No announcement yet.

how many years for spousal support

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

  • how many years for spousal support

    Is there any formula to figure out how many years i would be paying spousal support i have been married 10 years

  • #2
    typically one half to one year of support for each year of "marriage". BUT, note that the courts INCLUDE common law prior to marriage. Ie. you lived together 5 years and then married for 7 years = 12 years of marriage.

    Also, informal rule of 65 where if lenght of "marriage" (see above) plus recipient's age = 65 or more it will be "indefinite" which MAY mean forever.

    Again, get a good lawyer to help you


    • #3
      one thing I would be concerned about is the "amount" of SS to be paid during this time. My STBX is expecting to be hitting the winning lottery number by having me pay the current SS of 1500/mth every month for the next 7-10years (co-habitated + marriage is 14yrs). This once again is if I am unable to get this woman with an MBA to get a job or to get a wage imputed. IMO I should be paying - yes - but that each year the amount should be decreasing. She has a year to look for a job for herself - next Sept the kids are in school full time so there should be no reason for her NOT to work.


      • #4
        Please read the SSAG, and realize that SS is not only for "getting back on her feet" but also to compensate for lost pension, lost seniority etc.


        • #5
          Originally posted by torontonian View Post
          Please read the SSAG, and realize that SS is not only for "getting back on her feet" but also to compensate for lost pension, lost seniority etc.
          lost pension? pensions are split from the marriage so there is no 'lost pension'

          And I also find it strange that SS visa SSAG does not go down each year, but rather stays the same, and then suddenly stops - clearly this does not make sense.


          • #6
            Yes "lost pension" - for the person who stays home with the kids for a number of years... True, the pension (during marriage) of the one working is split, but the "homemaker" starting again a career after raising children has to start again at the bottom of the ladder, which does impact the pension.You may want to call it loss of seniority.
            Last edited by torontonian; 10-20-2011, 09:56 AM. Reason: addendum to clarify


            • #7
              If you have been married for 10 years, the correct is ZERO. Do not pay a nickle of SS unless there is a clear case where she is entitled to it. Don't assume it's hers by default, and fight hard to pay the minimum for the minimum amount of time. As soon as the first cheque is written the battle is over and you will be on the hook.

              Pension considerations are only relevant if you're lucky enough to work in a place that offers them. :P


              • #8
                Originally posted by winterwolf7 View Post
                If you have been married for 10 years, the correct is ZERO. Do not pay a nickle of SS unless there is a clear case where she is entitled to it.
                And that is exactly why SSAG was put in place. I don't condone the greedy exes but start by being FAIR!! You were together 14 years, there are kids involved so had to have an impact on her career. Impute minimum salary for her education level and go from there.
                Last edited by torontonian; 10-20-2011, 11:25 AM. Reason: correcting fact


                • #9
                  Originally posted by torontonian View Post
                  ...there are kids involved so had to have an impact on her career.
                  Really? How is that necessarily true? How is that true only for the mom and not the dad?

                  I don't agree with the SSAG for all situaions. Child support guidelines are reasonable because the relationship with the kids continues.

                  SSAG blindly applies assumptions such as the one you state here, and treats marriage as a financial contract that extends beyond the end of the marriage, which is not reasonable in all cases.

                  The details of what happened in the marriage matter, but SSAG is blind and applies silly rules that income sharing shall continue even when there was a POSITIVE effect on the lower income earner caused by the marriage (ie. they did not work very hard or maximize their income potential when the other party did), or when there is a NEGATIVE effect on the greater income earner (their career suffered during the marriage because of kids for example, as compared to the lower income earner).

                  In some cases SSAG implements financial obligations beyond the marriage that are not reasonable if one assumes that as adults, were are responsible to take care of ourselves. That is the problem with SSAG, it is blind and can place unreasonable financial responsibilities on one party, simply because they make more money, through their own individual abilities and efforts.


                  • #10
                    Didn't say SSAG was perfect - just reacting to the "she deserves none" attitude


                    • #11
                      how many years for spousal support

                      I agree completely, BillM.

                      In my case it's now come out on the table that while we agreed that she would stay home with the kids until they were in full-time school, we're now 5 years past that and, sure enough, her expectation is that she will be taken care of for life and not ever have to work. In her mid-40s now, she's never worked; never wanted to; doesn't want to now; and makes no promises that she ever will.

                      Even though she's university-educated and fluently bilingual, an experienced lawyer I consulted just snorted when I asked about imputing income to at least a minimum wage I don't understand all this forum talk about imputing income as I'm being told there's no way that will be accepted by her lawyer.

                      With a 2+12 year marriage under our belts, am I looking at having to support this woman for the rest of her life because she chooses not to work and take care of herself? Of course I'll challenge that, but will the system fight me on this?

                      The same lawyer pointed out that even if she married a millionaire tomorrow, SS is compensatory (as pointed out above) and I'll have to pay for years regardless of how well off she is through cohabitation or re-marriage.

                      Can someone please clarify or advise me re the possibility of imputing income for someone like my STBX?


                      • #12
                        Yeah, imputing income to a SAHM is a daunting uphill challenge. You are best off putting a reasonable offer on the table (a 14 year marriage would be "longer term" so you are looking at the 1 year per end of the scale)

                        Figure out the $$$ for low, mid and high end with her not working AND with her working at full time hours min wage.

                        Offer her a the full 14 years @ low end of spectrum (not working) or mid range amounts with her imputed an income (but say only for 7 years).

                        Basically more each month right away, or less each month but for longer.

                        Slap a termination date on it, whatever you do.

                        IF her working full time hours @ min wage would make her ineligible for spousal (ie. if there are children involved/etc) then it may be worthwhile to fight it.

                        Her remarrying has no effect on this, just as YOU remarrying would have no effect on it either. Sometimes you can get a clause in there about termination upon cohabitation of a duration that would mean common law or upon remarriage, might be worth looking into.


                        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.