Spousal Support

[mememe]

My career /profession is obviously known to those who need to know. I was on an upward career path. He did not help me in my career. THe point was--he was a hindrance to my career path whereas, as he readily admitted over and over, he never would have had a practice without me. My lawyer changed his opiinion on spousal support when , during questioning, he heard how involved I was in the practice.

[standing on the sidelines]

My career /profession is obviously known to those who need to know. I was on an upward career path. He did not help me in my career. THe point was--he was a hindrance to my career path whereas, as he readily admitted over and over, he never would have had a practice without me. My lawyer changed his opiinion on spousal support when , during questioning, he heard how involved I was in the practice.

Maybe he thought you were a strong woman who didn't need the help. How was he a hindrance to your career? Did he force you to help him or did you do it so there was more $$$ in the household?

[Mess]

So the poster did everything by the book then, even though my response was not to them? Hmmmmm

I guess they are free to carry on as such

Since you seem to completely lack the critical thinking skills to get this on your own, I'll waste the time and spell it out for you.

It is ok to attack, critique, or condemn what someone says. It is not ok to attack the person.

momforever1956 was not attacking you personally. She made a sarcastic remark about your post, your commentary, your apparent level of knowledge, and your presentation. Those are all valid targets for comment.

Saying that you are short and balding is not a personal attack, it would be an observation. If someone were to say that you are a worthless human being because you are short and balding, that would be an attack.

Saying that what you write displays ignorance about a topic is not a personal attack. Saying that you are ignorant would be.

Saying that your postings are vulgar is not a personal attack. Saying that you are a vulgar human being would be.

Are you starting to understand the difference?

[takeontheworld]

*****************************************
Mememe...as others are asking...how did he hinder you? As I mentioned before...not all of us are capable if being medical professionals due to our work ethic, intelligence etc. I will assume that you are not in the same field? Why should you be able to continue to life a financial lifestyle as if you were?

[momforever1956]

yes to the dentist
the energy i spent on building his practise , management, attending to the practise in many ways i don't have time to outline here prevented my advancement in my own career. SO sacrificing my career to build his career----and a place for him to work after we sold the practise----i do think there should be compensation. So is it ok for women to help their husbands-and once you divorce--he gains the benefits and you should lose out>>>>????? that is not fair in my books. I felt I was "used " for my business sense and support----and he can walk away with all the goods. I don't think so

Oh Wow!! Can I relate to this.
Thankfully I had incredible counsel and the best mediator, arbitrator in Canada, and my agreement is fair.
And yes I get SS, lots of it. It was a partnership and just as in business, when one partner is more financially productive than another, on the termination of the partnership, it doesn't matter, if it was 50-50 then the profits are 50-50,,,,,,,

[standing on the sidelines]

Oh Wow!! Can I relate to this.
Thankfully I had incredible counsel and the best mediator, arbitrator in Canada, and my agreement is fair.
And yes I get SS, lots of it. It was a partnership and just as in business, when one partner is more financially productive than another, on the termination of the partnership, it doesn't matter, if it was 50-50 then the profits are 50-50,,,,,,,

what real business gives a former partner 50% of the profits after the partnership dissolves? Termination means done, over.

[momforever1956]

what real business gives a former partner 50% of the profits after the partnership dissolves? Termination means done, over.

I choose to leave the partnership and therefore I am entitled to 50%, I wasnt terminated, its a democracy and I terminated him--so he is lucky I let him keep half.

[arabian]

I'll toss my hat into the ring and comment on two different couples, whom I know personally.

Couple #1 Husband specialist. Wife Nurse. Wife quits job to stay home and raise kids. Wife goes back to work when children grown. Wife works her way up to position of Nurse Manager at a clinic. Several years later wife and husband agree she should quit job and work for him to set up his new practice. She doesn't get paid. Husband's practice thrives. Long Term Marriage (over 30 yrs)

Couple #2 Wife is a certified physiotherapist. Wife works to put husband through university (8 yrs). Husband now cardiologist with multi-million dollar practice. Wife had stayed home to raise kids. Hasn't worked in over 2 decades. Long Term Marriage (over 30 yrs).

In both cases, Spouse is entitled to SS indefinitely
In both cases, wife worked to put husband through university and help husband to establish practice.
In both cases, wife's career was interrupted and advancement to 6 figure management position forfeited.

In both cases, wife was awarded substantial SS indefinitely. No question. Very straight forward.

If it can be shown that one partner gives up a career (not a job) to put spouse through school and/or work in family business, then they definitely have a case to argue for SS. Like it or not.

[standing on the sidelines]

I choose to leave the partnership and therefore I am entitled to 50%, I wasnt terminated, its a democracy and I terminated him--so he is lucky I let him keep half.

that thinking is so totally flawed it really doesn't deserve an answer.

[Rioe]

I can't believe someone can be proud of this

There you have it folks, I guess that is a message to pass on to kids (mine will be told what my mom told me...the world owes you nowt)!

I read it that she's proud of the fact that she spent a lot of her own effort helping her husband earn his income. She's proud of the fact that her kids will learn the value of hard work? And that there's a system in place so that people cannot take advantage of the work of others?

The world owes her nothing and she's never said it did. Her ex owes her compensation for the work she put into building his career. SS is her return on that investment. Had she not done this, he probably would have had to hire people instead, who would have been fairly compensated and had something good to put on their resumes. She didn't get that.

People who didn't help build their spouse's career would not deserve SS, of course. It's the noncompensatory SS awards that should be tossed!

All that said, I do also believe that there should be a limit on most SS times. Five years or thereabouts, long enough to be educated in a career field and find employment. This is dependent on age though; it would be unrealistic to expect someone to go to University at age 45 and then find a job right away as a 50-year-old newly minted graduate with no field experience, competing against people half their age.

Edited to add:

I choose to leave the partnership and therefore I am entitled to 50%, I wasnt terminated, its a democracy and I terminated him--so he is lucky I let him keep half.

Or I could be completely wrong about this case, at least!

[takeontheworld]

Well....lets see,

1. You called me a "Limey" directly (derogatory)
2. You have hurt my feelings (telling me what I don't want to hear)

But...am a big boy, independent, the world doesn't owe me anything (mom and dad told me that), have a great worth ethic, a professional "career" person, pay CS, involved with my child

Limey is a term of endearment for me.

[Mess]

that thinking is so totally flawed it really doesn't deserve an answer.

I don't understand why you take this stance.

In a legal partnership this is exactly how things would be divided, unless the partnership agreement originally stated a different split.

In a marriage partnership assets are treated the same way.

You may have reasons for disagreeing in principle, but that doesn't make it "totally flawed."

[arabian]

SS is negotiable. Most high-income people that I know of tend to settle out of court and often lump sum settlement is achieved.

Very smart - if you can afford to do it.

[standing on the sidelines]

I don't understand why you take this stance.

In a legal partnership this is exactly how things would be divided, unless the partnership agreement originally stated a different split.

In a marriage partnership assets are treated the same way.

You may have reasons for disagreeing in principle, but that doesn't make it "totally flawed."

once a business dissolves there is no continuing support paid from one ex partner to the other. Its done and over with, each goes their separate ways. To compare a business to a marriage then the same rules should apply. Once the debts and assets are dealt with in equalization then it should be done and over with except for CS. Its just not an accurate comparison.

Arabians case is totally different as she is caught between business law and family law. She was an actual part of the company he and her ex ran.

[arabian]

I agree with previous posters in that marriage is indeed a business partnership. When one partner buys the other out of the partnership (divorce) the remaining partner values the business (financial disclosure) and everything is split 50%.

SS negotiations commence and, while keeping an eye on what was paid out when business broke-up (equalization), need, ability to pay is determined.

Whole idea is that when a marriage ends, the two individuals are supposed to start their new lives on equal footing.

I guess the answer is to try to stay married if you don't want to pay SS.