Spousal support- without children

Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous household income = $130k
Your income loss = 130 - 80 = 50k
Her income loss = 130 - 50 = 80k

This would put her at the bigger economic disadvantage arising from the breakdown of the marriage.

If entitled, there should be a timeline put on it, maybe with a gradual decrease in amounts. 2 things will be against you... "indefinite support" is when the spouse falls in the 65 Rule, or when the marriage is longer than 20 years.

CanLII - 2008 BCCA 507 (CanLII)
[118] The length of the marriage is defined in the Guidelines as the period of cohabitation. However, for marriages over 25 years in length, the duration of spousal support is indefinite (Guidelines at s. 7.5). The authors of the Guidelines, however, emphasize that “indefinite”does not mean permanent (Guidelines at s. 7.5.2):
In using the term “indefinite”we simply adopted a word that had been used for years in spousal support law to mean “an order for support without a time limit at the time it is made”. Under the Advisory Guidelines an order for indefinite support does not necessarily mean permanent support, and it certainly does not mean that support will continue indefinitely at the level set by the formula.
Under the current law, orders for indefinite support are open to variation as the parties' circumstances change over time and may also have review conditions attached to them. The Advisory Guidelines do nothing to change this: “indefinite”support means support that is subject to the normal process of variation and review.
Through the process of review and variation the amount of spousal support may be reduced, for example if the recipient's income increases or if the recipient fails to make reasonable efforts to earn income and income is imputed. Support may even be terminated if the basis for entitlement disappears. It is true that current law supports the idea that after long marriages spousal support will often be permanent, even if the amount is subject to reduction to reflect the recipient's obligation to pursue self-sufficiency.

CanLII.org will be your new best friend now. The best thing you can do is to search for similar cases and hope to find some in your favor.
 
point counterpoint.
lol

From the Canadian Bar Association website

Generally, if one spouse supported the other during their relationship, that spouse will be expected to contribute to the support of the other spouse after the relationship breaks down. On the other hand, if both spouses were financially independent when together or are capable of being financially independent after separation, then in general, neither will be entitled to receive financial support after separation.
In some cases, though, a spouse may be entitled to support even if they were not financially dependent on the other spouse. This kind of support is called “compensatory spousal support” and is sometimes ordered where a spouse has suffered a financial loss as a result of decisions made during the relationship, such as a decision to leave the workforce to raise children to leave a job in order to move with the family to a new town.
Click to expand...

From Spousal Support
 
You should keep in mind that a lot of that legislation was written in an earlier time, when one spouse usually didn't work much, and the need for spousal support was much more common.

You should argue that she was employed throughout the marriage, that she did not suffer career setbacks throughout the marriage, that her income and yours are not that far apart (39:61 ratio), that her income is sufficient for someone to live on, and that you both will be reducing your lifestyles as a result of the separation. She will be keeping half the assets accumulated during the marriage while she benefitted from the higher combined income.

She will argue that the guidelines suggest an amount for her, therefore she should get that amount. She will argue that your income is higher than hers, and that she helped you maintain that good job by supporting you behind the scenes. She will argue the rule of 65, for which she barely qualifies (the rule was intended, I believe, for that earlier age when a middle-aged housewife would never hope to find a good-paying job with no education or job experience).

She probably has a lawyer who sees the long term marriage and is telling her what she wants to hear in order to draw the case out and bill her longer. Lawyers rarely look for the overall fairness, they simply fight fight fight for the best case scenario for their client. The longer the fight, the bigger the bill.

The result will depend on your lawyers and the judge of the day. I personally think you have a good case, but I'm hardly qualified. History and CanLII shows that it could go either way. What you have to decide is if the cost of taking this to court outweighs the cost that volunteering to pay some spousal support now would be.

I would say no SS at first, and see if she capitulates. If court looks inevitable, you could make an offer that could still be cheaper than court, a reasonable amount for a fixed time or whatever suits you. If she still says no, then when you get to court, you return to arguing for no SS. Then, if the court orders less (or no) SS than your offer, you can make your ex pay your legal costs.

But as you can see, so much of the legislation is up to interpretation, and judges are usually older and from that different time when SS was pretty standard. It can be hard to get out of that mindset, I think.
 
What if his employment status would change and his income would drop today and her income would go up? Would she be required to pay him SS now that it is after the marriage? Is SS reviewed every June based on both parties incomes previous year? All this just sounds logical...but sometime I forget the lack of logic in these laws.

It could be preceived as intentionally under employment but wouldn't taking a paycut, reducing working hours be a personal choice?
 
If payor is self-employed then date to exchange financial information may be set at a different time. Normally, for regularly employed individuals, financial information is exchanged in June. For example, if you are an employee you will exchange 2012 financials in June (when half the year to which it applies has already elapsed). Income calculation is fact-based and not projected (unless imputed). Reason being is that often temporary downturns in income is temporary. Therefore year end adjustments are made as support is calculated on yearly, not monthly income.

Reducing working hours all you want, all the court is interested in is that income is not reduced as a result of this. That would be willful underemployment. If you start doing that you could have an income imputed and when that happens it generally is much higher than what you earn. Not a nice alley to walk down.
 
Canadaguy said:
What if his employment status would change and his income would drop today and her income would go up? Would she be required to pay him SS now that it is after the marriage? Is SS reviewed every June based on both parties incomes previous year? All this just sounds logical...but sometime I forget the lack of logic in these laws.

It could be preceived as intentionally under employment but wouldn't taking a paycut, reducing working hours be a personal choice?
Click to expand...

Well, never thought of this at all. NOT "intentional underemployment", but I have recent injuries that she probably took into account when she decided to leave. I broke a foot and was off work for three months two years ago , NO pay. This drained my savings.
Last year I injured my achilles. First time I was in a cast for month, then a couple months later I badly injured it, I was off work for two months or more, and ALMOST was denied WCB. I have two bad foot injuries in two years, and my ankle is sore every other day, some times more than not. I have been told I might get denied WCB because of a "chronic condition". It's not a "sore ankle" scenario, it's visible, a huge bump on the rear of my ankle and quite a lot of red inflammation.

I might very well be disabled from time to time in the future, and never thought it would matter.
 
MANY people have tried to reduce their support responsibilities by claiming illness or recurring injury. This is why 3-4 yrs income is generally used to come to "average annual earning" calculations.

I'm not saying your situation isn't legit, what I am saying is that you should be prepared to face a whole whack of medical examinations to corroborate your inability to work (if you are thinking about going down that path). It's been tried by many. This is another reason why once a year recalculation is performed LOOKING BACK over the past. The only way you can predict the future income is to go on disability. That would be a valid change in circumstance that would be considered by the court.
 
arabian said:
MANY people have tried to reduce their support responsibilities by claiming illness or recurring injury. This is why 3-4 yrs income is generally used to come to "average annual earning" calculations.

I'm not saying your situation isn't legit, what I am saying is that you should be prepared to face a whole whack of medical examinations to corroborate your inability to work (if you are thinking about going down that path). It's been tried by many. This is another reason why once a year recalculation is performed LOOKING BACK over the past. The only way you can predict the future income is to go on disability. That would be a valid change in circumstance that would be considered by the court.
Click to expand...

maybe something is missing here, but it wouldn't be "claiming" injury. I've had xrays that shows BROKEN BONES. The back of my heel has been xrayed for WCB and shows calcification spurs. The rear of my heel is very easy to SEE the damage, from across the room. The rear of my heel has a spur and it is a large bump, the rear of my heel is sometimes beet red and inflammed.
Not "try to claim", it's a fairly bad injury. Documented more than needed I'm sure, and the same foot was broken the year before, couldn't work for months, almost cost me my house.
 
I think the idea is not to walk away from a good job just to avoid support. Obviously if you are injured and can't work, there is nothing you can do about that. Any orders for support would have to be recalculated based on your new income.
 
HappyDays said:
I think the idea is not to walk away from a good job just to avoid support. Obviously if you are injured and can't work, there is nothing you can do about that. Any orders for support would have to be recalculated based on your new income.
Click to expand...

LOL
Walk away from a good job"??? How would I live??
I have had two very bad injuries in the last two years, three injuries in total, all to the same foot. I am working full time. I have no interest in "reducing hours worked" in any way shape or form. I have no interest in "walking away from a good job".

Where that kind of stuff comes from, it is beyond me.

Strange replies!!!
 
Yes I know about "bone spurs" - I had a bunion operation that dealt with that. Probably due to all of the years I was on my feet cooking and cleaning.

Cry me a fucking river. If you can claim your foot problem is reason for not to provide support then I can claim my foot problem is reason to receive support.

Give it up. People like you show yourselves up because after you play the pity party you have a remarkable recovery and make more money than you have in the past.

Don't buy it. Carry on
 
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think he is trying to get out of work or support.

Someone else brought it up and he was asking about it... if, like in the past, he rebroke his foot a 4th time and had to be out of work again for a period of time, making less or no money for that period, what would happen to the ss payments. Would they be reduced or stop until he is back to work and earning an income?
 
SS like CS payments, if through FRO/MEP accrue and don't go away. It is calculated annually, not weekly or monthly. I believe the benchmark for having it reduced is no work for 6 months (but don't quote me).

Bone spurs and other painful issues are dealt with by an orthopedic surgeon. In Canada a bunion operation is free - in the US it is upwards of 15k.

Family court is not WCB. If you feel you have a valid "excuse" for not paying support then you file for a change in circumstances. Unless you are sitting in ICU for open heart surgery, don't expect the court to grant you much leway. Court isn't WCB - big difference.

It sounds like the guy is either accident prone or does have a chronic orthopedic problem. Maybe he should get an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon and go from there? Possible change of careers. WCB can help him with that and while he has WCB coverage he should make good use of their resources.

Others on disability can chime in here and perhaps give their insight.
 
I digressed - if he has medical documentation he can apply to have his SS payments "stayed" for a period of time.
 
arabian said:
Yes I know about "bone spurs" - I had a bunion operation that dealt with that. Probably due to all of the years I was on my feet cooking and cleaning.

Cry me a fucking river. If you can claim your foot problem is reason for not to provide support then I can claim my foot problem is reason to receive support.

Give it up. People like you show yourselves up because after you play the pity party you have a remarkable recovery and make more money than you have in the past.

Don't buy it. Carry on
Click to expand...

WOW!!!!!!

Sorry, but I find you incrediby RUDE!!!!!!!!!
I work every day. I never said I did not work. I work through my pain. Every day.
Somebody else commented about not being physically able to work, which is what I have been through twice in the last two years.

Unbelievable.
 
HappyDays said:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think he is trying to get out of work or support.

Someone else brought it up and he was asking about it... if, like in the past, he rebroke his foot a 4th time and had to be out of work again for a period of time, making less or no money for that period, what would happen to the ss payments. Would they be reduced or stop until he is back to work and earning an income?
Click to expand...


Thank you.
Exactly.
 
arabian said:
It sounds like the guy is either accident prone or does have a chronic orthopedic problem. Maybe he should get an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon and go from there? Possible change of careers. WCB can help him with that and while he has WCB coverage he should make good use of their resources.
Click to expand...

Wow. "accident prone"?
Not sure if you hate me for a reason, or...? Wow.

I carry heavy weights at work, almost daily. Repeatedly. I broke my foot. Xrays showed a break. I could not work, almost lost my house. I then had a bad achilles injury, I couldn't walk from my bed to the bathroom with extreme pain.
Someone mentioned it above, I was curious what would happen if I became injured again, because I worry I will be affected in a chronic way at some point. I'm 50 years old. My body is wearing down.

Can't believe the answers here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top