Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:54 AM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default Equalization Payment - Spousal Support

I am considering making a new offer to settle my case before our case conference on Nov 20th.

As part of the offer I will be asking to keep the house. I am willing to assume ALL debt including her vehicle loan. I will not touch her pension and she can keep her vehicle. According to my calculations this significantly reduces her equalization payment to me. Now my main question is if I offer to waive her equalization payment as a one time spousal support payment. Would this be considered an admission that she is entitled to spousal support, which I don't believe she is, or just a gesture of good-will. Lets say she rejects this offer and our case in court proceeds can she say "he offered me spousal support so obviously I am entitled to it"

Thanks
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 11:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,679
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Make offers without prejudice.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 11:48 AM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
Make offers without prejudice.
How would making it without prejudice affect determination of costs if at all?

Thanks
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 11:54 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Making an offer that is as good, or better, than what would result from the court appearance indicates that court was unnecessary, the other party was just obstinate, and should pay your costs. By itself, "without prejudice" doesn't make that more or less likely.

You want to make it "without prejudice" so that it cannot be used as an admission that you owe the other party anything.

For example I may sacrifice an additional $5000 in an offer in order to save $10000 in further legal costs. That doesn't mean I actually agree I owe that amount.

Your original question was about your liability for spousal support, not your liability for costs.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 01:20 PM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Making an offer that is as good, or better, than what would result from the court appearance indicates that court was unnecessary, the other party was just obstinate, and should pay your costs. By itself, "without prejudice" doesn't make that more or less likely.

You want to make it "without prejudice" so that it cannot be used as an admission that you owe the other party anything.

For example I may sacrifice an additional $5000 in an offer in order to save $10000 in further legal costs. That doesn't mean I actually agree I owe that amount.

Your original question was about your liability for spousal support, not your liability for costs.
Thanks that's basically exactly what I'm doing. I'm willing to give up X in equalization (lets call it a buyout of spousal support) to save y in legal fees.

I just like to make sure my view of the whole picture is not lost. I'm making an offer to settle not to ensure I get my costs, but I also don't want to do something stupid by making an offer that could jeopardize either.

The way you explained it makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 01:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

Equalization and SS are two different things and one can't replace the other directly. However you can agree to waive equalization if she will sign a waiver of spousal support as a good negotiation tactic.

This waiver, along with ILA, is the best protection you can get against a SS claim. Only a very serious change in material circumstances would have a chance to re-open it.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 01:54 PM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
Equalization and SS are two different things and one can't replace the other directly. However you can agree to waive equalization if she will sign a waiver of spousal support as a good negotiation tactic.

This waiver, along with ILA, is the best protection you can get against a SS claim. Only a very serious change in material circumstances would have a chance to re-open it.
That's basically what I'm going to say. The equalization payment of $XXXX.XX would be waived provided the standard release of spousal support be executed.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 968
ddol1 is on a distinguished road
Default

just a note.... my lawyer puts this statement on all his correspondence, not my ex and my lawyer's response was, because he , the other lawyer has not been taken to task which I took as having something you bring up being used against you in some fashion as time goes on.

As far as the equalization and SS - pleas do a search here and you will pprobabally have a different view on the subject and how many people have gotten caught on the premice of what you propose. By the way a change in circumstance could be the loss of a good paying job, getting ill - and nothing can stop the other party from taking you back to court countless times - another search you can make here.

What lesson I have taken from this is to not assume anything and logic appears to not have alot to do with divorce!!! But equalization is two completely different issues and one, equalization can be considdered in the determination of SS (high equalization leaves the recieving party in a better position to reach the normal standard of living and two, in the end SS can be paid in a lump sum, but equalization is not SS.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-25-2012, 08:21 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23
Pilgrim11 is on a distinguished road
Default

In my circumstance, I fought for and was awarded 50-50 week shared custody of the minor children. I earned more than my ex. Because of the 50-50 shared custody, I did not have to pay child support. However, I did have to make an equalization payment and was given the option to do it in the form of child or spousal support. Even though spousal support would offer me some tax advantage I chose to make equalization payment in the form of child support. My theory is that child support has a finite end whereas opening the door for spousal support could open up a whole different can of worms.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-25-2012, 09:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 32
Old Lawyer is on a distinguished road
Default

re the question abut setting off equalization against spousal support. this is done often.

Offers to settle can not be referred to in motions or at trial but obviously can at case conferences.

A claim can be set off against a claim without it admitting that the claim is valid.

Re the wife saying well he agrees I am entitled to spousal support because he offered to set off my claim for spousal support against his claim for equalization --- I can not see a judge being influenced by this one way or another. If the fear is that it will embolden her, I think this is unlikely.

On the other hand a refusal to under any circumstances consider spousal support often inflames conflict due to old law that a woman who is not chaste is not entitled to spousal support.

However, I would be curious what the facts are that makes you think that she is not ":entitled"" to spousal support.

I am not saying that she will get spousal support.
But I am referring to the fact that there is a theoretical step of determining entitlement before considering quantum --- I.e. looking at what the parties make -- No one is really very clear on what is involved in this entitlement step now -- as there is no such thing as disentitlement (other than a contractual waiver)
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 20 01-02-2014 11:19 AM
Child Support and Spousal Support BobbyShaftoe Introductions 14 04-26-2012 01:52 AM
press release: Ontario's Family Responsibility office Peggy Parenting Issues 8 10-22-2010 10:20 AM
Will I be Paying Spousal Support? North of You Financial Issues 5 10-21-2009 03:05 AM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 09:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 PM.