Pre-SS negotiation tips/advice?

[Evo]

I just wanted to get as much advice before going in so I don't get caught off guard.

Here are some details.
Co-habitated/married for just shy of 6 years, no kids
She makes about $53,000
Last year I cleared $31,000 (got laid off), but this coming year I am expecting to clear at most $22,000

She left me 2 weeks after I started school. We had planned for a few years before for me to go to school, but she bailed as soon as it started leaving me a poor student that keeps increasing my debt no matter what I do.

We have finally sold our house and now she is able to pay SS since she was paying for the house until it sold so SS will be up for negotiation soon. I really don't what to have to get SS from her as I really just want to cut ties with her, but I'm a broke student so I need it.

I have received some free legal advice from the family court house advising me what I can get and I plan to obtain some paid legal advice to know what kind of money I can get too.

If anyone has any been there done that advice I would really appreciate it.

 

[Mess]

At most she would have to pay SS for 3 years, .5 years for each year of relationship.

It's not absolutely clear you have entitlement or once entitlement is shown that she should pay any significant amount. It was a very short marriage and there is no automatic obligation for her to put you through school.

You should receive a share of the value of the house now that it is sold. She is no further ahead now that it is sold if the assets are equalized properly, she has to either buy or rent, she has probably equal housing costs as she did before.

99% of students end up in debt while in school. Join the rest of us. If you are able to clear $22k per year while in school you are doing well.

Honestly I'm not sure that you would gain all that much spousal support if you fought her. If she is ready to pay the equalization now that the house is sold, you are better off financially and emotionally to cut all ties, let it go and get on with your life.

I'm going to school too and personally I'd hate to be in the middle of exams and have a court date scheduled.

If she is refusing to split the assets equitably then that is another story.

 

[billm]

Okay, why do feel entitled to SS?

Both worked, no kids, now you are going to school to better yourself, which will not benefit her at all - so why does she have to pay you now that you are not together?

You already did well by her - she shared her greater income with you, but now you want to keep her supporting you?

How exactly does she owe you?

For lack of a better expression - be a man, take care of yourself. If you don't like going into debt while at school, quite school and go back to work.

 

[Evo]

I think you are both forgetting that marriage is a financial partnership and when the marriage fails there needs to be something there to help the lesser party get back on their feet, isn't that what SS is for?

Regarding entitlement...
"Today, however, courts have largely abandoned the "means/needs" test and look at disparity of income between the two spouses. The court now routinely uses support to maintain an equality of lifestyles between separated spouses. If there is a disparity in income, support will generally be ordered. Also, equalization of incomes, especially where there are children, is common. In fact, in Andrews v. Andrews, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an award that divided the available income in a 60-40 split in favour of the dependent spouse and child."

"Today, if there is any evidence of need on the part of a spouse, that will generally be enough to create an entitlement to receive support, no matter how brief the marriage or the parties' role in the marriage or whether there are children being raised."- From Familylawtoronto.ca

So she will end up buying a new BMW and getting a boob job, things that are so very important to her and things that while married bothered her because we could not afford it. And then I will living in my brothers basement living month to month with a mound of debt, sure you say quit school and get a job, thats not realistic in my case. The fact is she will gain a better lifestyle while I lose, sure when I'm done school I will be making great money, but until then I'm on the losing end. I only need support for max 18months, not the 3 years they say I can get.

 

[standing on the sidelines]

maybe just ask her is she is willing to help you out for a bit or something. There is no sure bet on how much ss or if you will even get ss. Probably waste more money fighting to get it then its worth in the end.

 

[billm]

I think you are both forgetting that marriage is a financial partnership and when the marriage fails there needs to be something there to help the lesser party get back on their feet, isn't that what SS is for?

Regarding entitlement...
"Today, however, courts have largely abandoned the "means/needs" test and look at disparity of income between the two spouses. The court now routinely uses support to maintain an equality of lifestyles between separated spouses. If there is a disparity in income, support will generally be ordered. Also, equalization of incomes, especially where there are children, is common. In fact, in Andrews v. Andrews, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an award that divided the available income in a 60-40 split in favour of the dependent spouse and child."

"Today, if there is any evidence of need on the part of a spouse, that will generally be enough to create an entitlement to receive support, no matter how brief the marriage or the parties' role in the marriage or whether there are children being raised."- From Familylawtoronto.ca

So she will end up buying a new BMW and getting a boob job, things that are so very important to her and things that while married bothered her because we could not afford it. And then I will living in my brothers basement living month to month with a mound of debt, sure you say quit school and get a job, thats not realistic in my case. The fact is she will gain a better lifestyle while I lose, sure when I'm done school I will be making great money, but until then I'm on the losing end. I only need support for max 18months, not the 3 years they say I can get.

Well if you can't take care of yourself, it's a good thing you got married. Make sure you tell the next one that you are needy.

So you're saying that you would quit school and work, thus stopping you from going into more debt, but it makes financial sense to finish school so you can make great money - what does that decision have to do with her? If you start to make more than her - should she get SS from you?

Your sense of entitlement sickens me, right along with your poor me attitude, and her grass is greener attitude.

Forcing someone to take care of you when you are capable of doing it yourself, simply because they USED to be your spouse, is wrong. Especially considering you suffered no damage as a result of the marriage (in fact you benefited, as she brought more to the table than you).

And you complain that now that she is done supporting you, she can finally afford to buy those boobs and that car and spend her money on herself instead of you.

You sir, have no honour. Good on her!

 

[LostFather]

Okay, why do feel entitled to SS?

Both worked, no kids, now you are going to school to better yourself, which will not benefit her at all - so why does she have to pay you now that you are not together?

You already did well by her - she shared her greater income with you, but now you want to keep her supporting you?

How exactly does she owe you?

For lack of a better expression - be a man, take care of yourself. If you don't like going into debt while at school, quite school and go back to work.

Not really sure what gender has to do with it. Woman have been entitled for decades so why not now when the role is reversed? I think both men and woman should just move on period but as we've seen time and time again that's not what happens in our wonderful family law system.

The gender specific attitude of entitlement needs to change. It should rely on more of a need then what someone is entitled to, get a friggin job!. We haven't seen men in the past having entitlement so much. Now that table is turning though it be ever so slowly there seems to be in my opinion anyway, more of an attitude towards men to "be a man".

These days being a man seems to be a licence to get taken to the cleaners. Takem for all he's worth with the with the permission of the courts and public opinion, as that's what be deserves. Whether it be ss or cs and s7 expenses.

 

[billm]

Not really sure what gender has to do with it. Woman have been entitled for decades so why not now when the role is reversed? I think both men and woman should just move on period but as we've seen time and time again that's not what happens in our wonderful family law system.

The gender specific attitude of entitlement needs to change. It should rely on more of a need then what someone is entitled to, get a friggin job!. We haven't seen men in the past having entitlement so much. Now that table is turning though it be ever so slowly there seems to be in my opinion anyway, more of an attitude towards men to "be a man".

These days being a man seems to be a licence to get taken to the cleaners. Takem for all he's worth with the with the permission of the courts and public opinion, as that's what be deserves. Whether it be ss or cs and s7 expenses.

I agree that gender should have no bearing on entitlement, as in this case I would feel the same if he was a she.

However, there are gender aspects to our society (and me), so that's where the 'be a man' phrase came from.

 

[Evo]

Will all do respect billm, screw off, you are offering nothing to this thread and instead pushing your biased BS. Obviously you got screwed by an ex and now feel the need to shit on people that you feel are not entitled, well news flash, you're opinion means nothing to me.

FOr the record I supported her for years, I supported her while she was in school paying a much larger portion of living expenses and bought a house on my income as she had no job. I renovated our first and second houses with my own labor while she did nothing, did I complain, NO. And did she benefit from that, yes, house values increased and she benefits. It was only the last couple years of the relationship where she eclipsed me on income, I lost my job and now it was her turn to support me but suddenly that was too hard for her and she wanted to spend her income on herself and then she leaves me.

The fact billm is that your opinion is just that, your opinion, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. So with that said please leave this thread.

 

[Mess]

Marriage is a financial partnership, but that means sharing finances WHILE YOU ARE MARRIED. After the marriage ends so does the partnership.

If your career or personal finances suffered during the marriage because of the marriage, then you may have a claim for compensatory support.

It may be that because you felt secure in the partnership and the two of you had discussed long term finances, you put off RRSP investments, just as one possible example. This is a little bit like the idea of constructive trusts in a common law relationship. Mingling of assets and expenses where one party had a good career and the other didn't, this can mean some compensatory support. However you can't milk this and in 90% of cases the intent of support is in clear cut situations where one party put their career clearly in the backseat because the other had to move cities for a better job or there were children and one party provided most of the child care.

What I am saying here is that for a claim of spousal support there has to be more involved than just one party having a better job than the other.

In your case, you didn't get laid off BECAUSE YOU WERE MARRIED. Being laid off wasn't a consequence of your ex furthering her career at your expense. You can't blame the marriage for this and your current situation is no different now than if you had been single all these years.

Your marriage was not long by the standards of the courts. A judge would not look at your situation and see that your life had been altered so much by being married that you couldn't possibly have reached your full career potential or financial security. You didn't suffer from the marriage, at least as far as you have described your situation. You do not have a clear claim for spousal support from what you have described.

Your spouse had no obligation to put you through school when you were married and doesn't have that obligation now that you are divorced.

 

[Evo]

Marriage is a financial partnership, but that means sharing finances WHILE YOU ARE MARRIED. After the marriage ends so does the partnership.

If your career or personal finances suffered during the marriage because of the marriage, then you may have a claim for compensatory support.

It may be that because you felt secure in the partnership and the two of you had discussed long term finances, you put off RRSP investments, just as one possible example. This is a little bit like the idea of constructive trusts in a common law relationship. Mingling of assets and expenses where one party had a good career and the other didn't, this can mean some compensatory support. However you can't milk this and in 90% of cases the intent of support is in clear cut situations where one party put their career clearly in the backseat because the other had to move cities for a better job or there were children and one party provided most of the child care.

What I am saying here is that for a claim of spousal support there has to be more involved than just one party having a better job than the other.

In your case, you didn't get laid off BECAUSE YOU WERE MARRIED. Being laid off wasn't a consequence of your ex furthering her career at your expense. You can't blame the marriage for this and your current situation is no different now than if you had been single all these years.

Your marriage was not long by the standards of the courts. A judge would not look at your situation and see that your life had been altered so much by being married that you couldn't possibly have reached your full career potential or financial security. You didn't suffer from the marriage, at least as far as you have described your situation. You do not have a clear claim for spousal support from what you have described.

Your spouse had no obligation to put you through school when you were married and doesn't have that obligation now that you are divorced.

Thanks Mess, although not what I was hoping for it does make sense what you are saying. I've been reading the SSAG and other stuff online and it seems there are different answers everywhere. Some say I'm entitled and some say maybe not. I did talk with a mediator and legal counsel and both said I was entitled, but now I wonder am I really. I will take the suggestion from a previous poster and ask if she can help out for a time period that I will need help.

 

[billm]

Will all do respect billm, screw off, you are offering nothing to this thread and instead pushing your biased BS.

I am biased how exactly? Simply because I disagree with you? Seems the replies in this thread all say you are probably not entitled.

Obviously you got screwed by an ex and now feel the need to shit on people that you feel are not entitled, well news flash, you're opinion means nothing to me.

My opinion only means nothing to you because I disagree - you came here looking for agreement only - it doesn't work that way.

And I GLADLY pay SS to my ex who put her career on hold to stay home and raise the kids, and then after separation immediately when back to school to get back into her career and is now working hard - but is not making as much as she would have is she didn't stay home - so I am compensating her as I should - because our marriage damaged her career. Also I always made more than her when she was working, but I don't hold that against her or feel she owes me for that. So I was not screwed by anyone. My opinion of your situation is not biased by my situation.

The fact billm is that your opinion is just that, your opinion, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. So with that said please leave this thread.

Yes, but mine doesn't smell

This thread is a public place, you don't own it, I think I'll stay along with all the other people that disagree with you, which so far is everyone.

 

[Evo]

You can disagree, sure, but you are an asshole about it for which I do not appreciate. If you got nothing nice to say don't say it at all, its really a simple concept.
I did not come here for agreement only, I came here for advice, I threw out what I knew about this subject looking for feedback. You say I'm not entitled, well read this xxx it says I probably am, if I'm wrong point it out to me. Mess disagreed with me, but gave me some solid info to go with, made me think about stuff that had not crossed my mind, so did others, you did not do this, instead you laid on a childish attack which probably made you feel good about yourself, pathetic really.

Manners, get some.

This matter is dead.

 

[LostFather]

I am biased how exactly? Simply because I disagree with you? Seems the replies in this thread all say you are probably not entitled.



My opinion only means nothing to you because I disagree - you came here looking for agreement only - it doesn't work that way.

And I GLADLY pay SS to my ex who put her career on hold to stay home and raise the kids, and then after separation immediately when back to school to get back into her career and is now working hard - but is not making as much as she would have is she didn't stay home - so I am compensating her as I should - because our marriage damaged her career. Also I always made more than her when she was working, but I don't hold that against her or feel she owes me for that. So I was not screwed by anyone. My opinion of your situation is not biased by my situation.



Yes, but mine doesn't smell

This thread is a public place, you don't own it, I think I'll stay along with all the other people that disagree with you, which so far is everyone.

Okay bill but I think even you would agree a lot of times we cant smell our own shit lol.

An interesting point about damaging her career. Could not the op have the same claim? It maybe a stretch but he supported her while she was furthering herself hence his advancements were stifled...just because he didn't pop out babies during the six years doesn't mean his career wasn't damaged....yes....no?

 

[billm]

...

An interesting point about damaging her career. Could not the op have the same claim? It maybe a stretch but he supported her while she was furthering herself hence his advancements were stifled...just because he didn't pop out babies during the six years doesn't mean his career wasn't damaged....yes....no?

No.

He was working, my ex does not get SS for making babies, she gets SS because she didn't work and didn't go to school, which we both wanted.

If the argument for SS was - hey I worked, and put you through school, now its my turn, that may be valid. But after she went to school she made significantly more than him, from which he benefit. When he is done school, he alone benefits.

There is no score card of who contributed what that pays off later, the marriage is over, he did not suffer, time to move on and there is no ethical justification to force SS.

 

[billm]

you are an asshole

you laid on a childish attack which probably made you feel good about yourself, pathetic really.

Manners, get some.

screw off, you are offering nothing to this thread and instead pushing your biased BS.

you're opinion means nothing to me.

leave this thread.

If you got nothing nice to say don't say it at all, its really a simple concept.

Hmmm, simple concept for some, but not all

 

[LostFather]

No.

He was working, my ex does not get SS for making babies, she gets SS because she didn't work and didn't go to school, which we both wanted.

If the argument for SS was - hey I worked, and put you through school, now its my turn, that may be valid. But after she went to school she made significantly more than him, from which he benefit. When he is done school, he alone benefits.

There is no score card of who contributed what that pays off later, the marriage is over, he did not suffer, time to move on and there is no ethical justification to force SS.

I think he wanted to go to school to further the career but couldn't afford to because she was. If they both wanted to and was agreed upon I do not see the difference. They agreed to have children one persons career or school is put on hold so just because they now have children that's the deciding factor for career damage. It seems a little discriminatory to me. putting a career on hold for another...weather it be school or babies is still putting your career on hold.

But if i have babies put off my career or education to further my career then the monies yours??

To me what it says...marry someone get your education while the other pays the bills...then when its their turn to go to school...cya! There should e some protections for the other spouse that if they sacrificed for the other spouse to advance themselves then decide to leave...the other is not left holding the bag.

 

[dadtotheend]

You have a weak claim for SS dude. Focus instead on division of family property and use the SS as a bargaining chip.

 

[dadtotheend]

Yes, but mine doesn't smell

Just came from the bathroom and can confirm that mine still does.

 

[billm]

I think he wanted to go to school to further the career but couldn't afford to because she was. If they both wanted to and was agreed upon I do not see the difference. They agreed to have children one persons career or school is put on hold so just because they now have children that's the deciding factor for career damage. It seems a little discriminatory to me. putting a career on hold for another...weather it be school or babies is still putting your career on hold.

But if i have babies put off my career or education to further my career then the monies yours??

To me what it says...marry someone get your education while the other pays the bills...then when its their turn to go to school...cya! There should e some protections for the other spouse that if they sacrificed for the other spouse to advance themselves then decide to leave...the other is not left holding the bag.

Again, in my case, there was career damage, how it happened is not relevant.

Working and not going to school is not necessarily, and not usually, damaging to ones career.

But either way - she went to school, he helped pay for it and he benefit because she worked after. If the premise is that she owes him the same, where is the benefit for her? If she helps pay for him while he goes to school, then he should pay her back, as she did when she made 50K+ after going to school. So it cancels out. No SS entitlement!

And the OP was focused on 'poor me, I'm going into debt, while my ex is getting fake boobs and a BMW', which is not a valid argument for SS

LF do you think SS is warranted given what has been posted?