Spousal support - payor having 2 jobs one full time one part Time

[jack123]

Spousal support - payor having 2 jobs one full time one part time

Married 16 years, 2 kids (5 & 8 years old) with shared custody 50/50 split... Trying to create a seperation agreement with lawyers on both sides without going to court. 50/50 custody (i.e. 1 week with one parent one week with other). Both parents worked throughout marriage except for maternity leave 2 times by wife for 2 kids (i.e. non-traditional marriage so I think it's non-compensatory claim. But there is difference in incomes (see below)

One parent's been working 2 jobs for past 5 years. 1 full time (40 hours per week) the other part time (roughly 10 hours per week). Full time job roughly $100k a year, part time job roughly 32k per year so if you combine the two jobs it's $130k per year.

Other parent 1 full time job 60k per year.

What might the court say of one parent working a part time job ON TOP of their already full time job, and on top of 50/50 custody in regards to income to determine spousal support.

Seems there is no incentive for the other parent to get a 2nd job, and the parent who is working 2 jobs has no real work incentive for doing those 2 jobs (40 + 10 hours) instead of 1 normal full time job.

With a 50/50 custody split, could the one parent just use his full time income (100k) for when calculating spousal support against the other parent's 60k income.

Also another question would SSAG be low/medium/high? Or somewhere in between the ranges. 16 year marriage, both spouses always worked except for standard maternity leave, 5 & 8years kids. Was also told duration of Spousal support for 16 year marriage is typically 8-16 years so lawyer just wants to go with 12 (in the middle) but again non-traditional marriage, no compensatory claim. Would court maybe put it at 8? Or because there are 2 kids involved they'd just say spousal support should also be 12 years?

On support just totallying the full time & part time job of one parent, and the only 1 full time job of the other parent unfairly causes one parent work longer (more than 40 hours per week) while the other parent then has zero incentive to get a 2nd job to balance it out (and has flatly said they wouldn't even try to get a 2nd job). Not looking for an excuse to quit the second job, actually enjoy it, but feel the work incentive is lower for payor (me), and there is no incentive for the recipient to get their own second job to get closer to self sufficiency.

[stripes]

To be honest, it's not clear to me that there's a basis for spousal support at all. If there is no compensatory claim, just the fact of having different incomes isn't an argument for SS (except in unusual cases, like someone in their 60s whose income is $25K getting divorced after a 30-year marriage to someone who made $250K). Presumably both parents are able to work full time and be self-sufficient while caring for the kids half time.

I would be interested in knowing why one party thinks that spousal support is justified. The SSAG does not have legal force (unlike the Federal Child Support Guidelines), and there's nothing that says you have to abide by it.

It may be the case that settling on SS is cheaper than going to court over it. If so, I suggest either a lump-sum payment (be aware that if you pay in a lump sum it is not tax-deductible, unlike monthly payments), or a step-down arrangement in which SS is gradually reduced each year until it hits zero, as an incentive for the recipient to increase his/her income.

If your lawyer is telling you that you're on the hook for 12 years of SS, payable to someone who is working full time and earning $65K, I would push back. SS isn't automatic, the party requesting it has to have a good reason why it is justified.

[arabian]

Your ex is totally self-sufficient. I would suggest that you research entitlement to SS.

Money coming into the marriage was used by both of you to sustain and enjoy your standard of living. Now that the marriage is over, the two of you have to adjust to less income. If you agree to pay your ex SS I would look at contemplating an amount which gradually reduces every year and has a definite end date.

Do you have your own lawyer?

[stripes]

HA! Arabian and I had the same thought at the same moment!

[arabian]

yeah - I suspect the poster doesn't have his own lawyer (if he does it's a lousy one).

[jack123]

Right now we are in mediation but I am getting my own lawyer before signing...but was directed to the canadian government website on entitlement... From copy/paste below and the SSAG I've been reading the bar for entitlement (especially when there are kids) seems to be fairly low...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ss-pae/2.html
With Bracklow's expansion of the basis for spousal support beyond compensation, entitlement has virtually disappeared as a significant issue in spousal support law. Even if there is no compensatory basis for support, "need alone may be enough" to ground an award of support; and if need is interpreted broadly to cover any significant drop in standard of living after marriage breakdown, as it generally has been in the post-Bracklow case law, the basis for entitlement is very broad.[12] Disparity in income alone, regardless of type and length of marriage, is usually sufficient to trigger an entitlement to spousal support.
Spousal support law was already moving in this direction after Moge, but Bracklow has confirmed the trend. Quinn J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized the disappearance of entitlement as a serious issue in the following statement from his judgment in Keller v. Black:
[para. 22] It seems that Bracklow has taken us to the point where any significant reduction in the standard of living of a spouse resulting from the marriage breakdown will warrant a support order—with the quantum and/or duration of the support being used to tweak the order so as to achieve justice in each case.

[arabian]

I came across a good case for you to read through (February 16, 2017). Please note the references to other cases while you read it and click on those as well.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...17bcsc251.html

"..the disparity of incomes between the respondent and the claimant is not a basis alone for awarding the respondent spousal support in this case.."

Application for Interim Spousal Support was denied (husband seeking SS from higher income-earning wife).

[Carnut]

I'm going to disagree on this one.

I came to this forum looking for answers, and truth be told I think it depends on circumstances. Period.
Which judge you get on which day, etc.

I made $76,000 net income when my ex left. She made $55,000 net income.
Keep in mind my ex transferred from a 12 month a year job to a 10 month a year job within the last month she lived with me, and AFTER she told me she was leaving.
She worked the whole marriage, taking two maternity leaves for two children. Both children were not applicable for child support when she left. (One was living with me anyways.

Long story short?
She said in a sworn affidavit she didn't work 18 years of the 21 year marriage. I laughed in court and said she worked the whole marriage! My lawyer turned to the judge and said "documents please?"
THE JUDGE SAID NO. She refused to allow my ex's T4s to be divulged for the whole marriage.
JUSTICE LOO was her name. Google it.!!
I now pay $700 a month for the rest of my working life to my ex for "spousal support".

Don't think you KNOW what will happen, just try to prepare yourself. That's my advice. I paid $20,000 for lawyers thinking easy. I offered more than 50% on everything. More than fair in every aspect.

House being appraised at time of separation I was also told here. Wasn't true. Ask me how I found out. She thought prices would rise and just waited.
I paid ALL expenses while she waited. She got full current value two years later. No compensation for walking out leaving me the financial burden.

Some spouses get away with murder, some get the shaft. Depends on the judges and the lawyers, and how the stars align.

IMO anyways.

[Carnut]

I came across a good case for you to read through (February 16, 2017). Please note the references to other cases while you read it and click on those as well.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...17bcsc251.html

"..the disparity of incomes between the respondent and the claimant is not a basis alone for awarding the respondent spousal support in this case.."

Application for Interim Spousal Support was denied (husband seeking SS from higher income-earning wife).

I hate to say it Arabian, but that's a man seeking spousal support based on difference of wages being denied. Finding a woman being denied based on wages alone isn't as easy IMO.
??

[Tayken]

SS is 90% fear 10% reality.

[Tayken]

Carnut, hard to say. In Ontario Rule 13 for financial disclosure requires the disclosure of the financial history. Not sure what it is in BC. Hard to say if your matter truly reflects reality in many provinces.

Also, looked up Justice Loo... Pretty reasonable...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...laim-1.3365669

Imputed income on a mom who refused to work...

My recommendation to this poster would be to retain a lawyer to advise them on SS. Mediators are not qualified to advise clients directly. They mediate.

[Carnut]

SS is 90% fear 10% reality.

Well I guess I'm in that lucky 10% then.

She worked the whole marriage, went from 12 month a year job to 10 month a year job weeks before she left and after she said she was leaving, didn't mention spousal support at all the first year gone, and I have her texts where a year and a half after leaving she was asking for my tax returns "for no reason". Saying she "wasn't going to do anything funny".

$76,000 net a year physical job me. Her $55,000 net a year desk job with crazy perks only working 10 months a year. California vacations as soon as she left too. While I worked. No vacations.

Yup. I'm in the 10%.

[Carnut]

Carnut, hard to say. In Ontario Rule 13 for financial disclosure requires the disclosure of the financial history. Not sure what it is in BC. Hard to say if your matter truly reflects reality in many provinces.

Also, looked up Justice Loo... Pretty reasonable...

Unemployed dental assistant loses $14K child support claim - British Columbia - CBC News

Imputed income on a mom who refused to work...

My recommendation to this poster would be to retain a lawyer to advise them on SS. Mediators are not qualified to advise clients directly. They mediate.

She imputed $55,000 a year for her for wages. This for a lady claiming she was spending $33,000+ PER MONTH!!! on lawyers. $1.700,000 in her bank.
Not for their child, who lived with the father, but for a child of hers from a previous relationship. Who she wouldnt grant access to the payor, who still had to pay $1500 a month.

Spousal support isn't cut and dry, it's an interpretation, prepare to buckle up IMO.

[Tayken]

She imputed $55,000 a year for her for wages. This for a lady claiming she was spending $33,000+ PER MONTH!!! on lawyers. $1.700,000 in her bank.
Not for their child, who lived with the father, but for a child of hers from a previous relationship. Who she wouldnt grant access to the payor, who still had to pay $1500 a month.

All depends on your definition of reasonable.

With 1.7 million at 3% that is 51,000 a year in interest. Remember CS is based on INCOME and not equity. So, the judge imputed her income at above a reasonable interest rate on the equity. The judge also pointed out the nonsense that you outlined.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Carnut]

All depends on your definition of reasonable.

With 1.7 million at 3% that is 51,000 a year in interest. Remember CS is based on INCOME and not equity. So, the judge imputed her income at above a reasonable interest rate on the equity. The judge also pointed out the nonsense that you outlined.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Oh I agree Tayken.
I just find there isn't much justice in family courts. Those involved can lie in sworn affidavits and exaggerations are more common than truth sometimes.