Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
Conrad Black
Brahm D. Siegel

GET UPDATES FROM Brahm D. Siegel
 

Ask a Divorce Lawyer: Am I on the Hook for Alimony?

Posted: 01/23/2012 2:21 pm

When I started writing this column a few short months ago I promised you some reader email. The following query, my first received so far, comes from "Dave," in Ontario:

"My question concerns alimony. I have been married 21 years and even though my wife and I aren't planning to divorce any time soon (hopefully), I would be lying if I said the last few years have been smooth. I'm not concerned about child support as I love my kids and they deserve everything they need. My wife works, but only makes about one-half of my salary and she's already told me she'd go after everything she's entitled to, i.e. pension, property, alimony. I guess what I really want to know is, after everything is divided down the middle, would I still be on the hook to pay her alimony for the length of our marriage, 21 years?"

Dave's question is really about entitlement and duration of spousal support. That's what we call it in Canada. In the United States they call it "alimony."

Let's start with the first part, entitlement.

There are usually two ways a support recipient can establish entitlement: need and compensation. Need is simple. If Dave's wife (let's call her Mary) is simply not able to pay her bills and afford a reasonable lifestyle with her own income, she will have established need. Of course, while these concepts seem simple in general, when you get into specifics things can get complicated and quite nasty. Sometimes a recipient's income is so low or her ability to support herself so weak that it will be easy to conclude need. But in far trickier cases, the payor feels that the recipient needs a lot less than the recipient believes she does, especially once child support has been included. Also, sometimes we see battles over what the payor believes is the recipient's failure to work sufficiently to pay her own way. Generally speaking however, absent cases where the recipient can clearly provide for herself, need will be established.

Just because Mary earns half of what Dave earns does not mean she is entitled. If she earned $200,000 and he $400,000 then I could make a strong case she is not entitled. That's where compensation comes in.

Compensatory support is support designed to, well, compensate a spouse for making financial sacrifices during the marriage which benefited the children and/or other spouse. If Mary was, for example, a brain surgeon who took 10 years off from her career to stay home and raise the children, it would be pretty easy for her to establish that she would be earning far more than $200,000 but for said decision. This would entitle her to spousal support even though she may not need it.

Let's assume Dave earns $100,000 and Mary earns $50,000. Let's also assume that upon a physical separation there are two children and they live primarily with Mary. We need this information because the amount of spousal support Dave will pay is a function, to a great extent, of the child support he must pay first. Only after child support has been calculated can we realistically assess how much spousal support will be payable.

Based on the Child Support Guidelines, which are federally enacted mandatory levels of child support payments based on the gross income of the payor and the number of children involved, Dave will pay Mary basic child support in the sum of $1,416 per month. Mary will not pay tax on this sum nor will Dave be able to deduct it from his income. Also, assuming this information, Mary will, in my view, easily establish entitlement to spousal support based on need. She may also have a compensatory element to her claim but we do not know this based on the information provided.

In order to see how much Dave should pay in spousal support we then turn to something called the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Introduced across Canada in 2005, they are an extremely useful and widely used tool by lawyers and the judges to establish consistent quantum and duration for spousal support claims where entitlement has been accepted or proven. In a future article I will write about the SSAG and how they work in further detail. For now, let's see how they impact on Dave and Mary.

The starting point is that after inputting Dave and Mary's ages, incomes and once again, assuming the children live primarily with Mary, the SSAG will generate three monthly numbers: low, midpoint and upper figures. With Dave and Mary, the numbers are $76, $433, and $794. These numbers are the same across Canada and are based on the assumption that the payments are tax-deductible to Dave and included as income for Mary on her tax return. The closer Dave and Mary live to a big city, the closer to the upper level the amount will be. Further, caselaw in recent years has established that absent exceptional circumstances, a figure within the SSAG will likely be considered reasonable upon first review by a court.

Finally, duration. Again, the SSAG are instructive. Largely but not entirely a function of the length of the marriage, the amount of time a spouse will pay spousal support can range anywhere from half the length of the marriage to "indefinite," which means until some other event triggers a review, termination or variation.

In Dave and Mary's case, based on their 21 years together, the recommended duration is indefinite. This means there is no fixed range for when support should end, which is often very unsatisfying for payor clients. Consequently, if Dave wants a fixed end-date for spousal support he will have to negotiate it with Mary or start a court case and ask a judge at a trial to fix one. Whether a judge will or won't is debatable and depend on various factors, such as when Dave retires or if and when it's reasonable to expect Mary will earn significantly more money in the future.

Dave and Mary, however, can agree to a fixed-length term by increasing the payments up front for a number of years or reducing them for a longer period (called "restructuring"). They can also agree, usually with the assistance of an accountant or valuator, on a one-time lump-sum payment which is not taxable to Mary or tax-deductible to Dave. Once paid and provided Dave's lawyers have prepared appropriate release language in their settlement documentation, Mary will not be entitled to any further spousal support.

So, Dave, in sum, if you separate and live in or near a cosmopolitan center I predict you will have to pay child support of $1,416 per month and spousal support, in an amount between $400 and $800 per month per month, for an indefinite period of time, subject to variation in the event of a material change in circumstances.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:44 AM on 01/23/2012
Uh, does it not matter what state you live in? In Texas, alimony is not even an option if the marriage is less than 10 years old or the requesting spouse is able bodied.
08:26 AM on 01/24/2012
Brahm Siegel is Canadian and this was an article about divorce in Ontario. I was able to settle amibicably but did see Brahm once to ensure that I was getting fair treatment. He is very good, but again this only applies in Canadan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:08 AM on 01/23/2012
There are as many stories as there are marriages. Due to my circumstances, after 8 years or so no longer married, I signed off on any future support. At that time, living in England, doing the university degree that would change my life, presumably, I still believed in a just world and that I would be able to make my own way in life on merit. Now I see I gave the best years of my life, sexually, energy-wise, taking care of home and family, etc, to a controlling, demanding man and our two children. I didn't know that starting out at forty, with little family support or social network, that my chances to go on to a normal, independent life were few. Being alone in this world with no one to vouch for you is not an easy task. Add to that a reluctance to participate in mixed-gender socio-intimate activities, while still growing older, and one can end up with nothing. It leaves me believing that women should go after all they can from their husbands, within reason, as life when they grow older can be difficult in a society that values youth and sexual attractiveness. Spousal support for underemployed spouses is there for good reason, in this society which places so much value on work, as an indicator of one's worth as well as the money it brings in.
09:56 AM on 01/23/2012
WHY GET MARRIED?
11:58 PM on 01/23/2012
Exactly.
Our wonderful legal system has rigged the rules so heavily in favour of the woman that a lot of men, having gone through the ringer once, and , too often, having a parasite stuck to their back for the rest of their lives have not interest in doing it again. Which also explains why there are so many single moms raising kids on their own. But the geniuses in charge can't seem to figure that out...

If you are a young single male, either forgo entirely, or if you have to marry above yourself... marry
rich. Otherwise you could get stuck into a life of servitude/slavery to somebody you probably hate...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
06:07 AM on 01/23/2012
Meanwhile, Dave never gets back the time Mary got to spend with their children while he was slaving away at work.

Is there a way to compensate him for that after she gets half of the money he made while she did get the experience those parental joys?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:09 AM on 01/23/2012
Not just that, Dave's income of 100k is cut to about 75K and Mary's income increases from 50k to 75k. So Mary is able to improve her lifestyle while Dave must maintain the prior lifestyle that he no longer can afford. And my last comment, no one ever takes into consideration if Dave's income drops, he is still on the hook based on the day of the divorce and more than likely COLA adjustments.

The first comment by my attorney after my divorce was "did I want to file for bankruptcy".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:16 AM on 01/23/2012
Think of life in terms of the entire life cycle, Misstake. Adult children may indeed turn towards their father in adulthood, if he is the one with money and a partner to go with that. There must be many former stay-at-home mothers whose adult children are reluctant to be involved with someone who can only be seen as a burden to them. You can't legislate that kind of thing.

Secondly, looking after family and home has never been seen as 'work' or 'slaving away' as you put it. I imagine a lot of men manage to have some fun while on the job - a different mentality, I believe, to women who are at home. It's amazing to me that views on work have not changed at all as time goes on. 'Slaving away': men's freedom to earn a living, rather, and something that feminists fought for. I can see why, after all this, though it's too bad they don't see the idea of equality as involving their poorer sisters.