How to terminate spousal support

Tayken said:
I am sorry but, anyone making 150,000 a year shouldn't need any kind of support.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
arabian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
anonymous said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I truly hope you are successful. However, some advice - lawyers will blow smoke up just about anyone's arse if they smell money.

If you are smart you will be very, very careful in asking your lawyer to lay out their game-plan... step by step. Get an estimate of your costs from them and make sure they put it in writing.

If you have a legitimate change of circumstance you can request a review.

Difference in income is a very big reason for SS. Does your SA agreement require the two of you to exchange financials every year? That statement is in there for a reason.
If you had legal counsel at the time of signing the SA your argument of duress will likely go nowhere.

I agree that having no termination date after an 11 year marriage was shoddy legal work. Hopefully you have since retained a better lawyer?
 
I just looked back at the poster's earlier post and I am still shaking my head about this:

Spousal support may be varied if there is a material change in circumstances, even if the change was foreseen or foreseeable. The change may be:
(a) in either party's financial position;

So every time you get a raise... investments do well.... you hook up with a rich woman... according to your agreement the current agreement can be reviewed.

This agreement is definitely written by lawyers who HOPE that you and your ex go through life's routine changes and HOPE that your relationship remains acrimonious. This is a blank cheque for the lawyers.

You might find that you need to interview more than 3 lawyers to find the right one who can intelligently set out a plan of action for you WHICH HAS AN END IN SIGHT. I think you are going to have to seriously consider a serious offer to end this madness by way of a generous lump sum.
 
I have had many discussions with a new lawyer. We reviewed all financials as we should have done in the beginning. The mediator we used did not do a proper NFP statement and our respective lawyers at the time didn't question it.

What I discovered after getting proper statements and valuations is that my ex owes me about $60-$80k (depending on how the house is valued). I stayed in the home and she stopped paying the day she moved out, so I am entitled to the 15 months increased in value. I have a report from our local Real Estate Board that shows a 17% in average sale prices in the year I stayed. We sold it after 13 months of being separated.

My lawyer said we can move to have the SA set aside based on the faulty NFP statement. He said it's an uphill battle but there are so many errors that it may be worth it.

Has anybody had a SA set aside?
 
anonymous said:
Has anybody had a SA set aside?
Click to expand...

It is hard to set the whole thing aside. There may be a clause that you can get updated to clarify things or align to law. But, to get the whole thing thrown out you have to have a really good reason. Having a crappy lawyer is not a good enough reason.
 
Not looking to set the whole thing aside, just fixing the NFP statement which would have affected Spousal Support. If she had owed me $60k, that would have changed spousal. I'm thinking a $60k error is significant enough to revisit/review.
 
anonymous said:
What I discovered after getting proper statements and valuations is that my ex owes me about $60-$80k (depending on how the house is valued). I stayed in the home and she stopped paying the day she moved out, so I am entitled to the 15 months increased in value.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about occupational rent.

You owe her rent for the time you were staying in the house that she partially owned.

Coincidentally, most judges find that the occupational rent is exactly equal to her share of the payments you made on the house after she moved out.

Therefore, she shares in the increases in the value of the house.

anybody had a SA set aside?
Click to expand...

Don't count on it. You had representation, you are not in need of SS, and you don't have primary custody of children. You are dead in the water.
 
you can sue your lawyer if they did not do due diligence and made a mistake that cost you money. and you can sue them for exactly what it cost you or will cost you

been there , done that
 
If your ex is going to file a motion to vary support, you should absolutely use this as an opportunity to terminate support or insist on a future termination date. I agree with other posters that you should not be paying any support, but since you signed off on your SA with legal representation, you are unlikely to have it terminated immediately. So, you should insist on a reasonable future termination date and a gradual decrease in the monthly amount you pay. Given that you already agreed to pay SA, the maximum termination date based on an 11 year marriage and your ex's financial situation would be an additional 2.5 years on top of the three you have already paid.
I disagree with negotiating a lump sum buyout, because it is not tax deductible.

Even if you are unsuccessful, you should count your blessings. There are big time losers in the SS business. I for instance pay 3K a month for CS and SS on one third of your salary, to an ex who refuses to work. Keep in mind you can easily blow through 20 to 30K in legal fees which would be the approximate amount you will pay in SS for the next 2 years. I would have your lawyer formally recommend non-binding mediation to negotiate the SS. Your mediator should be an experienced lawyer or ex-judge in the know, not someone right out of university with minimal experience. You have nothing to lose and it will not look good on her part if she declines mediation, should your matter go before a judge, and could have an impact on seeking costs in the event you "win". (no-one ever wins in family court).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top