My Opinion on the Irony of Spousal Support

[Ontario_Dad_41162]

Just my opinion based on my experiences so far, but it seems to me like the onus is on the payer to prove that the recipient is NOT entitled as opposed on them having to prove that they are entitled. Seems to contradictory to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy but it is what it is and I have to work within the framework of how the legal system currently operates.

BTW, we had our hearing on October 5. We supposedly came to an agreement on equalization so the ONLY issue is spousal. We have a trial date setup for late January/early February. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve this ahead of time.

[soonfree!!]

Take note, Spousal Support is viewed as a debt to the payor by the banks and/or creditors, and a source of income to the payee. If you are required to pay a large portion of your income in SS you could end up in finacial ruin, with a High Total Debt Service Ratio and unable to use credit to finance ANYTHING. So far my experience is that this is not considered in the SS guidelines or any negotiations. Beware.

[arabian]

soonfree - thorough negotiations of SS is largely dependant upon the competency of your lawyer. I guess you have to decide if you want to pay for financial advice at 350.00/hr or if you can do your own research. The courts are in no way responsible to address your personal credit wherewithal. Not everyone who pays SS borrows money. The recipient of SS has to be personally responsible to calculate taxes and worry about their credit worthiness just the same as a payor does.

Take a look at the tax consequences of a payor of SS vs. a recipient of SS. In my divorce that issue was absolutely discussed with the judge.

Ontario Dad - In my experience it was equally important to prove entitlement as it was for my ex to try to disprove entitlement and attempt to limit the amount and duration.

[soonfree!!]

arabian -I am not sure what financial situation you are in, but I think most people have credit cards and can't afford to pay cash for their cars or homes. MOST people rely on credit, especially when buying big ticket items. The point I was trying to make is that payors have to remember that whatever they pay in SS will be considered debt to creditors. This will restrict, and in some cases. Eliminate any room for additional debt. So, if your paying 40% of your gross income in SS payments, your probably never going to qualify for that loan or mortgage or even a credit card. Regardless of previous credit ratings.
As for tax implications, i dont think there are any "consequences". As a recipient, you get a share of the payors gross income, and you pay the corresponding income tax. This sort of supports my point in that the income is "shared", for tax puposes.

Lastly - Ontario Dad - Dont take my word for it call your lender and aslk how SS is considered.
AND - The courts are suppose to base an entiltlement on either "NEED" or "COMPENSATION" . If there is no way her lawyer can convince a court she needs to be compensated for some "loss" due to the marriage, then just the fact that she "needs" it and you have the ability to pay is enough. Welcome to the canadian slavery trade.

[arabian]

Debt ratio is calculated for your benefit (not just the lender's) so that you don't get into a financial situation that you can't afford.

Receiving SS while working and trying to get back on your feet does indeed pose some issues. One issue is that you are often put in a higher tax bracket as when you combine your employment income with your SS income the amount of tax can be considerably higher. [Remember we all want that lazy spouse to get out and work, work, work don't we?]. My lawyer, as well as my ex's lawyer,did indeed look into this very matter when SS was being determined (judge brought the matter up). You have to concur whether you are talking "net" or "gross" when determining support. I am grateful that this issue was raised as I simply would not of thought of it until it was too late. As my ex had squandered our assets the judge wasn't impressed. Contrary to what you may have been told, judges do take things like that into consideration. My situation was entirely different from the norm though, we did our divorce through binding arbitration by the judge. We only had one shot at this. Most of you have had plenty of time to "negotiate" your SS in your various case conferences. The process I went through was different.

[arabian]

As an aside, I would point out that many of us have had our credit destroyed prior to the settlement and establishment of support. Having to pinch pennies and learn to live on a cash basis can sometimes be a reality of the aftermath of divorce. Everyone loses.

[Janibel]

As an aside, I would point out that many of us have had our credit destroyed prior to the settlement and establishment of support. Having to pinch pennies and learn to live on a cash basis can sometimes be a reality of the aftermath of divorce. Everyone loses.

That is a fact! I'm so thankful that my lawyer did the math to balance things out for me. By asking for a 'reasonable' SS amount that I can live with the STBX can hardly claim undue hardship or attempt to have it abolished without looking like a complete fool in court.

He has destroyed any chance that I may have had securing a loan so yes, living on cash and is my only option until the division of assets .... him being HC this may take years.

[arabian]

...and years and years unfortunately.

My ex now says he's retired although he can show no pension and apparently no income or assets in his name. His g/f doesn't work.

My ex's income and ability to live is like an immaculate conception. He brags about how he travels frequently and drives new vehiclesssssssssssss yet says he has no income. How fantastic is that?

[Janibel]

...and years and years unfortunately.

My ex now says he's retired although he can show no pension and apparently no income or assets in his name. His g/f doesn't work.

My ex's income and ability to live is like an immaculate conception. He brags about how he travels frequently and drives new vehiclesssssssssssss yet says he has no income. How fantastic is that?

Oh we've got that one covered too! STBX will probably try that one - we will have him imputed to his post retirement income.

Just curious but how can your Ex claim Zero earnings? Does he have unemployment, welfare, something?

[arabian]

Working under-the-table and hiding assets and income under family and g/f.

These things have a way of catching up with them sooner or later though.