Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if a spouse gets fired from their job?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if a spouse gets fired from their job?

    If a spouse gets fired from his/her job would the other spouse be burdened with the penalty of increasing their alimony or CS? I don't see how this could be the fault of the supporting spouse. Has this happened to anyone?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Baffled_Dad View Post
    If a spouse gets fired from his/her job would the other spouse be burdened with the penalty of increasing their alimony or CS? I don't see how this could be the fault of the supporting spouse. Has this happened to anyone?
    Child Support:

    Depends on the access arrangement. On an EOW basis the child support would remain the same as the EOW parent is the only paying parent and CS is based on their salary.

    In a joint residency (60-40 minimum) split of the children using the "offset method" there would have to be an adjustment of the child support but, not until the other party in the matter who lost their job's actual income changes. (After all the settlement from the job loss is used up and income actually changes.)

    Spousal Support:

    The unemployed party can seek an increase in spousal support. This is why the long running "monthly" spousal support agreements are a sticky situation. When you think that "200 a month" was cheap and happy that you didn't have to pay more...

    The negative advocate lawyer comes back, files a motion to change, and the monthly payment could be changed significantly. This is a common "trusim" that comes along with negative advocate solicitors. This is often sold to clients by these negative advocate solicitors as "spousal support employment insurance".

    How this can all happen:

    On a motion before the court for a "material change in circumstance".

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Baffled_Dad View Post
      If a spouse gets fired from his/her job would the other spouse be burdened with the penalty of increasing their alimony or CS? I don't see how this could be the fault of the supporting spouse. Has this happened to anyone?
      CS is based on the income of the person paying, so if income changes, so should CS.

      Adjusting yearly based on previous year tax return is the best method.

      SS is based on your SS agreement, so it depends what your agreement states.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by billm View Post
        SS is based on your SS agreement, so it depends what your agreement states.
        And with all contracts... Someone can bring it back before the court on a "material change in circumstance" and ask the court to change it.

        Better legislation needs to be put in place for SS similar to the CS guide lines. As Justice Quinn said in Bruni v. Bruni regarding determining SS:

        9. Spousal support

        [158] I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).
        Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)
        Date: 2010-11-29
        Docket: 384/07
        URL: CanLII - 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)
        Citation: Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII)

        Now cited in the following case law too:

        Zoldy v. Zoldy, 2011 ONSC 963 (CanLII)
        Date: 2011-02-10
        Docket: 11882/09
        URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 963 (CanLII)
        Citation: Zoldy v. Zoldy, 2011 ONSC 963 (CanLII)

        ... At one point, it appeared that I would have no choice but to resort to the use of the dart or Ouija board referred to by Quinn J. in Bruni v. Bruni [2010] O.J. No. 5148 (S.C.).
        Good Luck!
        Tayken

        PS: One day a litigant will show up with a dart or Ouija board to assist a judge in determining SS... Family Law can get this this ridiculous that even judges poke fun at it.
        Last edited by Tayken; 08-06-2012, 09:42 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tayken: you are one of a few who has seen my canlii judgment. There was mention of my 'rental income' in it, as a source of monthly income. At the time of Trial and up until early 2012, that was true. However, I no longer have that source of income thanks to getting a tenant from Hell. I won't go into all the details but the end result is: I can no longer rent out that portion of my house that generated "x" amt of money per month. To refresh: The EX has EOW access.

          As well, I have had a drop in income (self-employed) - so my question is: are these "material changes of circumstance?"

          SS was set at low-medium range in our Sept 2011 judgment. The ex has not once paid the amt ordered for SS. It is set to terminate Sept 2013 (was backdated/retro to 2008 on the order). I would like to cite the above (and a few other facts that I can easily prove) as MCC's on a motion to change the order.

          FRO (God I love them) is now telling me to send in a new statement of (old) arrears (combined ss and cs arrears calculated on the order, from the court application date, 2008 to the Judgment release date, Sept 2011). This amount is stamped and issued by the Court on the order that FRO has! Once again, another task for me to do, and of course I need it sworn by a commissioner of Oaths.

          *Growl*
          Thanks,
          Last edited by hadenough; 08-06-2012, 10:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tayken View Post
            And with all contracts... Someone can bring it back before the court on a "material change in circumstance" and ask the court to change it.

            Better legislation needs to be put in place for SS similar to the CS guide lines. As Justice Quinn said in Bruni v. Bruni regarding determining SS:
            What if the contract states 'regardless of any change in circumstances' or/and even lists some of the changes 'for example, job loss, illness, change in income...'?

            As for SS being like CS. It may overall make the world a better place BUT there is a fundamental difference between CS and SS.

            CS is for your kids, that remain your kids.

            SS is for your spouse, that is no longer your spouse.

            The details of what happened during the marriage matter for SS, in that marriage is a contract between two people. The contract ends on separation, so SS should be based on what happened during the marriage and not after.

            That is not to say that a change in income after separation should not effect SS - it may have to because what happened during the marriage between the spouses may have in a sense caused that change in income after the relationship is over.

            For example, if two people meet after they are educated and established in their careers, then share all money while married, and continue to work in their field full time, SS should be unnecessary or at the least very time limited and not dependent on anything that happens after the marriage.

            This situation would be different if during the marriage one sacrificed earning/career potential for the good of the marriage. In that case SS would be necessary (possibly) and not as short - but for short to medium marriages time limited.

            My point is that what happened during the marriage should matter for SS. That is fundamentally different from CS, where the current income of the parents is, and should be, the deciding factor.
            Last edited by billm; 08-06-2012, 11:02 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The big problemo for me is, that "what happened during the marriage" is still causing a huge wake of financial disaster for me, nevermind rippling effects. I could deal with "ripples" - what I'm faced with is more like a tsunami of bs caused directly by the actions of my ex. IE: fraud bankruptcy that has left me in the lurch in a very profound way. It is still to be dealt with (in the Bankruptcy Court, which is a joke).

              Anyway, I hope that any responses can still relate to the question the OP started re: loss of job or (other) income as is the case with me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hadenough View Post
                The big problemo for me is, that "what happened during the marriage" is still causing a huge wake of financial disaster for me, nevermind rippling effects. I could deal with "ripples" - what I'm faced with is more like a tsunami of bs caused directly by the actions of my ex. IE: fraud bankruptcy that has left me in the lurch in a very profound way. It is still to be dealt with (in the Bankruptcy Court, which is a joke).

                Anyway, I hope that any responses can still relate to the question the OP started re: loss of job or (other) income as is the case with me.
                Yes, but if you were married at the time the problems happened, you have to live with the effect to your life - 'for better or for worse'. You married him and established that connection, just as sharing in the good is part of that, so is sharing in the bad.

                It should not be his job to shield you from things that happened during the marriage that he cannot shield himself from.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Actually, his BS/fraud bankruptcy occurred about 6 months after we separated. He has sheltered/shielded himself just fine, and is living rather well. The debt is not "shared" - it was dumped onto me deliberately. Imagine, dumping all debts, old and new - on someone .. And just carrying on as though nothing had happened. I was thrown under the bus. Must be a super stretch one, b/c it's still on top of me.

                  Dealing with pre-sep debts would be one thing. I got totally screwed over by him and some help from his then gf, now wife AFTER we separated. We had a business we ran together. That business relationship was ended at the time of separation through lawyers.. And still - I got left holding the bag (due to the bankruptcy, for which he is 4 years undischarged from).
                  Last edited by hadenough; 08-06-2012, 11:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    hadenough: You got totally screwed by your. Your SS (which you have never received) was calculated on several facts including your rental income. No you no longer have rental income so I believe you would be correct in revisiting the SS as a change in circumstances. Probably at the time of separation you had no idea that your ex was to go bankrupt and therefore that might be something to bring into the court as well. Likely at the time of separation your ex was claiming large debt load. Now that he has divested himself of that debt load his ability to pay would be greater and therefore he might be in a position to pay you an increase in SS. I don't know how CS is calculated but his improved financial situation might very well affect that as well?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thx Arabian. Validating my "screwed over" status is of some comfort. And so true: these ppl that cry "bankrupt" (and broke) who clearly are NOT, are Fraudsters. The very idea that they are "in bankruptcy" means that there's a sh*tload of bills/debts that they DID NOT pay, thereby putting them in a pretty good position (financially and otherwise). Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency act protects criminals, and not just the "honest but unfortunate debtor" that it was "intended" for!

                      I'm going to check CanLII for material change in circumstances cases. *OP should do same. Usually plenty of info on there..

                      Comment

                      Our Divorce Forums
                      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                      Working...
                      X