Questionsand Answers Related to the 4 Core Areas of Divorce 

Todd Orston (00:03):

Welcome everyone to Divorce Team Radio. I'm your host, Todd Orston, partner at the divorce and family law firm of Meriwether & Tharp. Here you're going to learn about divorce, family law, and from time to time even tips on how to save your marriage if it's in the middle of a crisis. If you want to read more about us, you can always check us out online at atlantadevorsteam.com. Okay, let's get started. And we've done this many times. I feel that sometimes providing education, providing information, the best way to go about it is to look at people's questions. Look at the questions people have, the issues that they're dealing with. And by discussing those issues, that's going to help many more people, right? Because while every case is to whatever degree unique, there are always going to be similarities. In divorce, we break things down into what we call the four core areas of a divorce. So sometimes your case is going to have all four of those core areas. Those are custody and parenting time, child support, alimony or spouse support and division of property and debt.

(01:30):

So you may have no property but you have kids, so you have to deal with child support and custody and parenting time. Or there might not be any children, but you are absolutely dependent on your spouse in terms of your support and therefore you have to deal with alimony. So anyway, we are going to start discussing these four core areas today by going through some questions that people have and have posted, basically that deal with these core issues that deal with the issues that they are dealing with that relate to family law and divorce and custody and all of these core areas.

(02:15):

So jumping in, let's go to the first question and that question is, can my wife rent or allow other families to use my marital home while a divorce has been filed? I moved out six months ago. She has a family staying in the house. I also have a minor daughter who visits her on alternate weekends and she feels very uncomfortable staying with another family who has high school boys.

(02:48):

So basically we have a situation where there is a divorce pending, there's a marital house, this person has moved out of the house and while the other party arguably has what I'm going to call possession and use of that house, there are decisions that are being made that aren't affecting ownership but are definitely impacting the use of that property and really having a bigger impact on the party's child. So the question is, can she do it? Is this permitted? All right, well I'm going to say it this way. Unfortunately, until you have a court order that specifies it can't happen, it's happening. You may not like it. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's reasonable, but there's no law against it, right? It doesn't violate some criminal law. So the question is how is this possible? How is she doing it? She's doing it because she opened the door, allowed people to come in and they're there. And it's not as simple as somebody saying, "All right, well if you don't like it, just tell those third parties they got to go."

(04:15):

That's just going to create unnecessary drama and at the end of the day it's probably not going to happen that way. So unfortunately in a situation like this... well let me start with fortunate. Fortunately there's a case pending. Since there's a case pending, there is a judge involved. Because there is a judge involved, you have a possible solution. If there was no case pending, I would be saying something probably different because I'd be like, look, go file something. That way, like in this situation you can look to the court, you can look to a judge and you can say, "Judge, we may have dealt with use and possession of the home during the pendency of the case, but she's abusing that. She has moved third parties a family or more into the house. And on top of that situation when our daughter goes and visits, and in that same home there are some teenage boys and she does not feel comfortable, judge, this is not a healthy situation."

(05:33):

Her getting use and possession was not to turn it into a bed and breakfast. And if you make the right argument, hopefully you can convince the court that... yeah, hopefully. And I've seen judges deal with this issue where they'll look at the party and go, "In essence sir or ma'am, when I awarded you use and possession of the home, it wasn't for the purpose of turning it into a hotel." Sometimes the argument against it or rather by the party for it is, "I need the money or I need..." well, that's a different situation but it doesn't change the fact that you have moved a family in and at the same time you want your daughter to come visit and this is creating potentially an uncomfortable situation for that young girl. And so I believe this person would have some strong arguments to make to a court, I'm not saying it's a guarantee as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

(06:35):

It's the marital home, it's for the family, keep it for the family. And if she wants to move third parties in, maybe she needs to move out. Go find another place with those third parties, and that will create more of a safe haven for their daughter.

(06:53):

Okay, so let's talk about the next question. All right, this is written by someone who basically has been a stay-at-home mom. And her question was very simple. Answer, not so much. "Divorcing stay at-home mom, can I argue I've contributed?" She goes on to write, "We separated and he moved out about three years ago. I've been lucky enough that we have had a relationship that allowed me to stay in our home and continue to stay at the home and be a mom to our son who's in preschool. Now things have gotten a bit acrimonious and he wants me to pay him back everything he put towards my credit cards and my portion of the mortgage. However, most of that money was spent on our child and the house and I would argue that he has had a free live-in housekeeper for his half of the property. We have a big house and I've taken care of it the entire time."

(07:55):

"It's no small amount of work. Further, I've been at work. While we could have left our son in school all day, we would've had to hire someone to take care of the property and obviously for our child. In addition, in terms of alimony, he's trying to put my income at 45,000, which is about what I made when I quit working five years ago. I make nothing right now, have nothing in savings and if I go back to work I'll make about half what I was."

(08:24):

All right, there's a lot to unpackage there. We're going to start probably after to go into the next segment to answer these questions, but let's just deal with; he wants me to pay him back. No, it's not the way it works. And more than likely, and by that I mean I am very confident court's not going to look at it that way. I have yet to see a judge look at a situation like this where the parties are living under some kind of a verbal understanding, I don't want to call it an agreement and it's definitely not a contract, but some level of understanding, and if one party is paying bills, it's a gift.

(09:06):

I mean it comes in the form of support, but it is a gift. It is their choice, as quickly as one could say it was their choice to make those payments and cover those costs. Somebody could say the choice could have been different. You could have chosen not to pay those things, but you did. And therefore looking at your spouse and saying, "Pay me back is ridiculous." My opinion? Court is not going to do it. So if you are in the situation where you might be the person paying, understand you're not getting that money back unless there's some kind of an agreement.

(09:48):

If you say, "I'm going to be giving you X and this is what I will get in return," and it's specific and it applies to any divorce filed in the future, then that's a different story. But here it was just an informal understanding, so that person's not going to get their money back. In terms of you quitting your job, it almost doesn't matter. The bottom line is you have been unemployed for five years, and so will a court expect you at some point to be out there looking to get another job so you can be self-supporting? Sure. And I've done shows on that and talked about that at length, but the reality is right now you're not working. And so it's almost irrelevant, right? Because the court's going to have to deal with the here and now and that the here and now is you're unemployed, you are dependent on him. Okay, well here and now I also have to say we have to go to a break. When we come back, we're going to dive deeper into this question and we'll hit some additional questions. Be right back.

Speaker 2 (11:02):

I just wanted to let you know that if you ever wanted to listen to the show live, you can listen at 1:00 A.M. on Monday mornings on WSB, so you can always check us out there as well.

Todd Orston (11:13):

Better than counting sheep, I guess, right?

Speaker 2 (11:15):

That's right.

Todd Orston (11:16):

You can turn on the show and we'll help you fall asleep.

Speaker 2 (11:20):

There you go.

Todd Orston (11:21):

I'll talk very soft.

(11:26):

Welcome back everyone to Divorce Team Radio, the show sponsored by the divorce and family law firm of Meriwether & Tharp. If you want to read more about us, you can always check us out online atlantadivorceteam.com. And if you want to read a transcript of the show or go back and listen to the show again or to listen to other shows, you can find it divorceteamradio.com. So we're answering questions today. We find the best way to educate is to look at issues that people commonly deal with. Issues relating to divorce and custody. Parenting time issues, relocation issues, support issues. And so that's what we're doing. And when we went to break, we were talking about a stay-at-home mom, where basically there was some kind of an agreement. They separated and there was some kind of an agreement that she could stay in the home. She was not working. It's been about five years since she had a job and that somewhat friendly relationship soured and in the past there was some kind of an agreement, "Hey, we're separate but I'm going to keep helping. I'm going to keep financially contributing."

(12:54):

Well, that well dried up, and now the word she uses is acrimonious. Things are clearly more difficult and he's making claims. So we're talking about that. And in terms of having to pay it back, no. And the fact that she's unemployed is not going to be ignored by the court. This is going to be a situation where this person needs to focus on a number of things, but the demands that this soon-to-be ex-husband is making, many of them if what is written here is accurate, they're just not reasonable.

(13:49):

This husband enabled her through some kind of just, I don't want to call it an agreement, but understanding, basically created a situation where it was fine for her to not work and to focus on the family. To focus on child-rearing. And so to three years later come back and say, "Yeah, that's unacceptable. You owe me," No. No. And so to anyone who would be willing to contribute in that way, I would say if that's not acceptable, don't do it. Just deal with the issues of custody, deal with the issues of child support, get everything put down, memorialized in an agreement and that's it. As opposed to having some kind of a side agreement understanding, and then expect that what you agreed to in year one, in year three, you can suddenly say that's no longer an agreement. I mean, granted in that situation there is one thing that that gentleman could do. Stop contributing. But there is evidence here.

(15:12):

So if she then reacts by racing to court, filing a divorce action, what do you think she's going to say? She's going to say, "For the last three years and even before that, while we were married, I was dependent on my husband. I need financial support. Without that financial support I will be in a bad predicament." And I believe the court more than likely will understand that and will probably as long as there is an ability to pay, remember, as it relates to alimony, child support is different. He will have, if he's not the primary custodial parent, an obligation for child support. Alimony or spousal support, that's a need-based analysis. Need versus ability to pay. If he has an ability to pay, he may at least on a temporary basis, also be asked to... an order to pay support, some alimony, because there is clear evidence that this was a situation where he allowed for her to become dependent financially on him, and the court's not going to allow him just to pull that rug out from under her.

(16:25):

So to this person, I would be saying; look, if it's become acrimonious, more than likely it's not going to get better. And if three years in you're still not together, if you haven't reconciled and tried to work on things, then you need to finalize some things, move forward with a divorce. Deal with the issues of support and custody and parenting time and division of property and whatever else needs to be handled. But this limbo that you're in, it only works as long as it works. And clearly it's not working as well as it once did and it's creating problems. So you definitely need to be looking to finalize things and get things done.

(17:19):

So now let's talk about an issue of relocation. This person writes, "Divorced with joint custody. I have to go to another state for family health issues. Are there any time limits on how long I can stay?" That's an interesting situation. Making some assumptions, obviously it's not a lot of facts to go on, but that's okay. So here we have an unfortunate situation. Family member in another state is dealing with a health crisis. So there's a valid reason for wanting to leave with a child in this jurisdiction and go because you want to be there for that other family member to help and support. But the question is for how long? Here, going on these facts, it says divorce with joint custody. If that means what I think it means, then the parties enjoy equal or near equal rights. And therefore on the most basic level, you have to understand if you do anything that interferes with the court-ordered rights of the other party, it's a problem.

(18:49):

So if this is shared custody, and by that I mean some kind of an equal custodial arrangement, 50/50 time or close to it, then you need to understand that if you go to another state and the other party can't exercise 50/50 time, you're violating that person's court-ordered rights. So what is the better thing to do? Here, it is communicate with this person. Communicate with your ex, explain what's going on and hopefully he will understand, hopefully he will do what needs to be done in terms of working with you so that you can go to that other jurisdiction and help your family member. Talk with your ex and come up with an alternative plan. Best-case scenario, I mean at the very least, have it in writing because you don't want to just get a nod and then basically you leave and the other party is like, "Oh no, no, no, hold on one second. You're violating my rights, I'm taking you to court."

(20:14):

Have something that memorializes the understanding. And if you think this is going to be weeks or months, then understand you may need to modify. You may need to do something more formal, but it's not a great situation that you're in, because not only are you potentially violating the other party's rights, if they push back, they have other arguments that they can make. For instance, if I represented the husband, the father in this case, I could look and I could say to a judge, "Judge, we feel horrible. We know that person. I know my client's ex's sister, and therefore obviously this is terrible. We want nothing more than for her to get through this and get better. It is wonderful that my client's ex wants to go there and help, but taking the kids out of this jurisdiction for an extended period of time, we don't even know how long, it's unnecessary. Because you're taking a child or children out of their school, away from their friends, away from their activities, away from the marital residence that they call home, taking them to an environment where basically, I don't know what kind of hospice like environment this is. And then at the same time it's taking them away from their father."

(21:59):

Why wouldn't the better situation, the better alternative way of handling this be let them stay with dad, she can go and take care of family and then when she returns, go back to normal. All right, we're going to keep talking about relocation when we come back and hopefully give you some additional information that we'll help you if you're dealing with these types of issues.

(22:27):

Hey everyone, you're listening to our podcast, but you have alternatives, you have choices, you can listen to us live also at 1:00 AM on Monday morning on WSB.

Speaker 2 (22:38):

If you're enjoying the show, we would love it if you could go rate us in iTunes or wherever you may be listening to it. Give us a five star rating and tell us why you like the show.

Todd Orston (22:53):

Welcome back everyone to Divorce Team Radio. I'm Todd Orston, your host and partner at the divorce and family law firm of Meriwether & Tharp. If you want to read more about us, you can check us out online atlantadivorceteam.com. And if you want to read a transcript of the show or go back and listen to it again, you can find it divorceteamradio.com. And also if you want to listen to the show live, you can listen at 1:00 A.M. on Monday mornings on WSB. Today we're answering questions as a means of dealing with common or relatively common family law and divorce issues, dealing with issues of custody, parenting time, child support, alimony, division of property and debt.

(23:35):

All right, so we are talking about these issues and using people's actual questions and people's actual issues they're dealing with to educate. So when we went to the break, we were talking about the ability to leave the jurisdiction with a child for an extended period of time. Do you need to do something more than just put the other party on notice? And the answer is, yeah, you do. There are definitely some challenges here, as I was saying, because you are interfering with an existing court order. And if there is joint custody, truly joint custody meaning an order that basically allows for each party to have equal rights, equal time, then you removing the child from the jurisdiction is very obviously interfering.

(24:37):

So the long and the short is communicate, try to work something out because if you just do it, you're probably going to be faced with some kind of motion for contempt and/or motion to modify the existing order so that... basically the other side's going to be asking that the court grant the responsibility of primary custody to them while you're gone. So next question.

(25:10):

This person writes, "What are my rights?" And this is similar, "My ex moved with our child over 50 miles away today without telling me and we have 50/50 custody." They go on to say, "My ex-wife moved over 50 miles away today with our daughter without telling me. We have 50/50 custody. Can my ex do this or are they breaking the custody agreement?" So I wanted to answer this because it digs even further down in terms of relocation, the impact and things that you can or should do, things you can and should not do.

(25:50):

So first of all, based on this, I'm assuming if there's an order, then clearly it sounds like that person violated the terms of the existing order. The agreement contains terms relating to custody and parenting time. That agreement arguably is incorporated into the final order. Therefore, those terms are part of a court order. And very standard terms include notice that there is an obligation if you're going to move more than 50 miles away or whatever the terms might be, that you put the other side on notice. The whole point of notice is basically to allow parties to react. It's giving them time if they don't feel that that move is in the best interest of the child, that they can take steps before the move to basically get some help from a court, or at least to memorialize a new agreement that can deal with that relocation and the distance now between the other party, the non-moving party and the child.

(27:04):

So here, right off the bat, it sounds like there's a contempt issue, but again, contempt, you need to show a specific violation of a term of an existing order. So the way I would approach this as I always do is you need to look at that order, see what it requires the parties to do, and if the party that moved violated a specific term, then you have a contempt issue. Secondary to that is the potential for a modification, meaning because that party moved, does it open the door for you to say, "Well, that's incredibly inconvenient and therefore I would like to throw my hat into the ring and become the primary custodial parent."

(27:55):

Now when you say more than 50 miles, there's a big difference between 51 miles and let's say 500+ miles or 1,000 miles. Somebody moves from one town in Georgia to a neighboring town and yeah, it might be a little bit more of a drive. Court is not going to be as angry or upset or moved to make a material in significant change as opposed to a situation where somebody packs up in the middle of the night and goes from Georgia to California.

(28:29):

So it depends on where that party has moved in terms of the modification. Might still be a contempt, but if the person has moved only filing the contempt for the most part, all the court can do is sanction the other party and sort of verbally slap their hand and say, "Shame on you. You violated these terms. I'm going to sanction you financially, otherwise..." But if they're not changing or modifying custody, well guess what? The other party and your child is now living in California or wherever they're living. But again, if the move is more local, then you may not have a strong modification case. 10 more minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes more of driving may not be and probably isn't enough to convince a judge to strip the other party of some of their custodial rights. So it really is just going to depend on what the facts and circumstances are.

(29:36):

All right, let's now switch away from this relocation issue. Let's talk about somebody who entered into an agreement, maybe they're not happy with the terms. Question is, can I get out of a divorce agreement? They go on to say, "My ex-wife's boyfriend has moved in with her. According to the divorce agreement, I pay for the mortgage plus utilities. He has set up a corporation using this house address, my house. And at first they wanted to marry, but that was about a year ago and they haven't gotten married yet." All right, so really the best way to approach this is once again, first of all you need to look at the terms of the agreement. As is often the case with these types of questions, I want more. I want more facts, I want more information. So can I get out of a divorce agreement?

(30:36):

All right, well what are the terms of the agreement? It's going to come down to why are you making those payments? Now, if those payments are part of equitable division, if that is how you are giving her an asset, transferring an asset to her as opposed to if it is part of the alimony or spousal support, very, very different. If the terms of the agreement are that as part of the equitable division, she will get the house and he will continue to make payments towards the house, that can't be modified.

(31:17):

But if this is really more part of an alimony obligation, that can be, and that's something that an attorney you would want to explore with an attorney. That gets tricky because then what you're doing is you're basically saying to the court, thought they were going to get married, marriage may have and probably would have impacted and affected my alimony obligation. And it clearly appears she has moved somebody into that house. They are together. "For God's sake, judge, he's using that address as the address for his company and yet I'm still paying the mortgage. And that doesn't make sense. Her need has clearly changed. She has at the very least a roommate that if they aren't contributing should be." And so if this is born out of an alimony obligation, then you may very well have a case to go back to court and say, "She hasn't remarried, but she's cohabitating. And there is now another person, a third party who if they are not contributing, should be financially responsible, which should alleviate my responsibility."

(32:36):

"Why should I, in essence support this man? I shouldn't." And you might have a relatively strong case, but these kinds of cases again, can get tricky. Asking the court to modify an obligation like an alimony obligation here, if you don't do it the right way, you're going to lose. And once you lose, you're done. You don't have multiple shots at this. So at the very least I'd be looking at this person saying, if you haven't already, talk to an attorney. Dig in, provide some additional facts and information and find out the best way to approach this and the best arguments you need to make so that hopefully you can get the relief that you deserve. All right, when we come back, more questions.

Speaker 2 (33:35):

I just wanted to let you know that if you ever wanted to listen to the show live, you can listen at 1:00 A.M. on Monday mornings on WSB, so you can always check us out there as well.

Todd Orston (33:46):

Better than counting sheep, I guess, right?

Speaker 2 (33:49):

That's right.

Todd Orston (33:49):

You can turn on the show and we'll help you fall asleep.

Speaker 2 (33:53):

There you go.

Todd Orston (33:53):

I'll talk very softly.

(33:59):

Welcome back everyone to Divorce Team Radio, a show sponsored by the Divorce and family law firm of Meriwether & Tharp. If you want to read more about us, you can always check us out online at atlantadevorsteam.com. And if you want to read a transcript of the show, go back and listen to it again or listen to other shows, you can find it at divorceteamradio.com. So we're talking about people's legal questions and using those questions as a tool to educate about the law. And let's keep going. We were just talking about in essence, alimony modification and whether moving someone into a house, letting them claim the address as their company address, whether that might open the door to an alimony modification.

(34:48):

And my answer is, depending on some of the other facts, very well might open that door, as long as there wasn't what we call non-modification language in the agreement where it basically says, I don't care what happens, remarriage, whatever you can't modify. Then the door hopefully and likely is open to try and modify, but it's tricky and you probably want some help doing that. So how about a question regarding a child support arrearage?

(35:19):

"Do I have to pay child support arrears?" This is unfortunate. All right? This person goes on to say, "Divorced in 2010, ordered to pay child support. After a couple months, ex-wife and I decided I wouldn't have to pay if we did everything 50/50. And so we split the kids bills, everything 50/50, even lived next door to each other for a couple of years. 2020, I moved away and the children moved with me. I paid for everything and never asked her for child support." Well, here's what isn't a surprise to me. Goes on to say, "I received a letter from her that she wants her back child support in the amount of over $150,000. Do I have to pay her? What do I do? All right, let me start with a cautionary statement. What this person did, don't do. Ever. Never, ever, never, ever, ever, ever. A verbal understanding means nothing when there is a court order.

(36:40):

And so, the fact that you reached an agreement, well, my lawyer hat is on, and I'm going to talk like a lawyer and say that agreement meant nothing. That verbal agreement didn't mean anything. Now I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom. There might be some things that you can do here. But it is going to take a lot of painstaking work. So first and foremost, I will repeat, if you come to some kind of an understanding, and the terms of that understanding go against the terms of an existing court order, you can't stop with a handshake. At that point, you need to say to that party, "Okay, listen, how about I pay 50 50, I do X, Y, z. Is that going to be good for you?" "Yeah, that's good for me."

(37:43):

"Okay, I'm going to have an attorney or I myself am going to prepare a petition to modify. We're going to put this and memorialize this into a new modification agreement, submit it to the court, boom. And we're done. And we'll go on based on those terms and I'll do my 50/50 part, you'll do yours and great, fantastic, high five, we are a team." That's how you handle it. And on top of that, you have to understand when there is an arrearage, people don't understand that interest is accruing. I have seen people where five years, 10 years, 15, 20 years later, someone is knocking on their door saying, "I'm taking you court to get some back money."

(38:36):

And guess what? There are some limitations based on how long people wait to try and enforce an order. I've gone into it before, I'm not going to go into it here, but understand that not only will you owe the back support, but on top of that, interest has been accruing and I have seen people's amounts double or triple because so many years have gone by, they haven't made payments. And what would've been $20,000, because it's been 10 years, could be double that.

(39:14):

So you have to take this seriously. So here, unfortunately, you had an obligation pursuant to court order, to pay child support. You failed to comply with the court order and therefore technically you owe all of that back support. Now, are there some mitigating circumstances here? Are there some arguments you might be able to make that you in essence did make the payments that she agreed to accept those payments in a different form and fashion by you making certain other payments and paying things directly, let's say? Yes. And that's going to be... and I'm not saying this is a win for you, meaning I'm not saying it's a definite win, but you might be able to show the court that she did benefit from those things and it's going to be an accounting game. At that point, you need to show everything that you have paid over those years. You have to show that instead of paying whatever it was... just using a fake number, instead of paying $1,000 of child support per month, you made direct payments that otherwise you wouldn't have had to have paid.

(40:39):

So instead of $1,000 check to the former spouse, you ended up paying 1,500, 1700 whatever of direct expenses so that you can potentially argue to the court Judge, "I did pay child support. It just came not in the form of a check direct to her, but I took on some additional responsibilities and our agreement, which is memorialized maybe hopefully, in something in email or letter form or whatever, this was something we agreed on. I relied on that agreement. And granted, I should have come to court, I should have modified formally, but I definitely should not be obligated to pay 150,000. That would be unjust."

(41:33):

Difficult argument. So if anybody who is listening has a situation where they are bound by terms of an existing court order and the other party looks at you and is like, "Hey, don't worry. Right? Listen, I know we had our issues, but don't worry, just pay me when you can. Okay?" Yeah, don't. I'm not saying they're lying, but I can tell you right now, more often than not what somebody offers during a period of calm, the minute they get angry, one of the first things they do is they go back on their word and they say, "Hey, yeah, you owe me this money." "But you know I lost my job, but you know that something happened and I had health issues or I had whatever. And you said, don't worry. So I stopped worrying and now you're going to come after me not only for that amount, but interest on top of it?" And guess what? You're going to be bound and you're going to have to pay.

(42:38):

And whether the court says lump sum, pay it all immediately or gives you some time to pay it off, I mean, I can tell you right now, this isn't my situation and my heart skipped a couple of beats when I saw that number. 150,000? That's a lot of money. So be very, very careful.

(42:59):

We have time for one more. Very quickly, "Can my child's father keep my car because he kept it in his name. I've been with my children's father for 11 years." Here's the important part. "We are not married. My children's father's kicked us out. He's keeping my car because it's in his name. We have a two-year-old son and a 10-year-old boy. I have no other vehicle. Is there anything I can do to keep my car?" Marriage is the game changer. If you're not married, then title means everything. If you're married, title means nothing. So the long and the short is unfortunately, this person, I would have to look at them and say, "You're in a bad situation because if the car is titled his name, then there isn't much you can do because it's his property."

(44:01):

Had you been married, then it would be marital property. I don't care about title. I don't care if the house is in his name. I don't care if the car is in his name. Anything obtained during the marriage, it's marital property. So somebody might say, "Well, what do I do in that situation?" You look at him at the time the car is obtained and you say, "Hey, can we put that in my name?" And if they're like, "No, let's just keep..." well, then that's a warning belt, right? You should at least be somewhat concerned about that, because this is what could happen. You could find yourself without a car.

(44:42):

All right, that's all the time we have for today's show. Hopefully these questions and the answers help. Thanks so much for listening.