When does that 10 years of support start and end? I-864

[Cali_D 43]

13 minutes ago, Redro said:

So, you should probably find the paperwork you signed.

That will probably answer your question…. If you agreed to 10 years support in the divorce settlement it will probably end 10 years after the first payment. Or maybe 10 years after the $250k. Maybe your lawyer has a stipulation that it will end if she remarries… who knows? Probably your ex, and the lawyers you used… it might also be based on California law… 

I know California is more expensive than other states but the I864 doesn’t acknowledge that difference: 

https://www.uscis.gov/i-864p

Only Alaska and Hawaii require a higher level of support. 

 

My lawyer has it, I will have to call tomorrow. If I get an update, I will come back and update this thread. I realize now, that this is a confusing situation. I just assumed it was elementary. 

 

If you are wondering, I have a corporate lawyer on retainer for my personal assets and business, this person actually was the one that reached out to the divorce lawyer. I don't even know that person. I mean, we meet, but I don't know them well. So some of this info I got was not direct, some was. Live and learn. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Darryl_F

[TBoneTX 45,259]

Sounds like somebody needs to be reported to the State Bar, or a lot was extremely misinterpreted or misunderstood during the transmission of information.  Regardless, her lawyer was smarter than (both of) yours.

[Cali_D 43]

5 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Sounds like somebody needs to be reported to the State Bar, or a lot was extremely misinterpreted or misunderstood during the transmission of information.  Regardless, her lawyer was smarter than (both of) yours.

 

That may be true for the immigration issues, but I don't think you realize how low my lump sum payment was when compared to what she was legally entitled to.  It's a drop in the bucket when looked at from my point of view. I am very happy with the outcome. I just wanted her to work to better herself and not be a bum.  She has a masters degree in economics and is very capable of succeeding. The original question I asked was not saving me any money. 

[Cathi 5,746]

2 hours ago, Darryl_F said:

I am not rejecting, I am just not interested in debate. Also, maybe in my state is higher.. that's what I was told. 

Ummmmmmm....it's federal, has nothing to do with the state you live  in.

You are not understanding what we are trying to tell you. Under the I-864 you are NOT obligated to pay her a dime in a divorce. Ever. The I-864 merely states that if she uses any means tested benefits like: Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid ect...that YOU as the petitioner would under the law, have to repay the government for any benefits used. That's it. End of story. 

You do not have to pay her a single cent under the obligation of the I864. Period. Full stop. You had a terrible divorce lawyer and you received TERRIBLE advice from an immigration attorney. You got HOSED. Alimony/child support are separate issues that have NOTHING to do with the I-864. Just because you run a software company, is no excuse for not knowing what the I-864 is and means, as far as the law. I'm a dental hygienist, not an attorney, and I understand.

[Cali_D 43]

3 minutes ago, Cathi said:

Ummmmmmm....it's federal, has nothing to do with the state you live  in.

You are not understanding what we are trying to tell you. Under the I-864 you are NOT obligated to pay her a dime in a divorce. Ever. The I-864 merely states that if she uses any means tested benefits like: Welfare, food stamps, Medicaid ect...that YOU as the petitioner would under the law, have to repay the government for any benefits used. That's it. End of story. 

You do not have to pay her a single cent under the obligation of the I864. Period. Full stop. You had a terrible divorce lawyer and you received TERRIBLE advice from an immigration attorney. You got HOSED. Alimony/child support are separate issues that have NOTHING to do with the I-864. Just because you run a software company, is no excuse for not knowing what the I-864 is and means, as far as the law. I'm a dental hygienist, not an attorney, and I understand.

 

I appreciate those that have helped. And I have been nothing but polite. But the judgment from some of you (especially you) is completely unnecessary. How is the view from that horse high up there? 

 

The fact that you reference my job is showing how little you understood my point. I conceded many times that I know nothing about the law, that was my point in mentioning my occupation. I'm sorry to be a little rude in this comment, but you come across as something uncivilized. Be better. 

[TBoneTX 45,259]

No one is intending to be insulting -- just trying to understand and give meaningful input.  Tone is hard to interpret solely in print sometimes.   

[Boiler 45,445]

The OP is going to make enquiries.

 

Plenty of guidance about what to discuss.

 

I do not see what else can be added at this point.

[Cali_D 43]

  

18 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

No one is intending to be insulting -- just trying to understand and give meaningful input.  Tone is hard to interpret solely in print sometimes.   

 

I think Cathi's post was full of intent. Quite condescending. 

 

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The OP is going to make enquiries.

 

Plenty of guidance about what to discuss.

 

I do not see what else can be added at this point.

 

Yes, already sent a text to my lawyer. We have a meeting tomorrow at 1:00. Sounds like they will refer me to a specialist though. Either way it's a start. 

[Boiler 45,445]

I was just thinking back to similar threads, which went on for days/weeks/months so you are well ahead of the curve.

[TBoneTX 45,259]

20 minutes ago, Darryl_F said:

 Yes, already sent a text to my lawyer. We have a meeting tomorrow at 1:00. Sounds like they will refer me to a specialist though. Either way it's a start. 

Good for you.  Keep us in the loop, if you wish to.

[Sarge2155 4,587]

5 hours ago, Darryl_F said:

Boiler, 

 

Not living free through the Divorce agreement. Well sort of. I gave her 250k in cash as a settlement, and 4k a month is mandated from the I-864. I don't pay any monthly alimony. 

Ouch!

[Teedee428 11]

Really curious to see how the case ends. Its true when they say having a good lawyer solves close to 80% of your legal issues especially with things like immigration and divorce. Good luck to OP

[Redro 4,611]

11 hours ago, Darryl_F said:

I thought the i-864 affidavit of support was the reason I have to support her for 10 years. I may have the wrong. Whatever the name of the document is, I pay 2k a month for that. This is from the Federal Gov. Not the state. Again, this is NOT related to my divorce settlement.  

One question: who informed the divorce lawyers about the affidavit of support? Was it you or your ex-wife? 

And the 2k and 250K payout is all you gave her?

And this was (supposedly) based on the I864 because you had a pretty tight pre-nup?

I'm looking forward to hearing what your divorce paperwork says... but I am also wondering how your wife reports the money you give her on her taxes... 

 

[Joyoussinger 1,425]

12 hours ago, Darryl_F said:

 

 

 

The fact that you reference my job is showing how little you understood my point. 

You were the one who first referenced your job. @Cathi was clearly referring to that, as you already had. I'm really not seeing any condescension in any of the replies to you. We can't help if we're not informed. That's the reason you've been asked to cite the document that says you have to pay so much. It helps the members here to help you, and it helps others, in similar circumstances, who might see this thread. Good luck getting this sorted out!

[SalishSea 17,801]

20 hours ago, Darryl_F said:

I'm confused. I thought I had to support her for 10 years or 40 quarters? If this is wrong, can you explain what the 40 quarters is all about? Are you saying SHE has to work for 40 quarters? 

You are not obligated to support her.   You signed a contract with the US government agreeing to repay any means-tested benefits she used without being eligible.