SS ..proving entitlement

[North of 40]

Morning Everyone;

Hope the holidays are being semi fun .

Quick question.

Has anyone ever tried to prove their former spouse is not 'Entitled' to SS.

So for example,......didn't help with the payee's career, didn't stay home with the kids, decently young and makes a good buck. Other possible factors you may have...decent payout from the financial split, length of marriage, offset CS etc.

AND did you win? If so, what steps did you take?

I plan on producing a detailed spread sheet for my lawyer and if I have to, the judge.

Thanks in advance,

[arabian]

If you can prove that your ex's career progressed (promotions, pay raises) throughout the marriage that would be helpful. Copies of previous resumes might prove useful.

If you can prove that your ex never stayed home with children (children in day care full time) that would be helpful.

I believe if you can document everything it might give you an argument against paying SS or at least reducing it.

I recall that you did make mention in one of your previous posts, that at one point in your separation negotiations you conceded to paying SS? That would likely be brought up by opposing counsel.

Spread sheets are good tools, however, documents proving your argument are essential.

[stripes]

Has your ex made a claim for SS? If so , how did she justify it? Let her come up with the reasons why she thinks she should get SS, and then you refute them. It isn't your job to put forward reasons why she shouldn't get SS; it's her job to build an argument for why she should. There is no default presumption that she gets SS.

If you already agreed that she is entitled to SS (as arabian's post suggests), the it would be difficult for you to argue that you've now changed your mind, and you may need to just work on setting a reasonable (low) figure for SS.

[Mess]

If your offers were drawn up properly, they should have been made WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As such, the offer would not prove entitlement, and could not be brought up in court arguments.

Otherwise, I agree with Arabian's and Stripe's comments.

[mememe]

My question is a little different. I fall into the rule of 65----20+ years married,

I was on a list to be promoted --- but with even greater involvement than I already had in his practise---I then ran it while he was sick, took care of him, etc.
I did get practise money when we sold, as he would tell you --when we were married, that he never would have had the practise without my involvement…….

If I had gotten the promotion--I would have a higher salary after separation and a higher pension. In settlement conference---judge indicated well--you got money from practise and didn't think case was strong.

My lawyer was the first to bring up spousal and go on the calculator to show me what I would get. After questioning--he said he saw what I had done for the practise in terms of management, and many other things. My lawyer and I are now in somewhat of a conflict---I told his law clerk not to send something without me speaking to him---and she sent it. I was not happy. In conversation with him---it was the mars/venus conversation. Now he changes his story and says spousal weak. Also, even though he makes 3 x my salary, their question is what should he not retire to pay spousal (this boggles my mind----he didn't want to work when we were married (worked 4 days a week)---now he works 3 days a week--because he says he wants to. His financials are a joke---missing stuff and more----

He has the money ----but the sympathy goes his way.
Has anyone had success with the rule of 65?

[soonfree!!]

google "Sheilds Vs. Sheilds". 2008 AB court of appeal