How to terminate spousal support

[anonymous]

We were married 11 years and there is no way she could argue that she contributed in anyway to my career. She does have a lawyer (that's who sent the new "demands").

[Links17]

you shouldn't have even consented to spousal support. honestly you screwed yourself

out of curiousity what do you do that you earn 200k but that dumb to give her spousal?

[Desperate_Dad]

I'll add my two cents here. It happens to all of us that you make mistakes in drafting a separation agreement due to ignorance.

Many posters like to quote case law but this is basically irrelevant. So many stupid decisions are made by Judges that it is possible to find different decisions on the same issue all over the place.

You really got bamboozled. As one poster mentioned, she is basically self sufficient and should never have received spousal support in the first place. Now that your separation agreement allows it with no termination date, you are stuck with it.

The key thing a Judge will look for is a "material change in circumstance" You basically agreed to spousal support with a 75,000 difference in income with whatever child support you were paying. Unless that changes, you are stuck paying 1,000 spousal support.

You mention a bonus of 80,000. You don't mention if this is on top of the 200,000 or not or whether it is a one time thing (ie stock options or restricted stock or something else) or an ongoing cash bonus.

It is impossible for anyone here to help you without more details.

But basically your goal should be to hold the line on 1,000 spousal support especially if your income has increased substantially more than hers since the separation areement was signed.

As far as Links comment goes, I consider myself an extremely intelligent person and I made mistakes when I got divorced especially in the original separation agreement like you did.

I was under the illusion that lawyers were competent and it would be a fair process. Now I know I am dealing with the worst criminals on the planet when I deal with Family Law and Family Court Lawyers.

[Tayken]

Has anyone had success terminating spousal support based on proving the spouse is self-sufficient.

Situation:
SA signed 1 year ago
Dad's income = $200,000
Mom's income = $125,000
1 daughter, now 8
Spousal support in SA = $1,000/month
CS - based on full offset table amount = $600/month

This year dad earned an $80k bonus, now mom is coming back for full table CS and $1,900/month SS.

Background: Mom has been with the same company for 16 years. Only took 1 year maternity leave. Lost nothing due to the marriage breakdown except dad's future income.

Any help would be appreciated.

Hire a lawyer. With your income you should be able to hire a top-notch lawyer. You should not be paying anything in SS at all. I just watched a judge laugh a person out of their court room who was in a similar financial bracket ask for SS.

I am sorry but, anyone making 150,000 a year shouldn't need any kind of support.

[arabian]

I don't think it's always necessarily about need all the time. For example, after a long term marriage the objective is to ensure that parties separate in an equitable manner. For some people this isn't always accomplished by way of equalization of marital assets and therefore often done through SS.

I can't emphasise enough that SS is determined on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with Tayken that competent legal direction is important.

[Janus]

I am sorry but, anyone making 150,000 a year shouldn't need any kind of support.

Of course they don't need support, but they might deserve support.

If the husband makes a million dollars a year because his wife could have made $200k but took a pay cut down to 150k, the wife has earned some of that million dollar salary. I would argue that the wife should get at most 50k more, because that is what she lost. However, I would agree that she deserves to share in some of the marriage income bounty.

SS should have an upper maximum of what you could have reasonably earned had you not been married. If you are a lazy high school dropout who married when you were 38 with no skill sets beyond having children and having worked in Tim Horton's your entire life, then you probably don't deserve SS of more than 25k a year, no matter how rich your spouse may be.

[arabian]

Take this ^ theory and apply it to a business where one partner invests cash and the other partner has increased the business due to sales acumen then you'll see how simplistic your argument is.

SS is (thankfully), and should always be IMO, decided upon a case-by-case basis.

[Janus]

Take this ^ theory and apply it to a business where one partner invests cash and the other partner has increased the business due to sales acumen then you'll see how simplistic your argument is.

SS is (thankfully), and should always be IMO, decided upon a case-by-case basis.

In your analogy, both partners are bringing something of value to the business. Sadly, in life, one of the partners is often a useless slug.

I propose an alternative analogy (or story if you will):

Two guys are friends. One guy starts a business, the other one washes the business guy's car every day. The guy who washes cars might be doing a different job, perhaps Tim Horton's, but he doesn't. The car washer isn't very qualified to do much else beyond washing cars. The guy who starts the business is able to focus a bit more on the business because he doesn't have to worry about washing his car. He could probably get anybody to wash the car, and many would do a better job, but his friend is the one washing the car, so he doesn't complain.

Eventually, the car washer decides to stop washing the car, but the business owner still feeds him and clothes him because the business owner is nice like that and still kinda likes his friend. The business owner really does wish though that his friend who used to wash cars would at least do something else that was useful.

One day, the car washer decides to wash somebody else's car, and then tells the business owner that he deserves to get half of the business because he was washing the for the business owner all these years. The car washer invites Arabian over, and Arabian kindly tells him that he really is a wonderful person and he deserves what he wants to get.

Half of the guys in this tale then go on to live happily ever after.

The End.

[arabian]

Employee/employer relationship is what you are describing.

You seem to be hung up on the subservient role of one party and rush to judgement on quality/value of respective contribution of the parties. You also seem to struggle with understanding the simple concept of equality in marriage? With that in mind I guess I can now see how you feel that the male is always carrying the financial burden of supporting the less deserving, opportunistic and lazy female.

Is there anything else you would like to point out to us?

[North of 40]

Morn.,

Sounds like you were snookered a bit. Really, at 100k plus you shouldn't need SS. Especially with the cs offset amount.

That said, you may have to weigh legal costs as opposed to tax refund.

If you are paying 1k a month and making your money (200k) your really only out 6k a year. I know that's painful but a lawyer could burn through your money like crazy.

As sad as this sounds...hopefully your ex meets someone who is normal...not so much for her but your child.

Personally, I couldn't stomach paying the additional money she is asking. And of course, her lawyer contacted you. They'll go through her retainer like water through a sieve.

[anonymous]

I am meeting with a lawyer this afternoon to discuss. After doing a lot of research, I am prepared to challenge that she should not be entitled to SS anymore.

[Links17]

I am meeting with a lawyer this afternoon to discuss. After doing a lot of research, I am prepared to challenge that she should not be entitled to SS anymore.

A year ago with a given set of circumstance for whatever reasons you decided to give her spousal support.

Today, without much variation in the circumstances you believe she shouldn't get spousal support anymore.

-----------

The first question is going to be:
"What significant change in (non-foreseeable) circumstances has occurred since the signing on the agreement for the court to review it."

Unless you can answer that with some great response you're going nowhere fast.......

I've seen this happen before...

furthermore you consented, consenting is much worse that being ordered imo in terms of changing an order (the official position is that isn't, but I disagree personally)

Buy her out...

[Desperate_Dad]

To get rid of that spousal support, you are going to have to prove a "material change in circumstance" That is harder than it sounds but I wish you luck. I think you will do well to hold the line at 1,000 / mo.

[HammerDad]

IMO, you will likely be unsuccessful in an attempt to get out of SS. Why? Simply because you agreed that she was entitled to it a year ago. You had legal counsel representing you when you agreed to it. Bonuses are income.

The agreement, which you signed, really leaves the door open for this sort of stuff.

[anonymous]

Update/Clarifications:
I realized that my original post left out a few details. Although SA was signed 1 year ago, I have paid for 3 years (since we separated). New lawyer is arguing the following:
- lack of termination clause in SA is "unconscionable" give the 11 year marriage
- we found that her lawyer tried to "slip one by" my old lawyer by using the terminology "varied" instead of "review". We found one of the negotiation letters where she says, "by vary, we mean that my client is agreeable to a review or variation with a change in circumstance". We will be holding her to a review now that it's been 3 years.
- there are many case that deny sharing of post-separation increases
- we also found that my RRSP was improperly over-valued by $34,000. In other words, she could owe me $17,000.

I met with 3 different lawyers when I got her new list of demands. All 3 said they have never seen such a clear cut case of "no entitlement" despite the difference in income. I was the one who moved for her job when we got married. She did not support me in any way in the progression of my career. She went back to a promotion after her 10 month maternity leave. There are zero non-compensatory claims. I also left out in my original post that I came home from a business trip to find her and my daughter gone. I didn't know if I would ever see her again. During mediation, all I cared about was 50/50 custody. I pretty much would have signed anything.