Proving cohabitation - impact on SS

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mattine

New member
Hi all,

So my partners ex has been living common law since she left marital home just over 2 years ago. She left marriage to be with this person. My partner has been paying SS to her. In Sept, a court date has been set to assess changes to temp order for SS...i.e. how much longer, and if amount should be altered.

Well...surprise surprise...looks like my partners ex is suddenly having relationship issues and her partner is conveniently living with parents.

Tactic? Most likely given my partners ex.

So we are a step ahead - anyone have any experience in having to prove cohabitation despite suggestions otherwise...???

Any input welcome
 
I am not asking whether she is eligible...know that.

Any advice on uncovering a lie - proving cohabitation... totally different question.
 
Co-habitation should have zero impact on spousal award, unless you had it written in as a terminating clause.

Unless it was written in as that when it was originally assigned out, the ex moving on with their life and meeting someone new is not an unexpected event, therefore it's NOT a material change in circumstance.

This isn't the states, where such things have more of an impact.
 
NBDad said:
Co-habitation should have zero impact on spousal award, unless you had it written in as a terminating clause.

Unless it was written in as that when it was originally assigned out, the ex moving on with their life and meeting someone new is not an unexpected event, therefore it's NOT a material change in circumstance.

This isn't the states, where such things have more of an impact.
Click to expand...

The idea of SS not being effected by co-habitation or even marriage seems to becoming more prevalent in this forum.

For non-compensatory SS, standard of living, which is obviously effected by co-habitation (or else there wouldn't be such a thing a non-compensatory SS!!), should have an effect on SS.

Is this really the way things are, where co-habitation does not mean anything wrt non compensatory SS?

I would imagine that SS agreements should put a clause in where SS stop on co-habitation (at least the non compensatory part). Of course, on the other hand, what if the payor co-habitates with a high income earner - does that mean that SS should increase?

Personally, I think compensatory SS is the only thing that should be awarded, which makes co-habitation a non-issue - SS continues regardless as it is based on what happened in the marriage, not after. This means that it is okay for a high income earner to marry a low income earner, they both share their incomes during marriage (a benefit to the low income earner, but that is marriage), and then assuming they both continued to work during the marriage, no SS, just equalization.
 
Last edited:
I know its not "law" but common sense indicates that if the "recipient" of SS gets married or common law then he/SHE should have SS terminated. They should only be able to mooch off of one payor at a time lol !
 
no ss period ever. an adult should be responsible for themselves

comepensary because you choose to stay at home blah blah blah...its a choice you made it live with it.


makes so much sense and would get rid of a lot of court problems all in one shot....my bet is some whining womens group wouldnt want it......heaven help a poor women who has to be responsible.......
 
Yeah slug here we go again......my stbx is living with someone and he made a claim for SS too.Its not a gender thing ....its a lack of any kind of basic morals thing.
 
I totally agree with you Slughead !!!!!!!

However, this IS Canada and do you really expect people should have to work hard and look after themselves when our govt is only too willing to be generous with other people's money lol ?

Why do I think if SS was the Govt responsibility that SS would not be nearly so generous (in fact I suspect they would strongly agree with your very reasonable proposal lol) !

My hope is that guys (sorry, make that "higher income earner") will hopefully become more aware of the crappy "financial contract" they are signing up for BEFORE marriage and run screaming away from the financial nightmare that marriage (given 50% end in divorce largely initiated by the "recipient" (must be gender neutral here lol) results in.

Really, would ANYONE in their right mind think that Family Law in Canada is even remotely fair ? Again, let's restrict our survey to the "payors" !!!! I don't know anyone who complains about "free/easy" money.

Still think it should be MANDATORY for people to complete a Family Law course BEFORE marriage is allowed so at least the likely "screwee" will know what likely awaits them. They should also stress the high odds that they WILL get divorced. Who in the their right mind would gamble with financial devastation with something that has a 50% likelihood of happening !!!
 
not always a gender issue but predominately...sorry you find yourself in the position usually faced by men...sucks eh......
 
Hey MurphysLaw:

I agree its "technically" not a gender thing since lazy men can mooch off women (which I also feel is disgusting). However, what do YOU think the male/female ration of SS recipients are ??

I somehow think the bulk of SS recipients ARE female !!!
 
and the bulk of deadbeats are dads....?A bit more workplace equality and men can enjoy more spousal support.Perhaps if women could actually get paid the same as a man in the exact same job position maybe more men would sacrifice their careers and be stay at home dads.Then they could apply for SS....see equality is fun!
 
pay based on ability.....unless your a special interest group......and you gals still complain....

all this equity blah blah


sacrafice to be a parent another crock of shit its a privilege to stay home and raise your children
 
it is ...until you go back out in the workplace and prospective employers look at the giant gap in your resume.Pay based on ability my ass.Lack of male genitalia is enough for some employers to not move from temp to permanent position.
I would say lack of balls but I've been told, I've got more than my fair share;) Perhaps my ball collection is why I had no trouble getting back out there,but other women haven't been so fortunate.I also have been told that I should start batting for the other team to get the special interest fair play thing but frankly....Im not a vegetarian -I enjoy my meat :DBut slug you just wanna have another little women bashing rant, and Im after raining on your parade.I apologise..carry on!
 
murphyslaw said:
and the bulk of deadbeats are dads....?A bit more workplace equality and men can enjoy more spousal support.Perhaps if women could actually get paid the same as a man in the exact same job position maybe more men would sacrifice their careers and be stay at home dads.Then they could apply for SS....see equality is fun!
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the nonsense that slug and shell are spewing (ie. I feel SS is reasonable when career damage has occurred due to the agreed situation of the marriage) BUT

it is not reasonable to mix the need for SS with inequality in the workplace. I should not have to pay SS because women make less money than men due to pay inequality.
 
i think men should be compensated for giving up parenting time so they could work....

perhaps custody with support so the other parent can make up for lost career time...



as far as pay inequity its a free market if your paid less you must be worthless
 
Billm that is not what Im getting at........what I am saying is that if there were less disparity in income ,more men would stay at home more and the female only SS trend would dissipate.In families the lesser paid is usually the person who be more likely to give up career advancement for the rewarding yet undervalued staying at home to raise the kids.However this also is not for every man out there,the idea of doing housework and changing diapers would be revolting to many.I am trying to explain the "why".My personal beliefs lead me to thinking that any woman who refuses to go back to work after the kids are in school, is rather short sighted.
 
I totally agree with MurphyLaw comment above ! That is, that once the kids are back in school full time that "stay at home" parent return to work.

The problem is in some situations the "payor" spouse who is stupid enough to work hard is forced to pay so much in SS that quite frankly the "recipient" can simply sit on their tail and cash the cheques. Why work when you can get "free" money. Thank you Family Law !!!!

Why does the law assume that "stay at home" parents are "angels" to be showered with cash and the working parent is "evil" and needs to be punished financially !!!

Yes, I know some will say "inpute" income but from what I gather the amount courts will inpute is minimal and even then there is no guarantee of success while legal fees and escalating tensions are of course a given.

It would be interesting to take a survey among "paying" spouses wrt to SS and CS and see how many honestly think the amount is "fair".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top