Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Bob,
    
    	I know a trol who has a room to rent under a bridge. I live there
    too! We gotta share it with some of the street folks. But once you know
    them, their not a bad lot. :-) Maybe you should have called Ted Kennedy
    to borrow the car and cross a bridge with her as the passanger....
    Sorry, couldn't help myself.
    
    George

    
    
    Bob,
    
    You're a better man than I am.  I would have lost it at the point
    where the car got dumped back in your lap.  She'd have been begging
    for a truce before I was finished with her.  I don't know where this
    is coming from, but I'm feeling the anger right now as if this had
    happened to me.  There is just so much anyone can take.  You wonder
    how many of the "bums" who have taken off have tried to be responsible
    and gotten worked over this way.  It makes you wonder.
    
    Steve
    

    thanks for the comments.  
    
    Oh....I forgot to put in the base note that the ex who could't afford
    the car and dumped it off bought a brand new 1989 Olds cutlass supreme,
    fully loaded, just a little less than a year later.  How's that for
    Ba___.
    
    What goes around, comes around.  You just have to wait and watch.
    
    Bob

    Bob,
    
    Your coice was between abandoning your kids and filing bankruptsy;
    it doesn't appear that there was a third choice.  You made the right
    choice.  It's the men who take "the easy way" who make it tough
    on the ones of us who care and try to "do the right thing".
    
    I too had to join the ranks of the "bankrupted".  Before she split,
    I was an owner-operator of an simi-trailer truck.  I wrecked it during
    an ice storm.  I bought the wrecked truck back from the insurnce and
    borrowed money to rebuild it.  During that time my ex forged my
    name to over $1700 worth of checks from my buisness account in order
    to take a trip to visit her mother.   I didn't find out about it until
    about $1500 of my checks that I wrote for working on the truck bounced.
    Those checks ended up being a primary reason that the finance company
    repossed the truck.  This was during the recession in 80-82.  She
    split.
    
    After a couple of years living on < 3000 per year, I got back in
    college.  After books and touition I had about $250/mo. left to
    live on.  My poverty-level appartment was $150/mo.  The court
    came and hit me for $80/mo in child support.  $20/mo left to eat
    and buy gas for the pickup truck that my mother had loaned me.  
    My girl friend at the time (now my wife of 6+ years) worked for a 
    convenience store. They would give her the outdated stuff for her 
    dog.  Most of it ended up with me (so now I tell everyone I got 
    through college on dog food).
    
    After I got on with Digital, I started a "change of custody", then
    all of my old creditors came out of the woodwork.  To make a long
    story short I fought the creditors (for good reason, the operators
    of the finance company were later convicted of criminal actions about
    the same as my beef with them) and lost.  My former lawyer violated
    priviliged information and gave another lawyer information to use
    against me in one case, then he turned around and had my wages
    garnished.  I had a choice of continuing the fight for my kids or
    filing bankruptsy.  I filed.
    
    This too shall pass.
    
    I recently got custody of my children.  One of the main reasons the
    judge sited was her lack of a stable home and moving often to avoid
    creditors.
    
    Cudos for you for hanging in there.  You'll be the one to come out
    ahead in the long run, and the ability to look at yourself in the
    mirror is wourth a *bunch* of $$$$.
    
    fred();

    It is not a uncommon thing to have an Ex embelish your cash fund for
    fun to split. It has happend to me as well. It was small $20 here and
    there then it became $200 here and there. I also co-signed a DCU
    revolving CRT loan with her that I just shut down last Oct for she was
    dipping into that with some boogie checks she had snached. I had
    alittle fun with Eva and moms pocket book when she came back to clean
    out my home. Eva loved to play with moms pocket book and I cleaned out
    all the credit cards. The locus will be returning soon. She has asked
    to clean out her personal stuff. Which I feel is kind of funny after
    reading alot of crap with all. Usually the guys get stiffed until AFTER
    the devorce to pick up personal stuff. Why is it going on now?? 
    
    And I was just informed by the oilman to replace my furnace in the 4
    family that I live in. Where the hell does one get more money when
    there is non on the tree??  Why are there not any good mens support
    groups with money like the womens?? I wanna run off to a crisis
    shelter! I am having a crisis!! :-)

    I cannot believe notes .0 & .4.   First of all in the base note,
    I cannot understand why your lawyer told you there was nothing you
    could do when your ex dropped off the car.  I would have found myself
    another lawyer.  You said that when you were divorced, she got the
    car & the payments --- that must have been in writing???  I cannot
    understand how come your lawyer did not fight that.  
    
    In note .4, how come you did not have your wife (or ex-wife) arrested
    for forgery ---- that is against the law.  I commend both of you
    for biting the bullet, but I feel that it was wrong for these women
    to have done this to you and gotten away with it.  
    
    Both of these situations make me steamed!!  I for one, would not
    let any lawyer tell me that there was nothing I could do.  I would
    search high & low for a lawyer who would help me, or I would do
    it myself.
    
    Debby
    

    Debby, 
    Alot of the times, the lawyers are merely expressing the way the system
    will look at the situation.  IF the system wouldnt give them the time
    of day, what makes you think that a lawyer will?  Unless the lawyer is
    out for a quick buck (AKA Shark).....
    
    

    re Debby
    
    This is not intended to be personal in any way but...
    In todays legal and judicial system, especially around divorce,
    it is the *men* who get the very short end of the stick.  If
    *he* leaves the marriage he also leaves his children and a good
    part of his future financial status.  If *she* leaves the marriage
    she takes the children and a good part of his future financial
    status.  If *he* falls behind on child support, she can bring the
    legal system down on him by going to the D.A. or Social Services.
    If *she* is denying *them* visitation rights he has to go pay for
    his own lawyer and most likely the first time around all she will
    get is a slap on the hand.  So who *really* has the upper hand?  
    It's the men who care, especially about their children, who really 
    get shafted.  Yes there are a lot of jerks out there who abandon 
    their chidren in order to "live it up", but there are a lot of 
    otheres who just have to eat somehow.
    
    The sad part is that .0 and my .4 are really not uncommon.  It
    won't change until ncp's get organized into a political force that
    can really bring some weight down on the judicial system.  In Colorado
    there are laws on the books that say this type of thing shouldn't
    happen.  But the Judges are *appointed* by the governor and stand
    for ellection every *six* years unopposed.  More of them die in office
    thatn are voted out, and do you think the lawyers are going to cut
    thier own throats by comming out in public against a bad judge?  If
    you believe that I have a bridge I'd like to sell.
    
    fred();

  Bob,

  It's unfortunate that you have gone through so much, but like the 
  previous notes, I commend you on keeping your sh*t together.  It took
  alot of aches and pains (emotionally and financially) but you knew
  where your priorities were and you faced them, no matter how much
  it hurt.

  To you, I take my hat off....

  RE: Debbie

  It is unfortunate that the ex did drop off the car, but to some degree
  your attorney is correct.  You could have paid him more bucks to 
  take her back to court for contempt, but it all boils down to the fact
  that even though the court awarded her the car, he is still liable 
  for the loan because it was in his name, unless he could convince the
  loan officer to pursue his ex.  But 97% of the finance companies don't 
  care who was awarded or has physical possession of the car, he still 
  signed the note, therefore he was still liable for it.  

  Now if the finance company wanted to, they could force her to follow the
  court order but it would cost them bucks to because they would have to
  get a court order demanding her or face garnishment, BUT since it's a
  civil matter, they won't do it.  Why should they waste the bucks doing this
  when they already have someone liable for the loan?  They look at the
  fact that it's Bob's problem, not theirs.  If both names were on it, then
  it would be a little easier because they would have her almost dead 
  to rights with her signature on the loan also.


  RE:  Fred

  Fred thanks for sharing the previous note but I don't see where it
  fits in with the base topic.  I realize that you are pointing out the
  injustices that we (the men) have gone through based on past history 
  of society and the judicial system but I beleive the comment Debbie was
  stating that it's not fair, NO MATTER WHO IT IS!!!!  Let's try to lighten
  up on injustices and focus on the topic of the base notes...

  Thanks,

  Kenn

    re .9 Ken.
    
    Debbie seems shocked that this stuff is going on.  I'm just pointing
    out the fact that this kind of thing is a *very* *common* occuance
    in the judicial system.  (I'm not trying to make lite of .0 or anyone
    else that has gone throuth this).  I'm also trying to point out where
    the *real* problem lies.  What happened to .0, to me, and to a million
    other guys is really only a *symptom*.  There *are* laws that are
    supposed to prevent this sort of thing.  Lawyeres *are* *supposed* to
    help their clients prevent this type of thing.  Yet it just keeps
    on happening.  That's what *REALLY* *&^%s me.
    
    fred();

   I agree 120% with you and we all have seen this happen from every
   aspect.  It's just unfortunate because in this country, you have
   to have the court issue an order to enforce it's OWN order.  Bob
   did everything within his willpower and for what he believes in,
   but he also knew his limitations financially and emotionally.

   In Bob's case, or any other "civil" case for that fact, you must prove (to
   the "T" and mucho $$$) that the other party is in direct contempt of the
   court order.  Then you have to have a lawyer that will follow up with
   it, but 9 out of 10 times, they will tell you it's not worth pursuing
   BASED ON past outcomes or hearings.

   If you have enough money UP FRONT, then they are almost willing to
   go the extra step.  

   I didn't want you to think that I stepped on your toes, but it's
   documented through out the conference of the unfairness.  I'm
   trying to keep topic on the base note...

    Has anyone ever attempted to take an ex to small claims court for such
    infractions as the car deal in .0?  I can understand the practicalities
    of not pursuing the issue through the divorce lawyer/judge/court.  But
    it would seem to me (and I'm not a lawyer) that the ex wife has
    violated an agreement that has cost the base noter financial loss.  By
    my understanding, small claims court is designed to redress just such
    injustices.
    
    Any experience here?
    Karen

  Hi Karen,


  I've never thought about that.  Good question!  



  Kenn_whos_glad_to_be_back

    re .12
    
    Good Question!
    
    Small claims court has a limit to the amount of damages you can claim.
    May not be able to recover all of the damages, but would be be better
    than nothing.  
    
    Another question:
    
    Don't most lending agencies demand that *both* hustand and wife sign
    for a loan?  If so, why doesn't the finance company go after the ex
    for the difficency if .0 has taken out bankruptsy?
    
    fred();

    
    Re: lending agencies demanding both parties sign.
    
    No.  The bank only cares about 1) whether you have the ability to
    make the payments and 2) whether you have a track record of being
    reliable.  Beyond that they don't care whether you are married or
    single.  If they want more than your signature then it's simply
    a case of requiring a co-signer because they perceive that lending
    to you has more than the normal risk and the co-signer can be
    anyone acceptable to the bank, not just a spouse, etc.
    
    Steve
    

    Usually damages over $1200-1500 are over and above the exptations of
    the local courts. I would sumise that this maybe too much for the local
    courts if they take in the whole car. But if it is loss's of the
    monthly payments that you had to make out of pocket. Then you may have
    someone by their repoductive parts.