Can Spousal Support be used as "income" for 2nd divorce

S

shellshocked22

New member
This is just a "what if" question - it doesn't really exist but COULD....

Let's assume "Betty" is receiving a significant amount of spousal support from Archie after their divorce. It's so much SS, in fact, that Betty has no need to work. Betty then becomes common law with Jughead who has minimal income and basically mooches off Betty.

Fast forward 5 years and Betty and Jughead split up. Betty has still not worked a day due to Archie's large SS payments. Likewise, Jughead isn't working since he can sponge off Betty.

QUESTION: In theory, could Jughead have a good chance at receiving SS from Betty since he was relying on her to "take care of him" for the last 5 years ? That is, treating Betty's SS no differently than "employment" income ? Let's assume that even imputing minimum wage to Jughead would still leave a large income gap between the two.
 
Last edited:
If it's taxable, it's income and therefor fair game IMO. However.....

I would assume a judge would look at the situation on its merits. Is the SS indefinite? Is it for a limited period? That would be one VERY important factor. If it is limited, Betty would argue she needs 100% of the SS survive to her accustomed standard of living in the near future (insert wanting to puke here).... But if it is indefinite, that piece of the pie will always be there and thus be more tempting to a judge to order that it be split to allow Jughead the standard of living he was accustomed to when they were together (again, I wanna puke), but the difference would be it would be for a limited time due to the short term relationship.

But a judge will have to look at the amounts in question, the lifestyle, the duration of SS on both ends. I haven't looked on Canlii, but I doubt it is a common issue....
 
Certainly an interesting scenario. I hear what you're saying regarding length of SS but to play devil's advocate, the courts had no problem in lowering ARCHIE's standard of living (he's now paying for two households rather than one) so shouldn't Betty be given the same "courtesy" lol ?

I wonder if it is that rare actually...... It's scary how much some exes pay the other in SS (see - I was "gender neutral" lol) - so much SS there is no incentive to work. On the other hand, any future partner who would come into contact with "Betty" - if they've been through the Family Law wringer - would be aware of the financial danger a "Betty" represents and so if they had any wealth or earnings potential, would be unlikely to hang around more than the morning after. Which, or course, tends to limit potential future partners to someone who has a similar (ie. slim to none) work ethic.

Would certainly be "poetic justice" if Betty got taken to the cleaners like she did to Archie. !!!!
 
Last edited:
SS income is clearly differentiated on tax return. It is not employment income.

shellshocked22 - interesting how you use "hard working" and "parasite" in the same sentence.
 
Arabian - understood that it's not technically "employment income" - my question then is would it be treated the same with respect to SS ? Or in my example is Betty "bullet proof" from Jughead going after her for SS ?

I meant to be sarcastic when I used "hard working" phrase......
 
Last edited:
Clearly the proper approach is Archie quits his job, marries Veronica and lives off her millions while claiming little to no working income for himself and virtually eliminating his SS to Betty.
 
blinkandimgone said:
Clearly the proper approach is Archie quits his job, marries Veronica and lives off her millions while claiming little to no working income for himself and virtually eliminating his SS to Betty.
Click to expand...

Veronica's lawyer - Richie Rich - intends to appeal, and contest and ask for mediation, again and again and again $$$$$
 
Richie Rich, the high priced divorce lawyer, got rich decimating the self-represented Archie, and managed to secure Betty significant spousal support despite her shacking up with a younger, capable Jughead. Unfortunately for Archie; Betty and Veronica now have joint custody of Richie Rich.
 
blinkandimgone said:
Clearly the proper approach is Archie quits his job, marries Veronica and lives off her millions while claiming little to no working income for himself and virtually eliminating his SS to Betty.
Click to expand...
Ok I know this is yesterday's news..... I am slow these days.

But even though I got lost somewhere around post 4 or 5..... How did you guys figure out my Ex's "real name" (and yes I know I thought this as odd too) but her legal alias is "Archie" if in the end I "was just as confused then as I am now!!
 
All kidding about the Archies aside.......

Bottom line : In a situation in which the lower earning spouse would "normally" be eligible for SS from the higher earning spouse, IF the higher earning spouse's ONLY income was Spousal Support, could the SS recipient (from their OLD ex) be on the hook for SS (to their NEW ex) - or would their SS be FULLY protected from SS claims - UNLIKE normal employment income ?
 
Interesting. I don't see why SS recipient would be off the hook. It would be no different than a trust fund baby having to pay SS. Of course need of recipient and ability of payor to pay would be considered, along with all the other qualifying elements to determine eligibility (giving up career to live in traditional role, etc.).
 
shellshocked22 said:
All kidding about the Archies aside.......

Bottom line : In a situation in which the lower earning spouse would "normally" be eligible for SS from the higher earning spouse, IF the higher earning spouse's ONLY income was Spousal Support, could the SS recipient (from their OLD ex) be on the hook for SS (to their NEW ex) - or would their SS be FULLY protected from SS claims - UNLIKE normal employment income ?
Click to expand...

How would Jughead make a case for entitlement? If he sacrificed his own economic prospects so that Betty could enhance hers, then yes, maybe - but if Betty's income is entirely the result of her having been married to Archie before she met Jughead, Jughead has nothing to do with her income and is not entitled to any compensation. He got a free ride for a few years, but he didn't sacrifice anything so Betty could get ahead, and so he doesn't have a claim on any of her income. At least that's how it looks to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top