Re-marriage

[Johnross]

I have been divorced for a year, separated for 4.5 years, married 20 yrs.

I have full custody of my two boys (15 and 18).

I pay SS, but have waived CS while she finishes school.

The boys were visiting at XMAS tell me that my ex's boyfriend proposed to her while they were there. Cool. Happy for her.

He makes more than I do. They have lived together for 1.5 yrs but have been together since we split.

What effect might this have on SS?

 

[AtALoss]

I have heard general comments to this affect and would like some confirmation as well. "She would not be considered common law until 3 years after the divorce BUT if they had a child together it is one year." But there also remains the fact of the proposal. I have also heard that once she remarries your obligation would cease completely. He makes more than you is one more factor that ceases your obligation. He marries her he has agreed to support her and is not in need of your support any more.

 

[Johnross]

Anyone out there with similar experiences? I'd like to hear whether there have been any judgements handed down. The 20 years of marriage translates into "forever" as far as i can tell but that does account for re-marrying.

Also, does anyone know whether there is a registry that lets you find out who is married? I mean, if she never tells me, how will I ever know?

 

[dinkyface]

Search in CANLII for "spousal support remarriage material"
It seems that remarriage of the recipient is generally considered as grounds for reducing spousal support because it is a material change.

HOWEVER, if it was known and fairly certain that the recipient is (or would soon be) living with a (steady? employable/employed) partner at the time that spousal support was negotiated, then there is no material change, and so no reduction.

"when it is the spouse receiving support that remarries, the burden is on that party to demonstrate that, despite remarriage, there is a continuing basis for spousal support.
Ms. Kelly argues that her re-marriage is not sufficient to engage the court’s jurisdiction to vary the support order because it was foreseen at the time the initial order was made. In support of this proposition, she argues that she was “seeing” her present husband at the time of the trial. There is no suggestion that at the time of the trial, they were engaged or had even discussed marriage. The fact of their marriage was at best a possibility and an entirely uncertain one at that. Further, and more importantly, the court clearly did not take her potential remarriage into account when the initial order was made...
[The Judge is] satisfied that Mr. Kelly has established that there has been a material change in Ms. Kelly’s circumstances."
The above taken from http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc227/2007bcsc227.html


Also, if spousal support is COMPENSATORY (i.e. to compensate for lost earning power because ex stayed at home to look after kids) and not according to NEED, then remarriage is likely not relevant.

 

[billm]

The thought of someone receiving 'spousal support' when they are married to someone else makes me shake my head in disbelief about how some people think of SS.

Of course, in my SS agreement, what I pay (a specific amount for a specific amount of time) does not change for ANY reason because my SS agreement is based on the past (ie what happened during my marriage) not the present, which is the way I think all SS should be, meaning for most cases what happens after does not change SS. Now in marriages where there was permanent career damage that cannot be recovered from, SS can be based on the present (ie income sharing based on present incomes).

If SS is based on income sharing of present income (which mine is not), then most definitely when someone remarries, the SS should stop. If it SS based on a business like agreement meaning based on what happened during the marriage only, then SS should continue as agreed to no matter what happens after separation. Not that her lawyer liked our SS agreement, but fortunately she didn't let that stop her from agreeing to it.

FYI - not a big fan of SSAG because I think for the most part it is popular because it makes things easy - just plug it into a software program, but that does not make it fair for a lot of situations - why should two people continue to share their incomes as if they were still married? For example in the case where both continued their careers when married but one happens to make more money by their own accord - I only believe in compensation for damage as a result of the marriage, not the whole 'maintain standard of living' crap. I have talked with so many women who have turned down SS because they knew they could take care of themselves and their husbands don't owe that to them - and their husbands made a lot more - gotta respect someone who turns down $$$ due to morals.

Sadly though I have seen this forum change in the past couple of years to now almost always just stating to use the SSAG and that income sharing (ie lifestyle sharing) is simply the way things should be done. Gives me the creeps that what I would do today to make money has anything to do with my EX spouse - none of her business and thats works for me. If she wins the lottery, or marries a rich guy - what business is it of mine, if she can't or doesn't work - what business is it of mine? We don't even like each other - we just want to be individuals, separate from each other as we were before we met.

 

[dadtotheend]

The thought of someone receiving 'spousal support' when they are married to someone else makes me shake my head in disbelief about how some people think of SS.

Very hard to argue with that.

I'll go out on a limb and say that receiving SS while married to someone else* somehow attaches a specific cost to one's character. And character is priceless.

*especially after kids are grown and gone.