Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

mom2three · #11 05-15-2010, 09:14 PM

A couple of things I would like to point out. AC_103, you mention that both you and your spouse mutually agreed to split travel expenses prior to you moving and that travel time was only a few hours. If there had been a time to request a reduction for child support that would have been the time. That your ex is in agreement to split $1000.00 in travel expenses now as a result of your relocation bodes well for her character! If you want to argue that your child support obligations should be reduced as a result of the travel expenses, what is to stop her from subsequently refusing to pay half the expenses?

A reduction in spousal support? I think everyone seems to be on the same wavelength that it wasn't the most thought out separation agreement. You also state that both you and your spouse have been amicable at all times when it comes to finances. It certainly wouldn't HURT to make a proposal for a reduction in both the amount of spousal support and the timeframe, but to cut it out completely will set a ball in motion which I don't think you want to entertain. Your ex has been in a conjugal relationship with another person for less than a year. It would be rather unwise of her financially to agree to a complete end to spousal support. A relationship that is less than a year old is hardly secure.

I keep coming back to the idea that you have both been able to deal with everything in a mature fashion. So, why rock the boat now? IMHO, this is an emotional issue, not a financial one. Could it be that it hurts that she has gone on with her life? You need to be truthful with yourself in that regard. Why NOW??? Seems like someones heart is breaking, which I also think everyone here can also relate to. I can be way off the mark here, and if I am, take it with a grain of salt - I am just trying to see the big picture. For the sake of the girls, take a step back and try and figure it out.

As for your question AC_103, as to whether or not a common law spouse has rights to support, yes, but that would depend on the province in which they live as it would be under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, a spouse under the Family Law Act, who is not married, is one who has cohabited continuously for a period of not less that three years, or in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the parents of a child. Hope that answers that question!

dadtotheend · #12 05-15-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mom2three

IMHO, this is an emotional issue, not a financial one.

With all due respect, you don't have nearly enough feel or information on this matter to make that highly speculative statement. IMHO you have gone way way out on a limb there.

KLM27 · #13 05-15-2010, 10:16 PM

I agree with dadtotheend! I think mom2three has crossed the line, and is the one who has the emotional issue. There are way too many gold-diggers out there that milk men for all they can!!! It is not fair! AC_103 looks like he 's the one who wants to get on with his life! I agree that you have grounds to make changes based on this info:

14.2 Applications to Reduce Spousal Support Because of Changes in Income

The largest category of variations and reviews consists of applications seeking a reduction in spousal support based upon a change in the income of one party or the other. One of three reasons provides the foundation for the application:

the payor spouse’s income goes down;
the recipient spouse’s income goes up; or
the payor spouse applies to reduce or terminate support on the grounds that the recipient spouse ought to have a higher income.

14.7 The Recipient’s Remarriage or Re-partnering

The remarriage or re-partnering of the support recipient does have an effect on spousal support under the current law, but how much and when and why are less certain. There is little consensus in the decided cases. Remarriage does not mean automatic termination of spousal support, but support is often reduced or suspended or sometimes even terminated. Compensatory support is often treated differently from non-compensatory support. Much depends upon the standard of living in the recipient’s new household. The length of the first marriage seems to make a difference, consistent with concepts of merger over time. The age of the recipient spouse also influences outcomes.
In particular fact situations, usually at the extremes of these sorts of factors, we can predict outcomes. For example, after a short-to-medium first marriage, where the recipient spouse is younger and the support is non-compensatory and for transitional purposes, remarriage by the recipient is likely to result in termination of support. At the other extreme, where spousal support is being paid to an older spouse after a long traditional marriage, remarriage is unlikely to terminate spousal support, although the amount may be reduced.
An ability to predict in some cases, however, is not sufficient to underpin a formula for adjustment to the new spouse’s or partner’s income. Ideally, a formula would provide a means of incorporating some amount of gross income from the new spouse or partner, to reduce the income disparity under either formula. Any such incorporation could increase with each year of the new marriage or relationship. Where the recipient remarries or re-partners with someone who has a similar or higher income than the previous spouse, eventually — faster or slower, depending upon the formula adopted — spousal support would be extinguished. Where the recipient remarries or re-partners with a lower income spouse, support might continue under such a formula until the maximum durational limit, unless terminated earlier.
We have been unable to construct a formula with sufficient consensus or flexibility to adjust to these situations, despite considerable feedback that a formula would be desirable. In this final version, we still have to leave the issues surrounding the recipient’s remarriage or re-partnering to individual case-by-case negotiation and decision making.
TOP

mom2three · #14 05-15-2010, 10:20 PM

Whoa! It was a mere observation on my part and I quite succintly stated to take it with a grain of salt if I was off base. Phew! It was not meant with malice.

piggybanktoex · #15 05-15-2010, 11:17 PM

In my opinion, the payer should be the one to be treated reasonably.

If he has overpaid, then he should end support, period.

My ex is pretty reasonable now considering the support she gets. My reasonableness depends on her altitude in communications.

If I was receiving generous support payments, I would be reasonable too.

Like a gun, it depends on which side of the barrel you are standing on.

dadtotheend · #16 05-16-2010, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mom2three

Whoa! It was a mere observation on my part and I quite succintly stated to take it with a grain of salt if I was off base. Phew! It was not meant with malice.

I didn't suggest you were being malicious or that you crossed the line. I simply said that you were going out on a limb making that statement with such little information or feel.

That said, qualifying the statement (succinctly or otherwise) by adding a grain of salt doesn't excuse it. To put it bluntly, I don't think you should have said it. But I'm not po'd or anything.

AC_103 · #17 04-05-2011, 06:28 PM

A quick follow-up to this thread.....

In December I proposed a change to the spousal support arrangements with my ex, essentially stating that her new circumstances and job opportunities should warrant a cessation in support.

Initially, she refused, but after several calm and cordial email discussions, she eventually proposed a tiered reduction schedule that will eliminate all spousal support this July.

Needless to say, I'm quite pleased that we were able to work this out between us.

Thanks to all who replied/gave advice!

AC

NBDad · #18 04-05-2011, 07:13 PM

Good to hear about people who can work together in a mature fashion. Much kudos to you!

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

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

User Name
Password