Taxpayers who have income from which taxes are not withheld are generally required to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the Internal Revenue Service.

What kind of income doesn’t provide witholding of income taxes?

Well, for one, alimony.

That’s right.

Alimony is generally included as taxable income for the recipient.

But no taxes on alimony income are withheld.

Therefore, in order to avoid penalties and interest, quarterly estimated taxes should be paid on it.

(Unless taxes are withheld on other income, in which case the amount of withholding can be adjusted upward to, in effect, withold sufficient taxes for the alimony.

Read more in this BankRate article: The skinny on paying estimated taxes.

Husband, an attorney, and Wife divorce in Minnesota in 1978.

The family court orders Husband to pay Wife $20,000 in alimony or spousal support.

Years later, Husband still hasn’t paid some of the alimony owed.

Husband claims to have a history a post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service, alcoholism, substance abuse, depression and schizophrenia, and that those conditions prevented him from continuing to practice law or earn a living.

But Wife obtains a judgment establishing Husband’s arrears for spousal support.

The years (in all, more than thirty of them) tick by and Husband still hasn’t paid all of the alimony he owes.

Wife sues him again every ten years … because that is how long a judgment is good for in Minnesota. Successive lawsuits are how the ten year limit is dealt with, procedurally, in Minnesota.

Wife’s most recent attempt to renew her judgment against Husband is, however, rejected by the divorce court, with a dismissal.

Husband’s position is that he did not have the ability to pay the ordered spousal support amounts at the times they were ordered.

It may reasonably be inferred that Husband does have the present ability to pay the judgments.

Legally, the primary issue under Minnesota law would seem to be how many times a support order (or, for that matter, any judgment) may be renewed.

Wife appeals the family court ruling to Minnesota’s Court of Appeals.

Which reverses the order denying renewal of her judgment against Husband.

Then Husband appeals that ruling.

And now final resolution of the issue rests with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Florida judgments may be enforced for a period of up to twenty years if timely renewed before expiration.

Read more in this [Minneapolis-St. Paul] Pioneer Press article: 1970s alimony dispute isn’t over.

A South Dakota Mother and Father reportedly suffer from substance abuse and psychological conditions.

Mother and Father have a four year old Daughter together. They split up.

Grandparents seek custody of Daughter.

A US Supreme Court decision in 2000, Troxel, virtually eradicated grandparent custody and visitation rights previously recognized by many states.

Nonetheless, in the last several years, some states have been testing the boundaries of Troxel, trying to revive grandparents’ rights.

Especially where, as in this case, for whatever reason, the parents are less than model.

At trial in family court, the grandparents’ petition is denied, because the law it is predicated on is held to be unconstitutional. The specific defect cited by the divorce court is that grandparents may be awarded custody without a finding that the parents are unfit.

But the family court is reversed on appeal to the state’s highest court. Redemption is delivered by a requirement that a court favor fit parents and award custody to third parties only in extraordinary circumstances, such as parental unfitness, abandonment or neglect.

The South Dakota Supreme Court rules that Troxel falls short of mandating that parents be found unfit before awarding custody to a third party. According to them, Troxel requires only that fit parents’ wishes be substantial deference.

Read more in this CBS TV news article: S.D. High Court Backs Grandparent Child Custody

New Mexico Mother and Father have Daughter together in the US.

After Mother and Father break up, Father moves to Mexico.

Now, Father wants to exercise his timesharing and visitation with Daughter … in Mexico.

Mother does not speak Spanish and has never been to Mexico before.

Presumably, Daughter has never been to Mexico before.

Mexico is under travel advisories by the US Department of State due to violence and crime there, and Mother is concerned for their safety and freedom.

Mother has no problem with Father exercising visitation and timesharing – here in the US.

But a New Mexico family court judge orders Mother, a US citizen, to bring now eight year old Daughter, a US citizen, to Mexico to visit with Father for a week.

The presiding judge was unavailable to the media for timely comment.

Mother asserts that she does not have the resources to appeal the ruling.

Read more in this Eyewitness News 4 KOB TV article: Mother, child ordered to visit Mexico in custody case.

According to a recent survey of American couples, one-third of spouses lie to their partners about money matters and one third have been lied to by their spouses.

Among the money matters about which spouses lie are:

• hiding money (58%)

• concealing minor purchases (54%)

• keeping bills secret (30%)

• hiding major purchases (16%)

• maintaining bank accounts on the side (15%)

• hiding debt (11%) and

• concealing income (11%)

When found out, the consequences range from:

1. separation (11%)

2. divorce (16%)

3. loss of trust (42%) and

4. arguments (67%)

Much the same as when one spouse discovers the other is having an affair.

Sometimes such revelations lead to divorce.

Other times, the revelations first come to light during a divorce.

Read more in this Forbes piece: Is Your Partner Cheating On You Financially? 31% Admit Money Deception.

Trying to decide whether you want a divorce?

Does the answer turn solely on finances?

The British government apparently believes that it does.

And has accordingly developed a controversial resource to assist residents of England and Wales with “running the numbers” (under English and Welsh law) to aid English and Welsh spouses in coming to a decision.

The “divorce calculator” may beat tossing a coin.

And it may actually be a great help to separating spouses in projecting post-breakup budgets.

But the divorce calculator also may be lacking in insight into what truly motivates spouses to divorce and how all the variables are weighed in the decisionmaking process.

Regardless, the calculator has quite a few Brits up in arms.

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mail’s This Is Money article: Divorce calculator puts price on your marriage.

Chinese Husband and Wife meet playing games online and marry in 2008.

Husband and Wife both just want to play games online though.

After they marry, they both play on Husband’s account.

Both rack up virtual or digital prizes and jackpots … on Husband’s account.

Turns out, Husband’s and Wife’s real life marriage is not as entertaining as their online game playing.

Wife files for divorce.

And Wife seeks half of the couple’s virtual cyber-wealth accumulated during their marriage.

At trial, a Chinese divorce court denies Wife’s property division claim for half of the couple’s digital assets. Because the Court doesn’t know how to value the web assets.

In one sense, these intangible assets may have no value in the real world in the usual sense. But Wife may simply have failed to meet her evidentiary burden of proof.

There is reportedly an active resale market in which Western newbies to the online games actually buy points accumulated by others in order to leapfrog to higher tiers of competition in the online games. And the resale market should furnish a fair market value for the digital assets on terra firma.

Read more in this China Daily article: Court dismisses woman’s claim to virtual assets and this Time Healthland article: Memo to Gamer-Wives: You Can’t Take it with You.

Budget cuts have been impacting the courts, including family courts, for years now – with no end in sight.

Leaving more cases, with fewer personnel and resources to process them.

Coaxing out every efficiency imaginable.

Encouraging introduction of electronic filing and eventual phasing out of paper filing.

All the while relentlessly inching ever-closer to testing the very limits of justice.

The above is from and about the courts of Oregon.

But it would seem to apply equally as well to Florida’s courts, including Florida’s divorce courts, in recent years.

Read more in this Yamhill Valley [OR] News Register article: Judge worries about court cuts.

Some clients (or opposing parties) are really quite businesslike in their approach to divorce.

They know they want to settle and it is just a question of arriving at the right numbers through negotiation.

They almost always have very specific final numbers in mind.

It is not unheard of for them to encourage their partner to sign an agreement behind their attorney’s back if they have an attorney or, better yet, before they hire an attorney.

After all, it’s all about the numbers. Not words.

Right? Wrong.

When it comes to legal matters, the words actually matter quite a lot.

As just one example …

Imagine a one paragraph marital settlement agreement. Yes, there really are such things out there.

Such an agreement always gets straight to the point – and the number(s).

“Husband agrees to pay Wife $1 million as full settlement.”

Do-it-yourselfers too often favor this type of language.

But what does that $1 million payment represent?

Is it lump sum alimony?

Is it lump sum child support?

Is it property division?

Is it a combination of all of the above?

Who cares?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service for one.

Precisely what the money represents will bear directly on the tax consequences, if any, associated with the payment.

As a result, both spouses will become interested as well, sooner or later.

For example, unless there is an agreement otherwise, alimony payments are deductible by the spouse who makes them … and taxable as income to the spouse who receives them.

Child support is neither includible nor deductible.

Equalization payments are generally neither includible nor deductible, but payments made in kind (by transferring things) may have tax consequences, sometimes unforeseen and undesirable.

The point is, settlement isn’t just about the numbers at all. The words count a lot.

In the end, all that really matters is the bottom line numbers, not the numbers that may be referred to in the agreement. If the words aren’t right, the bottom line numbers may be very, very different from the numbers specified in the settlement.

And that can be an unpleasant surprise that can hit you between the eyes.

Read more in this Florida Times Union article: TTT – December 28, 2010, Divorce & Alimony.

New York Husband and Pennsylvania Wife marry in New York in 2006. In time, they move to Maryland for Husband’s legal work in the Republican political organization.

By 2008, Wife decides she wants a divorce and returns, with their baby Daughter, to Pennsylvania.

Husband attempts to get a divorce court order for Wife to return to Maryland with Daughter, but the Maryland family court rejects Husband’s so-called emergency motion.

The family court awards Husband seemingly generous timesharing and visitation on three weekends of each month, with the qualification that only one of them may be exercised in Maryland.

But, because Husband, an Orthodox Jew, is forbidden by the strictures of his religion from traveling on Fridays from sundown until sundown on Saturdays, in practice, Husband avails himself of much less timesharing than he is actually awarded. Husband is reportedly angry and bitter over the visitation award.

In 2010, the family court grants Husband and Wife their divorce. But in the eyes of their religion and their religious community, Husband and Wife are still married – and not free to remarry others.

Because Husband refuses to grant Wife a “get”, an Orthodox Jewish religious divorce. Husband apparently feels that his dissatisfaction with the court-ordered timesharing arrangement justifies his withholding of consent to a get.

As a result, Husband is now the target of American Jewish media and American Jewish religious leaders and many individuals in Husband’s and Wife’s shared religious community. Hostilities toward Husband have even reached into Husband’s very secular workplace.

Read more in this New York Times article: Religious Divorce Dispute Leads to Secular Protest.