could I draft a pre-nup type of doc that would disallow her to sue me in Court, should anything arise?

Thanks, all!

It doesnt matter if you are the spouse or a 'friend' acting as the joint sponsor. All the same rules apply. If you read the long article type thing (Benders recap) Youll see some people have constructed what you proposed- a private pre nup style contract stating- this 864 is in effect but aside from that we prvtly agree that I wont sue you for support etc etc no matter what.

So far- no ones challenged it in court. Meaning- its never went bad between the parties so its never went before a judge to see how legal that is or if it would stand up. So theres no way to know if that would protect you. On the surface it seems like it may be solid but with out a case being tried and a precedent ruling- youre rolling the dice.

However, I couldn't find a single reference to the Gov ever being successful at suing anyone.

If you search the forums there are a few posts, but they are hard to find and I forget who posted them, but many years back a few states - NJ in particular, did embark on a campaign to collect money from 864 sponsors. As Vanessa explained- there was no 'suing' involved. Simply collection efforts by the state. They just went into the records and found the immigrants who received benefits- tracked down the sponsors and pursued them for the money back. I dont remember the amounts the state collected- but it was substantial. It was never announced why they stopped doing it or if they were going to do it again. So for sponsors- its always like this big risk that exists.

If the immigrant collects- someday the state can come a knocking for the money back. You'll never know when or if.

(as a side note. Im familiar with NJ. They have very high taxes. IMO they are a greedy state. IMO it was costing them more to collect the money then it was profiting them so they stopped. ie sponsors owed 200k collections cost 250k- so they stopped. If the books show sponsors owe 300 again and collections will cost 200- they will do it again. Its all about the numbers and you better believe there is someone in the government whos job it is right now working to reduce the numbers and lower the costs of collections and streamline the process of identifying the sponsors quicker.)

[Mimino 2]

Thanks for all the thoughts, guys!

[Brian1967## 119]

The hole thing about trying to "pre nup" around the I 864 is you for go your rights to sue for the right to sue "in the appropriate court" the problem is that, if your friend divorce and they move on, I have had a immigrant spouse's attorney call my attorney on the phone and say my client knows she can sue your client in federal court.....so for some money NOW she will not sue in federal court" ....answer this do you want to have to retain a attorney to fight off someone that you helped move here, you sign that form you really are agreeing to support this person at 125% of the poverty line...so, good friend or not DO NOT DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop even thinking about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell you what I will scare you to death

your friend and his wife divorce...she get the form put into the state court and you will have to hire a attorney to protect yourself from paying spousal support, she loses in state court

Under the Rooker Feldman doctrine she can sue YOU and your friend in federal court ( do not worry a federal retainer for a lawyer is only about $10,000 and the lawyer will bill you about 500 an hour:) ) How does this sound

do lawsuits happen very often....as Vanessa and Tony say (along with Capri) no it does not, BUT I will tell you I almost had to stroke that check for $10,000 so there you go (I almost would have drained my 401K to protect myself)

For a pre nup case that worked see this case Blain V Harrell out of the federal court in Hawaii the USC won but how much was lost in attorney's fees by Ms. Harrell? $1,000's

for a case of intrest were the form was "kicked" back down to the state level see the brief of "Winters v Winters" out of Florida, once again $1,000's spent on a lawyer

All of this will equal good time for you huh? IF YOU SIGN THE FORM.... I think your friend needs a second job. what do you say now?

[suny25 0]

Please someone attach the old version of I-864 form here

[Brian1967## 119]

Bump

[Brian1967## 119]

Bump

[slowlyman 118]

Good information here folks. Thanks

[Villanelle 4,121]

So lets see this is an old thread with still relevant info on a topic that never seems to die on here.

Above it was discussed the scenario of writing a pre-nup or post-nup and writing in language along the lines of immigrant agrees not to sue USC using 864 in case of divorce. At the time I wrote - to my knowledge there had been no cases where a suit as such had taken place. Someone signing such a pre/post nup and then going back on it during the divorce and challenging it.

Well its now 2015 and here are some recent cases:

Erler v. Erler, Civil No. 12-2793, 2013 WL 6139721 (N.D. Cal.

Nov. 21, 2013);

 Shah v. Shah, Civil No. 12-4648 (RBK/KMW), 2014 WL

185914 (D. N.J. Jan. 14, 2014);

 Toure-Davis v. Davis, Civil No. WGC 13-916, 2014 U.S. Dist.

Lexis 42522 (D. Md., Mar. 28, 2014).

Then there was - Blain v. Herrell, 2010 WL 2900432, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76257 (D. Haw., July 21, 2010) [dismissing complaint

with prejudice to enforce I-864 and finding that prenuptial agreement barred enforcement because it is a “basic principle of contract law that a party may waive legal rights”].

Now to be fair from what I read, and I havent read all the initial filings- they seem to be based on a generally worded pre/post nup; nothing flat out specifically addressing the 864- but that didnt seem to impact the ultimate decision made as the 864 was the legal basis for the suit.

Anyway- now that we are all caught up to date with recent events- the topic can continue:

Recently there has been much discussion of USCs not wanting to sign the 864 due to the implications it can potentially bring them in the worst case scenario, as well as a few inquiries now and again of those seeking to know if the 864 can benefit them in a divorce or separation or abandonment.

I would urge everyone to read and research the above cases before trotting them out as ground breaking decisions, or something that changed the playing field- because in all honesty (and this is not just my opinion but any reputable legal essay or analysis you can find tends to agree) that the above decisions not only contradict each other on several points (which is odd since bottom line they all agreed to enforce it) but they all used different contradicting reasoning's.

There still is NO SOLID ANSWER yet. I personally dont know if there ever will be just because of how the system is set up. Each suit was filed in a different state and while they nodded to and acknowledged the other state in making their decision it was sort of like a psht well we see what they did and yeaaah okay but here in XXX were gonna YYY. A very delicate game of interpretation going on. Its fascinating to watch, but I wouldnt want to play!

No one wants to play really, which was the point of attempting a pre-nup or post nup. But sometimes the game changes and people do things you dont expect, so some general information about the cases above for those who have concerns but dont have the time or stomach to sift through court documents...

First- what are you chances of being sued on the 864 if you are a USC? And Im talking realistically here people. Not theoretically but realistically. So to start- you need money. Its all about the money. If theres no money there is nothing to fight over. In order for someone to bring such a suit, it costs money. These suits snowball- big time. This is not a simple Judge Judy type youre in youre out kind of case. You are talking mega hours with a mega attny.

So the alien is going to need an attny. They will need money to hire them to take the case OR because of the nature of the suit, it allows for their legal expenses to be paid for by the defendant if they are successful. So if Im a fancy lawyer and you tell me you want to sue your ex and hes a pizza delivery man...um yeah no thank you. Unless he does that for fun because he has a trust fund- no thank you. You cant get blood from a stone. So any lawyer that would take on such a case- (that the legal fees would be paid by the other side upon winning) would throughly examine the other side FIRST to make sure the other side can in fact pay before taking it on.

(Or of course there are pro-bono attnys that take on issues for publicity and the what not- perhaps you could be the unlucky pizza man whose spouse finds one that wants to boast they argued an 864 and won- for free?)

Second- moving on past legal costs, we get to money. Hey wasnt that number one? Yup. Well its number 2 also because its that important. When deciding to take on an aliens case to sue with an 864- how much money you the USC have is also going to be a huge factor. Because again blood out of stone. In the cases cited above the income difference was Gigantic with a capital G. In Shah vs Shah- where remember the immigrant is asking for the USC to provide them with money to keep them at the 125%poverty line. Mrs S asked for a restraining order to prevent Mr from selling of of destroying property. (a common filing in divorce or financial issues) it was denied. As I recall the court stated something like Mr had over 1 point something MILLION dollars in real estate holdings (over 20 properties) with no mortgage and hundred of thousands in cash and other assets and to put a block on him as if he was going to dispose of all his assets in a shady move and claim poverty in order to avoid paying her a measly amount was preposterous. So they werent going to impose it on him.

In Davis vs Davis- my goodness, such drama went on there.Wouldve made a fine thread in this forum thats for sure. Apparently Mrs D left the country at one point and went into removal proceedings and got out of them, got her status back.. This was a marriage from a verrrry long time ago. Divorced in gosh it looks like 2003 and just now is asking for support under the 864 as the minor children are grown and checks from the Mr are stopping. In the divorce Mr paid Mrs 70k, purchased a 200k home for her and the children and paid her around 40k a year from 03-08. One mustve aged out because in 09 it was only 30k and then another in 2010 she only got 23k. In 2011 her money stopped- hence she wanted to be kept at the poverty line--- forever I guess?? I dunno.

Erler provided no financial insight from what I read.

SO- you gotta have money.

Now what can you expect if you are sued?

Well from what I read, all the decisions were FAIR. There was no you must keep paying the person so they can live in the lap of luxury off your dime. Nope. Specifically one judge addressed that.

Working backwards- the Erler case. Mrs E is an adult who divorced and moved in with her adult son. So they make her sound 'elderly' or atleast elderly enough to have a full grown adult son who can take care of her and provide her with housing and her own car. Yet Mrs E managed to get on food stamps as the state run program took her and accepted her household size as ONE. The 864 judge- not so fast. He call BS on that and stated after some long blah blah blahing about who gets to say what is your household size? the state? the feds? whomever what the nut that created the form 864?

"Plaintiff (THATS MRS E) urges the Court to consider that Defendant MR E—not her son—is obligated to maintain her income under the Affidavit. SON should not be included in her household because "Congress intended to put the financial obligation of support only on those person(s) who contractually agree to act as sponsor(s)." Supp. Brief at 5. The Court rejects this notion because it leads to an untenable result: the sponsor would be the only means of support for the immigrant, no matter her living arrangements. For example, an immigrant who becomes part of a millionaire's family would nevertheless qualify as a one-person household because no one in the millionaire's family is her sponsor. It is nonsensical to disregard the millionaire's support to the hypothetical immigrant while her sponsor remains obligated to maintain her at 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The issue at hand is whether SON's support—regardless of his reasons for providing that support—renders the living arrangement a two-person household"

IMO a very fair decision. So while Erler is considered a "victory"- the court found Mr should keep Mrs at 125%- it was too bad because son was giving her 3500$ a month.So the ultimate ruling was ZERO to her. Fair IMO like it should have been.

-The bottom line for the Davis family- well the ruling also came back that Mr needed to keep Mrs above the poverty line, which is around the 11k mark, however the final number wasnt quite in as Mrs is receiving public assistance also and hasnt provided the amount to the court, once she does it will be offset from how much he has to pay her. (interesting note Mrs D's attny fees as of the last filing were get ready--- $32,854.30- of course Mr say outrageous and wants the court to only assess reasonable fees. Court will make a ruling on what the attny is paid later- but MR is going to be paying it) !!!

So I dont know. I threw a lot of stuff out there, Ill stop now to leave room for others to participate haha.

[Mimino 2]

Good research analysis! My friend got somewhat bitter (I Understand) after I had to tell him "no". Life goes on, though. Last I heard, his wife was pregnant and the baby is due this year.

[bronco37 16]

How many immigrants are in this country?

How many I-864 related lawsuits are in the court dockets?

Answer those and move on.

Yes, one can sue. The immediate answer will be one or two countersuits to bring the other party on the negotiation table.

One may win. The appeal process will begin.

and appeal process will continue...

and appeal process will still continue...

(look at the timelines of these cases)

Then after one wins, there is no guarantee that the sponsor will pony up the dough. In most cases, sponsor will not.

Time for contempt filing, more paperwork, more lawsuits.

By this time the case will be reviewed by at least 6-7 judges, 6-8 years will pass by.

Explain me how a person is surviving in the USA below 14k line and still being able to retain attorneys to fight these cases. Other than I-864 support cases, no other associated cases guarantees attorney fees reimbursement.

And if the sponsor is a woman, I call the great VAWA defense right away. "I, as a sponsor, was a victim of domestic abuse and had to choose a life away from the abuser and left the man by seeking a divorce. Your honor, you are asking me to pay this man, this man who abused me and my children (Thank God for children!) all these years." Now, who seriously believes that there will be a judge that will sign a order to pay this abuser immigrant his I-864 money? <lol>

It's really wise to focus effort in empowering the immigrant to become productive member of the American society instead of a leech. In response to question from Republican Senator Jeff Sessions (Ala.) concerning illegal immigration and the workforce, Loretta Lynch stated her belief “that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.” I strongly believe this really should be the approach if the immigrant is not disabled or otherwise incapable in supporting oneself.

Edited April 23, 2015 by bronco37

[Villanelle 4,121]

.

And if the sponsor is a woman, I call the great VAWA defense right away. "I, as a sponsor, was a victim of domestic abuse and had to choose a life away from the abuser and left the man by seeking a divorce. Your honor, you are asking me to pay this man, this man who abused me and my children (Thank God for children!) all these years." Now, who seriously believes that there will be a judge that will sign a order to pay this abuser immigrant his I-864 money? <lol>

WHOA. Dont be so sure of this here!!

Here is ONE article- its from CA, one of the states where one of the 864 decisions came from btw, features two USCs. The Mrs was the primary breadwinner, the Mr was the lazy abusive stay at home dad who regularly abused the Mrs and repeated raped her. Was SENTENCED to prison for RAPING the Mrs (forced oral sex- hung jury on other counts) and they divorced and the MRS was ordered to pay HIM ALIMONY.

Yes, thats right a woman in CA was ORDERED by a judge using the vawa defense you laughed about- to pay her rapist and ex husband alimony in a divorce- plus 47 THOUSAND DOLLARS in his legal fees. OH MY GOODNESS WHAT A WORLD>

If you want something to laugh at try the Judges reasoning of- Mr was entitled to 3k a month but he the male judge was only going to give him ONE THOUSAND a month because lets be honest now (cough cough) Mr ex car salesman (honest profession as we all know) is out on bail for rape charges- hes unemployable---how is he going to survive?? He needs the money.

"He's out on bail facing rape charges, and I'm not sure that any car salesman would hire someone like that," Pollack said in court. {pollack is the Judge} What the HECK?!?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-victim-ordered-pay-alimony-attacker-fights/story?id=16075409&singlePage=true

Now this is ONE article., There are MANY MANY more where DV victims have been ordered to pay attackers. Lady Liberty wears a BLINDFOLD. Its symbolic. Justice is suppose to be blind and treat all parties equal. As painful as it is- it happens. The fault lies with in the poorly written laws. Some do not allow for bleeding heart and sympathy- hence the blindfold.

The woman above in CA was making her personal life public and seeking change because the CA law only prevented alimony in cases where one spouse was convicted of attempting to murder the other spouse. Beat your spouse, rape your spouse, carve your name into their forehead- heck you can still get alimony. Hire a hitman- nope. Judges are bound by the laws. Most are clear cut.

The 864 is complicated leaving much room for Judges to interpret it.

Based on the above 864 and pre-nup attempts at over-riding it- most reputable attnys are now advising that writing a pre-nup or post-nup will not protect you. It varies on the scale from totally useless to meh if you want but dont hold much hope, its not bulletproof- its something you can add to make the potential fight more complicated. (keep in mind as Bronco said more complicated fight means more work for lawyers and with this kind of case- sponsor pays the lawyers)

[bronco37 16]

WHOA. Dont be so sure of this here!!

Here is ONE article- its from CA, one of the states where one of the 864 decisions came from btw, features two USCs. The Mrs was the primary breadwinner, the Mr was the lazy abusive stay at home dad who regularly abused the Mrs and repeated raped her. Was SENTENCED to prison for RAPING the Mrs (forced oral sex- hung jury on other counts) and they divorced and the MRS was ordered to pay HIM ALIMONY.

Yes, thats right a woman in CA was ORDERED by a judge using the vawa defense you laughed about- to pay her rapist and ex husband alimony in a divorce- plus 47 THOUSAND DOLLARS in his legal fees. OH MY GOODNESS WHAT A WORLD>

http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-victim-ordered-pay-alimony-attacker-fights/story?id=16075409&singlePage=true

Now this is ONE article.,

The first para of that linked atricle states...

Crystal Harris, a San Diego woman who accused her husband, Shawn Harris, of sexually assaulting her and was then forced to pay him alimony before he was convicted, said their marriage unraveled when he repeatedly threatened to kill her.

Judge ordered her to pay alimony before her dude husband was convicted. Sorry, not to be mean or a jackass here but, accusation does not prove guilt. Hence, your argument is invalid and effects inconsequential in the discussion about I-864 and payment.