Ok, I didn't think this applied to me at all at first, but I was blasted at brunch today from a fine group of old divorced/widowed women that I absolutely should do this before Jan 1 because my ex (first ex) whom I was married to for 23 years, turned 66 this year and since we were married that long I could and should file for spousal benefits.

He has been remarried for about 15 years, but they said that did not matter.

Any KU experience? 

Did you remarry?

Have you been married multiple times? Him?

That will impact everything. 

I did remarry for 7 years. divorced him. and I am not presently married to anyone.

He remarried and is still married to that person.

I don't even know why I am interested in this subject. 

I think both parties have to be full retirement age (66+) for this to even work. . . 

I think both parties have to be full retirement age (66+) for this to even work. . .

Unless the laws have changed in the last couple of years, that is not true. 

Since you were married to him for more than 10 years you are legally entitled to a percentage of his social security for the rest of your life.
As for spousal support you are also entitled again because you were married to him for 10 years or more. I would not hesitate to file for both of those. Good luck. 

spousal support I am not interested in. That is probably the case in Texas, but this marriage and divorce took place in North Carolina. 

From AARP. . .

File and Suspend + Claim Now, Claim
More Later Strategy
Who Can Use it?
Working couples who are
close in age and who each qualify for Social
Security benefits on their own record.
At what age can you take advantage?
Both
members of the couple must be at least full
retirement age to use this strategy. It is not
available to workers who claim benefits earlier. 

ToidBoid is correct but retirement age for collecting ss is still at age 62.
From the SS website:
If you are divorced, but your marriage lasted 10 years or longer, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse's record (even if he or she has remarried) if:

You are unmarried;
You are age 62 or older;
Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits and

The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse's work 

If not need it, why after all this time? Just wondering why if never came up before... 

It's also important to note that your ex's wife/wives (if more than 10 years married) are also entitled, therefore, that would lessen your share.

As for spousal support you are also entitled again because you were married to him for 10 years or more.

Is this something that should be handled during the divorce? Can someone legally come back, years/decades later, to ask for this? 

Is this something that should be handled during the divorce?
No - the time of the marriage takes care of it and you are married for at least 10 yrs. (Government stuff!)

Can someone legally come back, years/decades later, to ask for this?
Yes ... again, as long as the marriage lasted 10 yrs. 

If not need it, why after all this time? Just wondering why if never came up before...


I know. But I was attacked. lol

I have heard that you should apply if you don't need it.






+ 

Oh was nothing against you Red! I just found odd how they knew, lol. Been married so long (32 +) I forgot to even think of these issues. 

It's also important to note that your ex's wife/wives (if more than 10 years married) are also entitled, therefore, that would lessen your share.



No, not correct. Whatever the dollar amount you qualify for you get and they will get the same, it is not divided up. Your filing will not lessen anyone else amount and vice-versa. Same amount to each ex or widow, no matter if there is 1 or 10.

Whether you need it or not is not the question. You should get it, you earned it, by being married to your ex for 10 years or more. That is the law. 

From Social Security Site

Retirement Planner: If You Are Divorced
Benefits Planner
Calculators
Retirement
Disability
Survivors
If you are divorced, but your marriage lasted 10 years or longer, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse's record (even if he or she has remarried) if:

You are unmarried;
You are age 62 or older;
Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits and
The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse's work.

Note: Your benefit as a divorced spouse is equal to one-half of your ex-spouse's full retirement amount (or disability benefit) if you start receiving benefits at your full retirement age.
If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your former spouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce or annulment).

If your ex-spouse has not applied for retirement benefits, but can qualify for them, you can receive benefits on his or her record if you have been divorced for at least two years.

If you are eligible for retirement benefits on your own record we will pay that amount first. But if:

the benefit on his or her record is a higher amount, you will get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount (reduced for age).

Note: The benefits do not include any delayed retirement credits your ex-spouse may receive.
you have reached full retirement age and you are eligible for a spouse's benefit and your own retirement benefit, you have a choice.

You can choose to receive only the divorced spouse's benefits now and delay receiving retirement benefits until a later date. If retirement benefits are delayed, a higher benefit may be received at a later date based on the effect of Delayed Retirement Credits.

If you:

continue to work while receiving benefits, the retirement benefit earnings limit still applies. If you are eligible for benefits this year and are still working, you can use our earnings test calculator to see how those earnings would affect your benefit payments.

will also receive a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, such as government or foreign work, your Social Security benefit on your ex-spouse's record may be affected.

Note: The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive.
If you need information about benefits your ex-spouse can receive based on your record, please read Benefits For Your Divorced Spouse.

Note: If your former spouse is deceased and you need information about possible survivors benefits, please read "If You're the Worker's Surviving Divorced Spouse." 

Whatever the dollar amount you qualify for you get and they will get the same, it is not divided up.

That's a fact!

It's also important to note that your ex's wife/wives (if more than 10 years married) are also entitled, therefore, that would lessen your share.
Not true. 

I read several sites (non-government) that stated otherwise, about the share.

Admittedly, I wouldn't know, as I'm no where near that age ;)
But it makes sense...

It did state that if you are remarried, benefits based on your ex-spouse would stop - if you divorce your second spouse, does it automatically go back to the benefits of your first spouse, or now your second? 

Yes ... again, as long as the marriage lasted 10 yrs.

Are you saying someone can come back, years later, to ask for spousal support/alimony? In what state? Texas?

I thought once a divorce was finalized, that was it. How common is it to modify a divorce decree years later? 

No divorce decree needs to be modified. This has to do directly with social security not with your ex spouse. 

does it automatically go back to the benefits of your first spouse, or now your second?

It can be applied to either one - which ever one made the most money.

As long as the marriages lasted 10 yrs. 

of interest...



ROBERT POWELL'S RETIREMENT PORTFOLIO
Millions of Americans just lost a key Social Security strategy
Published: Oct 31, 2015 2:17 p.m. ET


Millions lose out on benefits from popular claiming tactic


By
ROBERT
POWELL
RETIREMENT COLUMNIST

It was good while it lasted. But all good things ? especially those which lawmakers regard as an unintended loophole ? must come to an end.

Congress has agreed to, and the president is expected to sign into law, a bill that 1) averts a government shutdown and 2) shuts down two popular Social Security claiming tactics: the-file-and-suspend and the restricted-application Social Security strategies.

And now, millions of Americans who were planning to use these strategies to boost their household?s lifetime benefits must figure out what to do instead. Here?s what experts had to say:

Business as usual? for a little while
It?s business as usual during the phase-in period, said Elaine Floyd, a certified financial planner and director of retirement and life planning at Horsesmouth, a New York firm that provides financial education to advisers.

Between now and six months after the bill is enacted, file-and-suspend is still in effect, she said. Plus, it will still be possible to file for a spousal benefit based on a spouse?s suspended benefit. And, individuals who will be over 62 as of Dec. 31, 2015 can still plan on filing a restricted application for spousal benefits when they turn FRA over the next four years.

What?s changing? Deemed filing
The first big change is to the ?deemed filing? rule, said Mike Piper, author of Social Security Made Simple: Social Security Retirement Benefits and Related Planning Topics Explained in 100 Pages or Less.

?But this change only affects people who will not yet have attained age 62 by the end of 2015,? he said. Specifically, he said, the new law would make it so that deemed filing applies beyond full retirement age rather than only applying before full retirement age.

This, in effect, kills off the ?restricted application? strategy in which a person files for spousal-benefits-only at full retirement age while allowing their own retirement benefit to continue growing.

?But for people who will be 62 or older at the end of 2015, the restricted-application strategy is still available,? Piper said.

What else is changing?
The second big change deals with suspension of benefits, said Piper. Specifically, it says that, for people who suspend benefits more than 180 days after enactment of the bill, the following things will be true:

There will no longer be the option to retroactively unsuspend benefits (i.e., get a lump sum for benefits that would have been receiving during the period of suspension if you decide to unsuspend).
You will no longer be able to receive benefits on anybody else?s work record while your benefits are suspended.
Nobody else will be able to receive benefits on your work record while your benefits are suspended.
?In other words, the typical file-and-suspend strategy in which Spouse A files for retirement benefits and immediately suspends, to allow Spouse B to file for spousal benefits while Spouse A?s retirement benefit continues growing, is eliminated,? said Piper. ?However, it?s only eliminated for people who have not yet suspended within 180 days of enactment of the bill.?

File and suspend benefit is still an option
The law allowing the voluntary suspension of benefits at FRA, however, hasn?t changed, according to Floyd. ?It will now be used for its original intent: to enable a person who has filed for benefits and later goes back to work or otherwise changes his mind to suspend the benefit and accumulate 8% annual delayed credits to age 70, she said.

Survivor strategies haven?t changed
Deemed filing never did apply to survivor benefits, and it doesn?t now, said Floyd. ?Widows and widowers can still file a restricted application for survivor benefits while their own benefit builds delayed credits,? she said. 

Alimony and SS are separate issues, are they not?

I am specifically asking about the spousal support/alimony. 

Alimony and SS are separate issues, are they not?
Absolutely different. SS in Texas is for spousal "social security benefits".

I am specifically asking about the spousal support/alimony.
Then that is a completely different law which in the state of Texas - there is no alimony and can't speak for spousal support - never heard of it in Texas. 

Why do you feel entitled to that money? You've been divorced for years, you've remarried someone else and divorced him as well.

And he's been remarried to someone else almost as long as he was married to you.

Now you feel you're owed part of his social security because the bitter bitties at church said so?? Good grief!!! 

It is not part of his social security, it is your social security. His benefits do not change and neither would his current wife's. The law says it is your money, no need to feel guilty about it no matter who told you about it. 

Ethically speaking, why would you want to do it? You aren't married to him, you've been remarried since and you don't need the money. So, because you're "entitled" to it, you want to file for it?

How can it not affect his benefits? She's drawing off of his earnings...

When were you married to him? Like 1972 to 1995? So, you've been divorced almost as long as you were married to the man. By God, you have earned that money! :/ 

How can it not affect his benefits? She's drawing off of his earnings...



Not sure how or why but it does not. Check out the social security site if you need more info. 

I don't need that info...I wouldn't go after my ex husband's social security benefits. I don't want anything from him. 

Dorothy Parker --- 10 min ago - quote - hide comments
I don't need that info...I wouldn't go after my ex husband's social security benefits. I don't want anything from him.?


You would not be getting anything from him, he would not even need to know and it would have no effect on him. 

there is no alimony in Texas- 

Interesting.

My special needs sister was taken off of her father's ss benefits because he went back to work and made too much money. She doesn't live with him and he pays nothing toward her support. But, he earned too much for her to receive anything.

It's a jacked up system. 

Our phones were bogged down when the news hit about this, but the potential changes were have been being highlighted regularly since February. It has been a HUGE kuddo for many decades that will be no longer. It was created whereas as we all know woman didn't have a history in the work force like they do today, BUT they (we) lived longer so this was one of an many amenities created. To date ALL literature "government" focus on "woman" claiming, but guess what??? Men can too! :-) Either way, the budget was approved and this as well as other items have been removed. My absolute favorite site that I have as my home page had this listed on Friday, hopefully this can answer some of your questions:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/key-social-security-strategies-hit-by-budget-deal-2015-10-30

We will have a seminar in June, following the 1st 6 months of transition... then of course there's Medicare, BE CERTAIN to shop those rates. We do not work with Medicare or advantage plans but if you need a bouncing board to run some things by someone I can provide a contact. The 2016 Medical "BOOK" is available I would suggest you order it, it is FREE!! It is available to order off the Medicare website.

We have a somewhat large client base of individuals that live various alternative lifestyles; yah need to consider the impact many programs will feel due to the passage of same sex spouses. For many years these individuals paid "in" but their families we never ever to draw from their benefits; my opinion but I think this must of been a driving force in the reduction of benefits. If you think about, millions of couples have been paying in but were never granted the same rights to claims, now they can... SS had millions if not billions paid in that spouses would never be able to claim on. The topic of reduction came up early year knowing the vote would be mid year... hummm, makes yah think, BUT I could be wrong and I accept this. ;-)

I don't see a huge decrease but I bet term insurance policy purchases get a little less "needed" - again only my opinion. You see you purchase the policy until you are basically self insured, older, retired, home paid off, etc. Well for those couples in alternative relationships had to keep renewing these policies even in elder years, why? Because... if one or the other passed any assets left behind were considered a GIFT, so they need term insurance to insure their partner had the monies to pay gift taxes on assets left behind because they were not truly recognized asca legal couple. Less policies sold, they'll probably become more expensive unless your locked in.

I am not licensed, I do not sell or offer products but I work for a firm that does and I listen and READ alot!!! :-)

Good Luck to you. If you have a question ask, I may have an article I can forward to you. 

also, you're entitled to those SS benefits because you worked, too- just not in the market place. it doesn't afftect his benefits, but even if it did, if you stayed home and raised children, you were probably working harder than he was. 

AwesomeTattooedDragon --- 49 min ago - quote - hide comments
also, you're entitled to those SS benefits because you worked, too- just not in the market place. it doesn't afftect his benefits, but even if it did, if you stayed home and raised children, you were probably working harder than he was.?


This^ Definitely no reason to feel guilty about filing, no matter how long ago you divorced. 

Don't you just LOVE the Kingwood "Entitled" attitude? I would bet that the Church Bitties are some of the same people that complain about those less fortunate receiving Welfare.

Just because you are married to someone doesn't make you entitled to ANYTHING. Especially after being divorced for so long... 

you couldn't be more wrong- this is a community property state- there's no alimony- a stay at home mother gets child support if her children are young , but after 18, she gets nothing. She's probably been out of the work scene because she stayed at home and took care of everything there- after her dh came home, she was still on the job- she was an unpaid worker- she deserves the same retirement he gets- 

btw, I'm not a "church bittie" and I've only lived in Kingwood for a decade- I worked all my life, so this doesn't even pertain to me- 

The government sets the rules. . . she's entitled under the rules that they set.