From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelyn Aldridge)
Subject: Re: Why there might be a need for a (Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:53:11 GMT

tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:

>After all, you could end up like this poor sot...

>Reprinted without permission from the San Jose Mercury News
>(Originally appearing in the Orange County Register)

>TALE OF THE RICH: DAUGHTER NEEDS $6,000 A MONTH IN SUPPORT

>SANTA ANA: A dilemma only for the ultra-rich: Can a court order you to indulge
>your children?

>Though not a burning legal issue, it still ignited furious debate in Orange
>County's highest court.

>When a wealthy Laguna Hills woman demanded an increase in her ex-husband's
>child support payment - with evidence showing monthly expenditures by her 15
>year old daughter that included $2,000 for clothing, $300 for jewelry, and 
>$1,600 for recreation and travel - one judge blanched.

>"If the custodial parent in this case wants to teach her daughter to be a 
>power shopper, so be it, " Presiding Appeals Justice David Sills wrote in a
>recent decision. "The laws of child support, however, does not require a 
>father to pay the tuition for such training."

>But Sills proved to be in the minority. Two other judges overruled his ire 
>and approved a boost in child support payments from $2,000 to $6,000 per
>month.

>Associate Justice Edward Wallin and Associate Justice Henry Moore, Jr. said 
>case law is clear. A parent's lifestyle can be a factor in determining the 
>amount of child support.

>At the center of the debate is Ed Ulyate, 45, who made a fortune selling mini
>blinds.

>Three years ago, he divorced his wife of 21 years, Sheryle. He bought out her
>half of the Irvine company, 3 Day Blinds, then valued at $15 million. Ulyate 
>then married his secretary, sold the company for $35 million and settled into 
>- by his own sworn statement - a "life of luxury" with a Virginia estate, a
>Florida waterfront home, $10 million in the bank, 32 vintage automobiles, an
>airplane, a helicopter, and a 48 foot yacht.

>After Ed's bonanza, Sheryle came to court with a list of demands for her 
>daughter. 

>Sheryle argued that her ex-husband, already paying $2,000 in monthly child
>support, should contribute for their child's $50,000 Porsche, a swimming pool,
>a diamond ring, and an increase in child support to $15,000 a month in 
>support payments.

>In a 1990 court hearing, Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock cut back the
>list. She ordered no Porsche, pool, or ring.

>But Stock did find that the child's usual expenses amounted to $9,000 a month
>and ordered Ed Ulyate to pay $6,000 of that every month until the girl 
>graduates from High School in June.

>Ed Ulyate filed an appeal arguing that the increase didn't make sense, 
>particularly when his ex-wife earns $768,000 a year in interest on her 
>millions. 

>Only Presiding Justice Sills agreed. "In a free society, parents may spoil
>their children - courts should not compel it," he said.
>*****************************************************************************

>Now I don't know about anyone else, but I would have told the former Ms. 
>Ulyate to take her demands for her daughter and shove them up the first
>available body cavity. (Probably her mouth, but nevertheless...)

>My take on the situation, admittedly filtered through my parents and the
>local press, is that the ex saw that the former hubby was doing alright
>without her, in fact quite a bit better than alright, and decided that her
>piece of his pie was *way* too small.

>Demands for her *daughter*, my dimpled behind.

>And women wonder where these pre-sex contracts come from...


>Tyger

	Well, often there is more to a story than what meets the eye.
Like the fact that if the man transfers the money to the child as a gift it
is taxable but it isn't if it is child support. :)
	As for the rest of the story. The wife recieved approximately half
the value of the company, the man his half. The wife makes 750+ thousand a
year on her half of the money. The child will recieve 1/10 of the mother's
income, about 72,000. Not much incentive for the mother's profit.
Especially with the goodies the child's recieving. And sometimes court
actions are a way for people to communicate with each other. When I read
the article I thought they were playing games. But then I saw the 
tax angle.