Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers handle cases where one spouse wants to increase or decrease an original BC spousal support order. Our Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers are asked what the test is to change an original support order in BC. It can’t be so easy that people come back to vary spousal support monthly or too strict that no relief is possible even when financial injustice will result. Each case is fact specific and a top Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers at MacLean Family Law can explain what your options are in a Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation case.
Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers Explain The Test Used
Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers recognize that you are not going to be happy continuing paying spousal support when then current circumstances are vastly different to the circumstances at the time the Judge made an order. Your former partner might be in a new relationship or may have got a better paid job or you might not be earning as much. All of these questions lead you to ask, “Why should I keep paying so much?”
Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers Explain Impact Of New Relationships
OurVancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers are expertly versed in the intricacies of spousal support obligations. Our Vancouver Material Change Lawyers will strategically guide you through the process of identifying whether your spousal support obligations continue to be appropriate and how the court will take into account various factors when considering an application. This issue has also recently been considered by the BC Court of Appeal in the case of Rozen v Rozen 2016 BCCA 303 and has provided some useful guidance regarding the circumstances in which an application to vary a spousal support order will be granted.
Long Marriages Make It Hard To Terminate Spousal Support
In this case, the parties divorced in 1997 after a 20 year marriage. During the course of the relationship, it was agreed between the parties that, due to the limited financial means, only Mr. Rozen would continue with university while Ms. Rozen would commence working full time. The parties had three children, with Ms. Rozen taking time out of the workforce for periods after each child was born and then working part time while continue to assume primary care of the children. After becoming a qualified accountant, Mr. Rozen pursued a successful and high paying career, achieving partnership with KPMG in 1987. In 1997, the parties entered into a settlement which included an agreed amount of spousal support in the sum of $2,350 per month. The terms of settlement also provided a review of the spousal support in the event that Ms. Rozen’s share of her father’s estate exceeded $200,000. A review took place in 2003 where an order for spousal support was made in the sum of $2,350 per month for an indefinite period of time.
Mr. Rozen continued to make payments for 18 years before bringing a variance application seeking termination of support based on his reduction in income following retirement, the inheritance Ms. Rozen received and Ms. Rozen’s new partner.
At first instance, the Trial Judge dismissed Mr. Rozen’s application and reaffirmed the order for indefinite spousal support. Mr. Rozen subsequently appealed alleging that the Trial Judge had erred by failing to consider the issue of entitlement and whether the compensatory goals of the original spousal support order had been met. Mr. Rozen also alleged that the Trial Judge had failure to properly take account of the substantial inheritance received and Ms. Rozen’s partner.
Material Change Must Be Proved And New Partner’s Don’t Automatically Alter Compensatory Award
The Court of Appeal started by outlining that in accordance with section 17 of the Divorce Act, for a variation application, the court must first be satisfied that there have been a material chance in either spouse’s “condition, means, needs or other circumstances” since the last order. Once the material change threshold is met, the court must then determine what variation is appropriate in light of the change in circumstances. A court “should limit itself to making only the variation justified by that change”. The Court of Appeal went on to clarify that there were three grounds for entitlement to spousal support, namely compensatory, non-compensatory and contractual and that the award of spousal support to Ms. Rozen had been compensatory in nature.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Trial Judge’s finding that Mr. Rozen had sacrificed her educational aspirations in order to support Mr. Rozen’s pursuits of his further education and qualification and as a result had suffered a significant disadvantage. The issue was whether the compensation had now been achieved after 18 years. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Trial Judge’s assessment that given the disadvantage to Ms. Rozen’s careers, she would never be in a position to earn an income that Mr. Rozen earns and did not have the time to build up any substantial pension income and as such, compensation had not yet been achieved. The Court of Appeal also determined that the figure of spousal support was significantly less than what the figure would have been had the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines been in force. As a result, the Trial Judge was correct in determining that compensation would likely require a longer period to achieve.
In relation to the inheritance and Ms. Rozen’s partner, the Court of Appeal found no error made by the Trial Judge in concluding that neither were relevant to the variance of compensatory award. As the spousal support order was compensatory in nature, the Court of Appeal found that a potential new relationship, which arises after the breakdown of the relationship, generally does not redress economic consequences that flow from decisions made during the course of a relationship.
Call Our Vancouver Surrey Spousal Support Variation Lawyers Now at 1-877-602-9900
This case illustrates how long term of an impact decisions made during the course of a relationship can last. Our Vancouver Material Change Lawyers note that this case also highlights that each variation application should be determined on its own facts and not decided solely on a formulaic process. Our skilled team of Vancouver Material Change Lawyers will help you look at every detail of your case to make sure you get the best outcome possible and that, ultimately, you are paying exactly what you should be – no more and no less.
