Divorce Alimony/Child Support Question

[Keebler Elf]

This whole Schwarzenegger thing got me thinking...

If a guy was making $1M a year, is married for 20 years, then gets divorced, I know he has to maintain his wife's lifestyle going forward (or at least until she remarries).

But let's say the same guy increases his income post-divorce to $10M a year. Do his payments increase if he's already supporting his wife at the lifestyle she previously had? i.e., does she benefit from his subsequent increase in income?

I know guys try to hide their income come divorce time but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a guy who goes out and works his ass off post-divorce and starts making a shitload more money than he's ever done before. Can his ex-wife get her claws into that?

 

[rld]

This whole Schwarzenegger thing got me thinking...

If a guy was making $1M a year, is married for 20 years, then gets divorced, I know he has to maintain his wife's lifestyle going forward (or at least until she remarries).

But let's say the same guy increases his income post-divorce to $10M a year. Do his payments increase if he's already supporting his wife at the lifestyle she previously had? i.e., does she benefit from his subsequent increase in income?

I know guys try to hide their income come divorce time but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a guy who goes out and works his ass off post-divorce and starts making a shitload more money than he's ever done before. Can his ex-wife get her claws into that?

If it is just spousal support and in Ontario, the answer is "probably not."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There was a case like this in the paper about 10 or 12 years ago.
A man and wife in Ontario were married for 20 years or so, had no kids, and then they got divorced.

During the marriage the couple were just a couple struggling to make ends meet from month to month and there was little in the way of surplus.

About a year after the divorce the man started a business that was extremely successful right out of the gate and he became worth millions of dollars.
The wife sued in court to get her alimony increased in light of his new found success and the courts ruled against her. They basically said her alimony could only be based on the circumstances as they existed during the marriage; so, her shakedown attempt to get her claws on his new found affluence was unsuccessful.

 

[freedom3]

The wife gets whatever she wants.

 

[mandrill]

If it is just spousal support and in Ontario, the answer is "probably not."

This would be my own off the cuff answer too.

 

[Tony2Tap]

There was a case like this in the paper about 10 or 12 years ago.
A man and wife in Ontario were married for 20 years or so, had no kids, and then they got divorced.

During the marriage the couple were just a couple struggling to make ends meet from month to month and there was little in the way of surplus.

About a year after the divorce the man started a business that was extremely successful right out of the gate and he became worth millions of dollars.
The wife sued in court to get her alimony increased in light of his new found success and the courts ruled against her. They basically said her alimony could only be based on the circumstances as they existed during the marriage; so, her shakedown attempt to get her claws on his new found affluence was unsuccessful.

In this case, all she would really have to do is show he "worked' on the business while they were still married. Did he draw plans up, meet with people, etc.? If the business was 100% started after the divorce she wouldn't be entitled to anything (remember there is always a judge that "interprets" the law), but otherwise, she would have a claim.

 

[Questor]

This is a subject that some people are quite cranky about and I must admit that I don't know much about it. It seems to me that if there are children involved, the man better be prepared to pay some hefty support payments for up to 18 years (if the mother was the primary care giver during the marriage). If one partner's career and income earning potential has been adversely affected by staying at home to care for children, then the partner who didn't stay home should be required to pay additional support. If that is what they call alimony, then it seems fair to me. If men don't like that, then they need to not have kids, or stay at home and become the primary caregiver.

This is an important social and legal issue. I'd be very interested in some concrete examples from the last 5 years that show how family law works in Ontario. But vague complaints about men getting shafted in divorces don't really shed any light on the situation. Details and context count for a lot. Any lawyers around that can comment on divorce, alimony and child support laws?

 

[rld]

In this case, all she would really have to do is show he "worked' on the business while they were still married. Did he draw plans up, meet with people, etc.? If the business was 100% started after the divorce she wouldn't be entitled to anything (remember there is always a judge that "interprets" the law), but otherwise, she would have a claim.

In Ontario that would be a tricky argument to run, and it would deal with division of property, not support.

 

[Cassini]

My understanding is this:
- Support for the kids varies with the father's income, but not quickly. The child support system is almost incapable of coping with parents with fluctuating incomes.
- First born kids have priority. Support payments are not calculated equally for all the children in your life.
- Alimony is calculated at the time of the divorce. However, if she is not working for a certain reasons, it can go forever.
- Make sure the settlement agreement includes provisions for pensions during retirement. Otherwise, she can come after your pension many years later.

Get a divorce before starting a business. Businesses almost never survive a divorce. A few textbook rules makes this outcome a near certainty.

The divorce system makes everyone poor, so be poor. The poor are already close to the ground, they don't have far to fall. You want to be a stay at home dad. Spend all your time with the kids, don't move out, and don't make money. Make her leave.

 

[OnlySex]

The wife gets whatever she wants.

My experience. Basically you are entitled to anything that falls off the moving truck when it pulls out. Any cash left over is swallowed by the parasitic life sucking team of lawyers (yours and hers) who will insure you have just enough life left in you to earn a little more money for the next blood letting.

Remember that guy that never got married and just paid for whores ? You will realize that his whores were actually a better deal.

Luckily, I've overcome all my bitterness and moved on ......

 

[Cassini]

If men don't like that, then they need to not have kids, or stay at home and become the primary caregiver. This is an important social and legal issue.

The problem is this: it is not in the best interests of society for men to stop working. It is not even in the best interests of women for men to stop working. It is also not in society's best interest for people to delay pregnancy and not to have kids. Who will look after the elderly?

The divorce system is loaded with very perverse incentives. It was developed from common law where the victim is always helped by the connected person with the deepest pockets. In practice, this means any close man with money should always be forced to help the victim (kid, mom). The logical consequence of this rules is:
a) no man with money should ever have a close relationship with a single mom, and
b) the mom should stay a victim and not move on with their lives.
While the divorce system aims to help every individual single mother, collectively it promotes single mothers by discouraging father's from being step-dads.

If societies goal is to have more father's in children's lives, the divorce system must to encourage fatherhood with positive financial rewards. The overwhelmingly punitive attitude of the system must come to an end. An atmosphere of encouragement must be adopted.

If the income tax system was ran like the divorce system, people would revolt. The easiest and only way to be thrown in Debtor's prison in modern society, is to be unable to pay support payments because you lost your job, and to give your remaining funds to your kids and not your lawyer!

 

[toguy5252]

Firstly your question assumes that the couple are divorced. Most divorces are resolved by way of a separation agreement which is then incorporated in some way in the judgement granting the divorce. Post divorce changes are dealt with and generally speaking a change in income would not affect the other spouses entitlement to increased support and a properly drawn agreement would specifically negative same. there are always exceptions and typically they would involve a material change inc circumstances, for a example some catastrophic illness or injury to a spouse or child etc. Not really a complicated issue and every lawyer contemplates this when preparing a separation agreement.

 

[avxl1003]

This is a subject that some people are quite cranky about and I must admit that I don't know much about it. It seems to me that if there are children involved, the man better be prepared to pay some hefty support payments for up to 18 years (if the mother was the primary care giver during the marriage). If one partner's career and income earning potential has been adversely affected by staying at home to care for children, then the partner who didn't stay home should be required to pay additional support. If that is what they call alimony, then it seems fair to me. If men don't like that, then they need to not have kids, or stay at home and become the primary caregiver.

This is an important social and legal issue. I'd be very interested in some concrete examples from the last 5 years that show how family law works in Ontario. But vague complaints about men getting shafted in divorces don't really shed any light on the situation. Details and context count for a lot. Any lawyers around that can comment on divorce, alimony and child support laws?

I tend to agree with your about earning potential being adversely affected by staying home. I'd like to think the legal system provides for scenarios like this. I know my sister in law is going through a lot right now. She had kids with her husband at a ridiculously young age, and she stayed home to raise them while her husband worked during the day and went off to university in the evenings (eventually becoming a C.A.). Shortly before making any real money, he finds a new woman and leaves my sister in law. Now she is stuck with the kids, ridiculously low alimony payments, and zero assets to split.

Her ex is now making real money, and living pretty with a new girl.

Maybe some would disagree with me, but in my opinion it was her staying at home with the kids that allowed him to continue his education and therefore start to make some real money.

I, personally, think she should be entitled to more from him, but most lawyers tell her it would be an uphill battle from the start and the legal fees would quickly outweigh any benefit. He's also made it clear to her that he'll fight her tooth and nail over it.

 

[Aardvark154]

Keebler Elf, keep in mind that California along with Arizona, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Idaho, Louisiana, Washington and Wisconsin are community property states (although the difference with "common law" states isn't as great as it once was and in some common law states it is all but none existant). As you can see most are in the West and with the exceptions of Washington and Wisconsin their property allication is based on the Spanish "Ganancial Community System."

However, from what I know about California what RLD, Oagre and Toguy have written would hold true there as well.

 

[Cassini]

Her ex is now making real money, and living pretty with a new girl.

Maybe some would disagree with me, but in my opinion it was her staying at home with the kids that allowed him to continue his education and therefore start to make some real money.

One of the key rules in business is this: don't waste too much time chasing dead beats. You can only make money from people with money willing to pay.

What is to stop your sister in law from finding someone else willing to put her through school?

Answer: The divorce system strongly discourages this.

If every man got an income tax discount for every kid he looked after, rich men would be financially motivated to look after many kids. Life would be so much simpler.

 

[avxl1003]

avxl1003, my experience is that your sister in law has every right to petition the Family Court for access to her ex-husbands income tax returns. In the event she can prove to the court that an increase in child support is needed to better the lives of the children the court will review the situation and award new support based on the child support tables. The tables are posted on the web and are based on income, number of dependants and provice of residence. This assumes of course that their seperation is post 1998 when changes to the taxation of support was implelmented.

I've has my payments raised over the years so I speak from experience.

Remember, this guy went to school to become an accountant, so I'm sure he's more than capable of "creatively" lowering the actual income he reports to the government.

Besides which, that's only child support. I know he's going to petition for custody at some point soon. I don't know if he'll get custody (that'll be another thread I'm sure).

But if he got custody this would leave her with next to nothing. I'm sure some might argue that she'd now have the time to go to school (as she didn't have the kids). But it's still not right. She's in her mid 30s now and only has a high school diploma. He has a 10 year head start afforded him by the sacrifices of his ex-wife.

 

[rld]

Remember, this guy went to school to become an accountant, so I'm sure he's more than capable of "creatively" lowering the actual income he reports to the government.

Besides which, that's only child support. I know he's going to petition for custody at some point soon. I don't know if he'll get custody (that'll be another thread I'm sure).

But if he got custody this would leave her with next to nothing. I'm sure some might argue that she'd now have the time to go to school (as she didn't have the kids). But it's still not right. She's in her mid 30s now and only has a high school diploma. He has a 10 year head start afforded him by the sacrifices of his ex-wife.

IIRC the case law in Ontario is pretty friendly to a spouse who helped support the other spouse through a professional school and then the graduate hits the road...very friendly even.

 

[avxl1003]

IIRC the case law in Ontario is pretty friendly to a spouse who helped support the other spouse through a professional school and then the graduate hits the road...very friendly even.

rld, thanks, It's good to know.

I keep telling her I think it should be cut and dry. But she keeps whining about how he's made it clear that he's going to do everything he can to make it very costly for her to get more from him.

Personally I'm the type to say "screw you, I don't care the cost, you're not going to get away with it". But then again I'm also a little stupid that way.

 

[good to go]

The woman stayed with her husband for 20 years during which time they both had financial struggles. She may not be legally entitled to any of the husbands new found success, but I would think morally the husband should feel that she should be a bit better off as well. Maybe not an increased amount in alimony for her to go and blow, but perhaps an offer of good will in the form of a house, or mortgage payments, or something along those lines that will make her life a little more comfortable.

You have got to be kidding me "good will" there is no such thing as good will when there is a divorce. It is cat vs dog and you cannot imagine the rage associated with such an act.

 

[Keebler Elf]

That's why my original scenario was that the guy was making $1M/year before the divorce. If they were dirt poor before the divorce, it would muddy the waters because I could see the courts saying he has to pay more simply to raise her standard of living to an acceptable level since he now has money.

But if she's used to a $1M/year lifestyle, will the courts increase that if the guy hits the motherload post-divorce? And let's assume he wasn't building the business or something to that effect prior to getting the divorce.