SS not to be revisited after 3 years of cohab or marriage
- Thread starter abuseddad
- Start date
If you're hoping a judge would dismiss it, why would you consider signing it? Signing something on consent that you expect to have overturned is acting on bad faith and would not be looked on well.
I think it's reasonable to refuse to consent to this clause. Typically agreements state what conditions will trigger a review of SS (the passage of time, marriage or cohabitation with another partner) not what conditions won't.
(However, there may be reasons why in your case SS would outlast your ex's remarriage (for instance, if you've agreed on a finite sum as compensation for earnings she gave up during the marriage. This is what my partner's agreement said - he continued to pay SS even after his ex got remarried, because they had agreed on a finite sum as compensation for her economic disadvantage).
I think it's reasonable to refuse to consent to this clause. Typically agreements state what conditions will trigger a review of SS (the passage of time, marriage or cohabitation with another partner) not what conditions won't.
(However, there may be reasons why in your case SS would outlast your ex's remarriage (for instance, if you've agreed on a finite sum as compensation for earnings she gave up during the marriage. This is what my partner's agreement said - he continued to pay SS even after his ex got remarried, because they had agreed on a finite sum as compensation for her economic disadvantage).
Do you understand that you are dealing with your enemy sombody who doesn't give a crap about fairness, or the truth. Their goal is to get the MAXIMUM possible not get a "fair deal".
She can't put ANYTHING in any agreement unless you are stupid enough to sign it.
If you negotiate any consent agreement you put as many termination clauses as you can and you put an end-date. That is EVEN if you accept her entitlement to spousal support which can ONLY result from her having stayed him with the kids for some time.
If a judge orders something, the orders are "indefinite" which means they can always be renegotiated based on changes. However when you sign a consent you need to be sure to have strong termination / variation language that is as broad as possible
She can't put ANYTHING in any agreement unless you are stupid enough to sign it.
If you negotiate any consent agreement you put as many termination clauses as you can and you put an end-date. That is EVEN if you accept her entitlement to spousal support which can ONLY result from her having stayed him with the kids for some time.
If a judge orders something, the orders are "indefinite" which means they can always be renegotiated based on changes. However when you sign a consent you need to be sure to have strong termination / variation language that is as broad as possible
Why is there even a discussion about SS. If she is was working then and is working now she is self sufficient.
How long was the marriage? How old is she?
What has been presented by them to indicate entitlement to SS?
Just because her lawyer says something does not mean it is true or you have to take it.
Her lawyer is working to get the best for her, which is his job to do. Top that off with the fact that lawyer have no reason to be honest on how they get that done. No obligation to you to be fare and just with the process, nor what they request.
There can still be entitlement to SS even if the recipient spouse is employed. If the spouse can make a case that he or she (yes, men get SS too) made economic sacrifices which hindered his/her career advancement but enhanced the other spouse, SS may be justified. Example: X and Y are married, X gets a promotion that requires moving across the country and Y goes with him even though that means Y gives up Y's own career and takes a lower-skilled job in X's new location. Or X and Y are in school, X drops out to work in order to support Y who enters medical school. Or X and Y have three kids, X's job involves a lot of last-minute travel and overtime so Y turns down travel/overtime at his/her work to take care of the kids when X is gone.
I don't know what the situation is in the OP's case, but the fact that his ex is working doesn't mean there's no SS entitlement. This has to be hammered out by the parties involved. The OP should not sign anything he is not willing to abide by (e.g. agree to SS without termination), and he also shouldn't take the ex's lawyer's word that of course SS is payable.
So the income disparity is what the settlement conference judge looked at. He made recommendations that the ex is entitled to SS for a fixed time period. Based on the settlement conference the exs lawyer is driving to milk as much as possible to the clients best interest
Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my STV100-3 using Tapatalk