Possibility of Spousal Support

[LMum]

My ex's lawyer has asked to amend his pleadings to ask for SS. My income is significantly more then his. He did work throughout our whole 13 year relationship/marriage, except 1 year when he stayed home with our then 2 year old.

He has been supporting himself quite comfortably and has moved in with this significant other this year.

During the common law and marriage I paid most of the household bills. Not because I offered, but because he was a spender and spent money only on himself. Purchased big items behind my back, didn't pay his own bill half the time, etc. I would have to bail him out.

Now that the marriage is over he's even worse with spending his money, and he doesn't pay CS even though our child lives with me. OCL sided in my favor but there has been no settlement or court order yet.

My questions, or rather looking for opinions maybe. Does he meet the criteria to get SS?

 

[rockscan]

Are they trying to get you to accept an offer to settle? It could be a threat tactic. Make you settle because you don’t want to pay spousal.

Based on what you said I don’t think he is entitled and if he was still able to work and achieve promotions/career changes then he is more than likely not entitled.

 

[LMum]

Are they trying to get you to accept an offer to settle? It could be a threat tactic. Make you settle because you don�t want to pay spousal.

They have offered and CS/SS swap. Which we will say no. Otherwise yes (hopefully) it maybe a threat tactic.

Based on what you said I don�t think he is entitled and if he was still able to work and achieve promotions/career changes then he is more than likely not entitled.

He doesn't hold down jobs well. He mostly quits, but can find another one pretty quick (he a grass is greener type of guy). In our time together he's has 15 different jobs. This last one seems to have held though as its been over a year.

 

[rockscan]

Explains it. He wants to avoid cs so hes asking for ss to even it off. Doesn’t mean he’s entitled.

If he quit his jobs then it’s not sacrificing his career for yours. You could also look at what he is capable of doing and counter that you will request an income be imputed. That way with a final order he’s locked into cs and would need to keep a job.

 

[pinkHouses]

Spousal support, that will be tax deductible for you. Child support is not.

No one cares what his spending habits were during the marriage. yeah, marriage is a bad deal.

If your income is 200K and his is 30K you owe him spousal. He will have an imputed income, IDK how that goes may be on the last job he quit or was fired from.

Get a termination clause for spousal support. Sometimes a payout works; also get it in a separation agreement if you can.

 

[rockscan]

If your income is 200K and his is 30K you owe him spousal. He will have an imputed income, IDK how that goes may be on the last job he quit or was fired from.

Get a termination clause for spousal support. Sometimes a payout works; also get it in a separation agreement if you can.

I don’t know if this is necessarily correct. He would have to prove entitlement and refusing to work or having a pattern of quitting jobs may work against him.

As for the termination clauses, he has a new partner so this is sometimes a termination clause in agreements which means his household income could be different.

Best to ask your lawyer about entitlement and tell the lawyer you want brutal truth not a “welllllllll….” kind of response.

 

[pinkHouses]

I don�t know if this is necessarily correct. He would have to prove entitlement and refusing to work or having a pattern of quitting jobs may work against him.

They have no agreement and so not clause yet.
He is still employed and if he is seeking spousal it means she was and still is making more.

What is the entitlement thing to be proven?

 

[rockscan]

Possibility of Spousal Support

Spousal isn’t a given just because she makes more. He has to prove entitlement to spousal. It’s not automatic like child support.

Agreement or not, he has to prove he is entitled to spousal and it’s not automatic because she earns more. Plus she can counter that he is purposely under employed and not entitled to spousal.

ETA from the Divorce act:

Factors

(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including

(a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;

(b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

(c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

Marginal note:Spousal misconduct

(5) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.

Marginal note:

Objectives of spousal support order

(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

 

[pinkHouses]

He isn't under employed as far as the post goes.
She said he worked the whole time except for one year taking care of the kids.

They put up with their ex all these years and as the responsible, more capable partner will have to pay SS.

Are you saying the new house and partner will reduce what a judge will award?

 

[rockscan]

He isn't under employed as far as the post goes.
She said he worked the whole time except for one year taking care of the kids.

If he quits as a way to argue entitlement then yes he is underemployed.

They put up with their ex all these years and as the responsible, more capable partner will have to pay SS.

Again, not how it works. Not every spouse is entitled to spousal and her earning more is not a golden ticket.

Are you saying the new house and partner will reduce what a judge will award?

A judge will only award what someone is entitled to. Not to mention that in some spousal awards it is to support them moving forward. If he has a new partner who is earning good money and contributing to his lifestyle then he may not be entitled. Much like many men who have to pay spousal, there is a clause option that should the ex cohabitate or find a new partner, ss ends.

All of this is why I asked about the timing around the demand. Ex sounds like he wants to avoid child support or push his agenda so he is claiming spousal as a way to scare OP into giving him what he wants. A good lawyer will be able to determine entitlement and argue against it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LMum]

Best to ask your lawyer about entitlement and tell the lawyer you want brutal truth not a �welllllllll�.� kind of response.

Yes I will do that. I'm actually very happy with my lawyer, she's good.

On that note, we did have a separation agreement (Jan 2020) that we did on our own with witnesses but no legal advice (he talked to a lawyer but never retailed one at the time). He waived SS in the agreement. Fast forward to late 2020 I got served and the only thing that they asked was to set aside the agreement. No SS. He is now on his second lawyer where they asked to amend the pleadings for SS.

He only stayed home for the one year cause he was able to draw EI so it made sense not to send our child to daycare.

I make just over $100, he makes about $50 right now. Like I said, he is a out of control spender and now that he has more financial freedom, aka - I'm not telling him we cant afford STUFF.... he has been getting tattoos, going golfing every weekend, etc. those things were not done in our marriage, or at least not often.

So looks like I will get 86% parenting time (I could tell you all stories to make your toes curl) and he will get a portion of my pension, I've come to terms with that. But SS is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[LMum]

A Ex sounds like he wants to avoid child support or push his agenda so he is claiming spousal as a way to scare OP into giving him what he wants.

I think your right, I do think its a way to avoid paying CS. Still scary.

 

[Tayken]

The sauce that is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.
The court can't blow hot and cold at the same time.

There is a high probability that this matter SS will be ordered. Happens to the highest income earner all the time. Gender doesn't matter.

The door of equality swings both ways for all genders and sexual orientation.

Waver or not. If there is a massive income difference between two people leaving a marriage there will usually be SS.

Doesn't matter if the high income earner is a woman, man or alien from another planet. SS knows no gender and a good lawyer (if the other party has one) will bring all the same arguments that have won females SS in the past.

Be prepared. Man, woman, alien from another planet... SS swings hard both ways. Especially with your admissions that he stayed home with the child. How is this different than any argument that many women make?

 

[LMum]

Especially with your admissions that he stayed home with the child. How is this different than any argument that many women make?

He stayed home for less then one year, my child is 12 years old now. It was only while he was drawing EI and he didn't sacrifice anything for me, or my career. It was more to save money on daycare since he was at home.

 

[Tayken]

He stayed home for less then one year, my child is 12 years old now. It was only while he was drawing EI and he didn't sacrifice anything for me, or my career. It was more to save money on daycare since he was at home.

Again, this argument has been made by "men" countless times and it didn't stick. It won't stick for you unfortunately. More women need to point out the imbalances in the whacky world of "spousal support".

Even judges have pointed out how whack the SS Guidelines are. Justice Quinn famously said:

[158] I come now to the issue of spousal support, historically the roulette of family law (blindfolds, darts and Ouija boards being optional).

Funny to point that even Justice Cornell agrees:

At one point, it appeared that I would have no choice but to resort to the use of the dart or Ouija board referred to by Quinn J. in Bruni v. Bruni 2010 ONSC 6568 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 5148 (S.C.).

Suffice to say... The missing magic 8-ball in the equation that judges use to determine SS is never mentioned.

Get ready to have every argument used against a high income earner thrown at you to make their case for SS. It may not stick but, often it does stick. Your counter argument is weak btw but, you said you have a lawyer so they will respond properly to all these claims. You may not like it but, the "no big deal" argument in response to the sacrifices of a parent staying home with a child rarely ever work.

I don't think "spouses" should be supporting each other after separation. I am on your side and agree its a silly claim but, until a majority of high income earning women point out the nonsense it will just continue to be nonsense.

 

[LMum]

You may not like it but, the "no big deal" argument in response to the sacrifices of a parent staying home with a child rarely ever work.
(

There was never a sacrifice, he qualified for EI (in a way that I wont mention here but you get the idea). He never ever quit his job for me or his child. It was selfish on his part but oddly convenient for us at the time, if that makes any sense.

Trust me, this man has never made one sacrifice for me or our son. It was self motivated and then "used" to make himself look good.

But I understand I may have a fight on my hands. I will leave that up to him and his lawyer to prove it.

 

[iona6656]

I don't think "spouses" should be supporting each other after separation. I am on your side and agree its a silly claim but, until a majority of high income earning women point out the nonsense it will just continue to be nonsense.

I would be curious to see the case law around this if it DOES stick.

For the OP, my ex used the threat of SS against me- I earned almost 2x as much as he did when we separated (155 v. 85) and at a meeting with our lawyers his lawyer tried to make it seem like he was SO benevolent because he wasn't even asking for SS and reserved the right to do so. My lawyer basically laughed in her face. Well, not laughed- but smirked and said "You can certainly try to make that claim". They never did.

Like your ex- they were trying to claim it to offset CS, and as a general bargaining tactic. Didn't work. I wouldn't worry about it for now.

 

[pinkHouses]

I want to know too! My lawyer told me no way around spousal support.
How was it your ex was not entitled to it and why was your lawyer so confident?

 

[rockscan]

I want to know too! My lawyer told me no way around spousal support.

Might have been in reference to your case. There are a number of factors that result in spousal support and your case may have had a few. Including length of marriage, income of each party, sacrifices the recipient made to support your career etc.

 

[ifonlyihadknown]

He would have to prove entitlement and refusing to work or having a pattern of quitting jobs may work against him.

Funny, my ex refused to work and had a pattern of quitting jobs but I was told by everyone, including people on this forum, that all this meant was that I agreed to this (I didn't) and therefore was on the hook for support.

Hopefully the OP will have better luck than I did.