Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-26-2013, 09:11 AM
Leviathan's Avatar
Leviathan Leviathan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa area
Posts: 301
Leviathan is on a distinguished road
Default SS arrears

ok...I went through my thread history and I don't believe I've asked this question before (If I have, I apologize)..

separated in Aug/12...stbx and her lawyer are asking for SS arrears dating back to the date of separation. Is this possible??

we haven't even agreed to any SS amount OR if she's even entitled!!

CC judge mention that there may be entitlement..but didn't give an amount or any type of suration..

any help would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2013, 09:36 AM
NBDad's Avatar
NBDad NBDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Brunswick
Posts: 2,734
NBDad is on a distinguished road
Default

They can ask for it, doesn't mean they will get it. Common tactic unfortunately.
can they? yes. Will they get it? MAYBE. IF they can prove entitlement, and from what I understand she doesn't qualify in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:01 AM
Leviathan's Avatar
Leviathan Leviathan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa area
Posts: 301
Leviathan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NBDad View Post
They can ask for it, doesn't mean they will get it. Common tactic unfortunately.
can they? yes. Will they get it? MAYBE. IF they can prove entitlement, and from what I understand she doesn't qualify in this case.
Well, the CC judge did state that there should be some entitlement..again he didn't give an amount or duration...stbx and lawyer jumped on that immediately..

seems to be cuz there's such a difference between our salaries (I'm making 75g more than she does) and the fact that she was recently diagnosed with a BS disease 5 months before our separation..I'm thinking the judge took that into account..

I read over their old CC brief and I'm picking out more and more S**T everytime I read it...I should just stop!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:12 AM
Exquizique Exquizique is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 451
Exquizique is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan View Post
Well, the CC judge did state that there should be some entitlement..again he didn't give an amount or duration...stbx and lawyer jumped on that immediately..

seems to be cuz there's such a difference between our salaries (I'm making 75g more than she does) and the fact that she was recently diagnosed with a BS disease 5 months before our separation..I'm thinking the judge took that into account..

I read over their old CC brief and I'm picking out more and more S**T everytime I read it...I should just stop!!
From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:16 AM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exquizique View Post
From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.
This is exactly what my lawyer told me. He said be prepared on an interim basis for a judge to equalize incomes.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:49 AM
Leviathan's Avatar
Leviathan Leviathan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa area
Posts: 301
Leviathan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exquizique View Post
From the cases that i've read (and i'm no lawyer or expert, far from it), entitlement based on a disparity in income appears to be quite "easy" to establish on an interim basis. It's almost like if there's any difference in income, then most judges simply assume that there's entitlement right at the get go when making interim orders/decisions. It's usually at the trial level where disparity income is actually looked at more closely along with other factors (instead of just in isolation) in determining entitlement.
Yes..I think it was MESS that has said the same kind of thing to me once before...but from others on here, I've been told I'm going to want to COMPLETELY avoid trial althogether (it can become quite expensive I hear)

The stbx and her lawyer have already sent me an OTS..which we threw out because it was ridiculous!!!...indefinite spousal based off 11 year CL??..I don't think so!!

I'll be honest exquizique...I'm at the point where her lawyer is just getting me going and pushing all the right buttons (from the stbx of course I'm sure) that I'm willing to go the full extent (trial)!!

Last edited by Leviathan; 04-26-2013 at 10:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2013, 10:58 AM
Exquizique Exquizique is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 451
Exquizique is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan View Post
I'll be honest exquizique...I'm at the point where her lawyer is just getting me going and pushing all the right buttons (from the stbx of course I'm sure) that I'm willing to go the full extent (trial)!!
It is a common strategy for opposing counsel (based on input and direction from their client), as a "first strike", to make forceful and seemingly "outrageous" demands as part of their approach of "sizing up" the other party (you and your lawyer). Based on your response to their "demands" and position, they are able to gather (at times quite valuable and useful) information about what your position, approach, leverages etc., are and then further tailor their case/approach moving forward. Many people who have never had to deal with the complexities of the legal system before or who can't afford a lawyer get easily rattled by such demands and end up either making rash decisions or tipping their hand through emotional reactions/careless responses to opposing counsel.

The best way to deal with such, IMO, is to educate yourself, know your rights and options, obtain legal advice where required, keep your cards close to your chest, do not reveal more than you have to and always respond in a neutral but firm manner.

Whether you should take it all the way to trial or not, especially because trial is a very costly affair, depends on how strong your position is compared to the opposing party's position and grounds. The leaset expensive and recommended outcome of course is to try your best to find SOME KIND of middle ground and settle out of court. Most reasonable litigants and their counsel will have retracted or withdrawn most if not all of their initial "outrageous" demands by the time some kind of negotiation is underway, but if you're dealing with someone who's decided to be unreasonable and determined to pursue claims that are not based on any kind of evidence or logic, then your best bet will likely to push the matter to court as quickly as possible.

Last edited by Exquizique; 04-26-2013 at 11:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2013, 11:06 AM
Leviathan's Avatar
Leviathan Leviathan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa area
Posts: 301
Leviathan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exquizique View Post
It is a common strategy for opposing counsel (based on input and direction from their client), as a "first strike", to make forceful and seemingly "outrageous" demands as part of their approach of "sizing up" the other party (you and your lawyer). Based on your response to their "demands" and position, they are able to gather (at times quite valuable and useful) information about what your position, approach, leverages etc., are and then further tailor their case/approach moving forward. Many people who have never had to deal with the complexities of the legal system before or who can't afford a lawyer get easily rattled by such demands and end up either making rash decisions or tipping their hand through emotional reactions/careless responses to opposing counsel.

The best way to deal with such, IMO, is to educate yourself, know your rights and options, obtain legal advice where required, keep your cards close to your chest, do not reveal more than you have to and always respond in a neutral but firm manner.

Whether you should take it all the way to trial or not, especially because trial is a very costly affair, depends on how strong your position is compared to the opposing party's position and grounds. The leaset expensive and recommended outcome of course is to try your best to find SOME KIND of middle ground and settle out of court. Most reasonable litigants and their counsel will have retracted or withdrawn most if not all of their initial "outrageous" demands by the time some kind of negotiation is underway, but if you're dealing with someone who's decided to be unreasonable and determined to pursue claims that are not based on any kind of evidence or logic, then your best bet will likely to push the matter to court as quickly as possible.
Thanks Exquizique!!...useful information....I am currently paying interim but there hasn't been a set amount...no actual papers have been signed on whether or not I owe this much for SS and this much for CS...

I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2013, 11:15 AM
Pursuinghappiness Pursuinghappiness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,819
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!
Leviathan:

As I mentioned in PM, I think that's the right strategy. There's a reason she hasn't disclosed and ultimately its her responsibility to prove the entitlement. Giving her money before she does that always sets a dangerous status quo based on need-based SS.

I'd just put the money aside just in case so you're not screwed if she wins.

Retroactive SS is probably not going to happen...especially if she walks a motion in without those disclosures. Highly improbable unless you get a bad judge.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2013, 11:18 AM
Exquizique Exquizique is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 451
Exquizique is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan View Post
Thanks Exquizique!!...useful information....I am currently paying interim but there hasn't been a set amount...no actual papers have been signed on whether or not I owe this much for SS and this much for CS...

I'm awaiting disclosures from the stbx that are way past due...I've personally decided (haven't mentioned it to my lawyer yet) that unless these disclosures are given to us, I'm going to stop any sort of interim. Let them take me to court on an emergency motion...
for interim support!!
If you have a strong position for not paying SS, and have grounds and facts to prove that she has no entitlement to SS, I would not pay a cent until the other party establishes entitlement. Since you're already paying, set a drop-dead date by which you expect to receive disclosure from the other party that would PROVE/ESTABLISH entitlement to SS. If such disclosure is not received by this date, end all payments for SS. The onus is on the opposing party to prove entitlement.

By paying SS without the other party having established entitlement, you run the risk of implicitly acknowledging their entitlement. Unless your ex is in dire circumstances if you stop SS (ie. no where to live, children will be evicted from home, no money to pay for food, no money to obtain required medication for a critical illness/condition etc.,), the longer you voluntarily pay SS the more it becomes "accepted" that she has a valid need and entitlement to SS and that you have the ability to pay.

Establish your position clearly and firmly from the get go, and know where your boundaries and thresholds are. Again, keep in mind that simply because of a sizable disparity in both your incomes right now, there is a good chance that interim SS will be ordered if this proceeds to any pre-trial motions. This is a risk that you will have to mitigate if you stop paying SS and they decide to take it to court. However, if you have a strong case and they have no ground for entitlement, it either will not go that far or the court will recognize it and decide accordingly when it comes to trial.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FRO not applying payments to arrears Spoonz Financial Issues 7 09-22-2010 11:39 AM
reduction of arrears OliveT Financial Issues 0 08-06-2010 02:45 PM
Court Interest - Post-judgement and Separation Agreement. Taxes on arrears Blueeyes Divorce & Family Law 3 05-22-2010 08:39 PM
Support Arrears littleman Financial Issues 1 06-01-2009 11:18 PM
Arrears and 'Severability & Costs' inlimbo Financial Issues 1 11-28-2006 07:56 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:02 AM.