Separation Agreement Signed: No Spousal

[DLS]

Hey Everyone,

My separation agreement has been signed for over a year now and originally my ex signed off for no spousal support. I have reviewed my separation agreement and it appears to be air-tight. No spousal now or ever.

However, my ex is trying to get more in CS and is threatening to take me to court for spousal if I deny her the CS she wants.

Does anyone have experience with this? If my SA 'appears' air-tight on the spousal part, do I need to worry?

[DowntroddenDad]

Hey Everyone,

My separation agreement has been signed for over a year now and originally my ex signed off for no spousal support. I have reviewed my separation agreement and it appears to be air-tight. No spousal now or ever.

However, my ex is trying to get more in CS and is threatening to take me to court for spousal if I deny her the CS she wants.

Does anyone have experience with this? If my SA 'appears' air-tight on the spousal part, do I need to worry?

Is there an agreement for review of CS, and are you following the process?

Nothing is ever air tight, judges are human and laws can be interpreted in unusual ways.

But if she did not prove entitlement then, it would be an uphill battle to prove it now.

[arabian]

Smart gal - I'd much prefer tax free CS than SS.

[Janibel]

In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as an airtight SS agreement. Circumstances change for both parties involved, people lose jobs, get sick, undue hardship - all of which has to be proven for entitlement.

Child support is the obligation of both parents. Though your ex can threaten all she wants - one issue has nothing to do with the other. It's all in the numbers.

[HammerDad]

However, my ex is trying to get more in CS and is threatening to take me to court for spousal if I deny her the CS she wants.

What is her reasoning for the child support increase? Have you had an increase in income? Was c/s set at amount below guideline amount in the agreement?

[DLS]

What is her reasoning for the child support increase? Have you had an increase in income? Was c/s set at amount below guideline amount in the agreement?

Her reasoning for the CS request increase is that `she can`t make ends meet``. In the agreement, yes the amount originally set was less than the guideline amount. However, I have agreed with her to pay the amount that the guidelines detail. But she wants more...

FYI. Shared custody 50% and the support guidelines have been calculated taking that into consideration.

[stripes]

SS and CS are completely different. Your ex may have good case for more CS (depending on why she wants it, which is not clear from your post) or she may not - but that has nothing to do with her entitlement to SS. You can't use one to try and leverage the other and it's sleazy of her to try.

So two questions remain:

1. On what is she basing her request for increased CS? Is this a reasonable request? Have you been paying her the appropriate amount of CS from the tables until now?
2. Does she have any reason to believe she is entitled to SS? (Simply earning less than you does not entitle her to SS - there are lots of threads on this topic). If she already signed an agreement with independent legal advice saying that neither of you would seek SS from the other, her chances of getting anything are pretty slim, though not zero.

[Pursuinghappiness]

^^ Agreed. If you're paying her the correct table amount of CS, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And if you're thinking that she's going to take you to court to try to change the Sep Agreement with regards to SS if you don't give her what she wants in CS...its a bad strategy. Worst case scenario, you pay the extra CS and get locked into that amount and she still requests SS. If you overpay in CS and have to pay SS, you're not going to get that CS money back.

I'd call her bluff because there's too much risk for you not to. If she signed off on SS only a year ago...its a much harder road for her to prove entitlement now. Her living beyond her means isn't really a reason.

[DLS]

So two questions remain:

1. On what is she basing her request for increased CS? Is this a reasonable request? Have you been paying her the appropriate amount of CS from the tables until now?
2. Does she have any reason to believe she is entitled to SS? (Simply earning less than you does not entitle her to SS - there are lots of threads on this topic). If she already signed an agreement with independent legal advice saying that neither of you would seek SS from the other, her chances of getting anything are pretty slim, though not zero.

1) I have been paying her the amount we had agreed to in the original SA. That amount is less that the support calculator tells me I should have been paying. After she requested an adjustment, I have agreed to increase the CS to the amount detailed in the support calculator. That being said, in our SA, it details that the UCCB that she receives is to be shared equally. She is the one who receives that cheque, so I am planning to withhold 50% of that amount (with minor adjustment for income tax purposes). I am agreeing to pay her the CS that she has requested minus the 50% UCCB which is where we hit our roadblock.
2) She has signed off the SA with independent legal advice detailing no SS now or ever. The SA clearly details that SS cannot be revisited.

[DLS]

^^ Agreed. If you're paying her the correct table amount of CS, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And if you're thinking that she's going to take you to court to try to change the Sep Agreement with regards to SS if you don't give her what she wants in CS...its a bad strategy. Worst case scenario, you pay the extra CS and get locked into that amount and she still requests SS. If you overpay in CS and have to pay SS, you're not going to get that CS money back.

I'd call her bluff because there's too much risk for you not to. If she signed off on SS only a year ago...its a much harder road for her to prove entitlement now. Her living beyond her means isn't really a reason.

This is my exact thoughts...

[dad2bandm]

1)...That being said, in our SA, it details that the UCCB that she receives is to be shared equally. She is the one who receives that cheque, so I am planning to withhold 50% of that amount (with minor adjustment for income tax purposes). I am agreeing to pay her the CS that she has requested minus the 50% UCCB which is where we hit our roadblock...

In regards to the UCCB you mention;

- what is the current status of CCTB? If you truly share custody of your child(ren), then the CCTB and UCCB would be split between both of you, if CRA is notified (which you are both bound to do). That is, if you truly share custody. Neither of you have to agree to this - it is tax law.

Simply notify CRA, and make a claim for shared eligibility of the Child Tax benefit.

[HammerDad]

^^^^ this regarding the CCTB.

For CS, I assume from what you said you are paying the offset amount, but it wasn't clear. Do not withhold any monies when it comes to CS. CS is the right of the kids, do not muddy the waters by trying to insert a different financial issue into the equation. If you do, even if you are successful, you will look bad in doing it. Pay the amount you are obligated to pay, being the offset amount. Should she want more, she can take you to court to have it adjusted. Your argument against her position is that finances haven't changed and her finances were foreseeable.

Her argument for SS may be that the waiver was unconscionable, grossly unfair and impairs her ability to provide for the children. Her argument will have more weight if there is a large difference in your incomes.

The fact that she is having financial difficulties is not your concern. She needs to learn how to budget with the finances she has at hand.

[DLS]

^^^^ this regarding the CCTB.

For CS, I assume from what you said you are paying the offset amount, but it wasn't clear. Do not withhold any monies when it comes to CS. CS is the right of the kids, do not muddy the waters by trying to insert a different financial issue into the equation. If you do, even if you are successful, you will look bad in doing it. Pay the amount you are obligated to pay, being the offset amount. Should she want more, she can take you to court to have it adjusted. Your argument against her position is that finances haven't changed and her finances were foreseeable.

Her argument for SS may be that the waiver was unconscionable, grossly unfair and impairs her ability to provide for the children. Her argument will have more weight if there is a large difference in your incomes.

The fact that she is having financial difficulties is not your concern. She needs to learn how to budget with the finances she has at hand.

Thanks Hammer. I will take your advice moving forward. It makes sense. That being said, I do not believe I have applied for the CCTB (which was an oversight and stupidity). I will do that now. According to Turbo Tax, I should be receiving an amount, but I have never received this amount. Will they pay me retroactive

[dad2bandm]

... According to Turbo Tax, I should be receiving an amount, but I have never received this amount. Will they pay me retroactive

I have heard they will calculate retroactively, sometimes. They did not in my case.