Long term traditional marriages (one breadwinner) usually result in long term spousal support claims. Recently I was consulted by a spouse on a 20 year marriage where her husband was a high income earner. They had lived what could be described as a lavish lifestyle and she wanted to know what support she would be entitled to going forward. While determining the amount and duration in a consultation would be gazing into crystal ball of sorts, I found myself telling her that no matter what the support figure is going to be, she needed to plan for the future.
I was reminded of a Manitoba court decision of Justice Little in Cleven v. Cleven. A wonderful analysis of this decision was given by Phil Epstein QC over the summer in his newsletter on Family Law. The court in that case was dealing with a payor spouse who was retiring. The couple was in a long-term marriage and the wife had been receiving support for a period of 18 years ($7,500.00 per month). In rendering his decision Justice Little was critical of the wife's spending pattern, failure to foreshadow her ex-husband's retirement and her continued depletion of capital resources. He determined the wife was financially inept. It was a case where she most certainly had contributed to her own financial circumstances.
While lawyers are not financial advisors, we have a positive obligation to advise our clients to get there financial house in order, even in circumstances where long term indefinite support has been ordered. While Ms. Cleven was receiving $90,000 per year she failed to plan ahead for what would happen when that support ended.
Indefinite does not mean forever. Client's ought to be reminded of that and plan accordingly.
I was reminded of a Manitoba court decision of Justice Little in Cleven v. Cleven. A wonderful analysis of this decision was given by Phil Epstein QC over the summer in his newsletter on Family Law. The court in that case was dealing with a payor spouse who was retiring. The couple was in a long-term marriage and the wife had been receiving support for a period of 18 years ($7,500.00 per month). In rendering his decision Justice Little was critical of the wife's spending pattern, failure to foreshadow her ex-husband's retirement and her continued depletion of capital resources. He determined the wife was financially inept. It was a case where she most certainly had contributed to her own financial circumstances.
While lawyers are not financial advisors, we have a positive obligation to advise our clients to get there financial house in order, even in circumstances where long term indefinite support has been ordered. While Ms. Cleven was receiving $90,000 per year she failed to plan ahead for what would happen when that support ended.
Indefinite does not mean forever. Client's ought to be reminded of that and plan accordingly.