Actor James Caan feels he is being forced to take on undesirable roles
in order to support the spending of his former spouse, Linda Stokes. Caan
and Stokes were married from 1995 to 2009 and they have 2 children (ages
17 and 20) for whom Caan pays
child support in the amount of approximately $13,000.00 per month. Caan also pays
spousal support to maintain the standard of living the couple enjoyed during their marriage.
The 75-year-old actor has building his career over 50 years, starring in
films such as Rollerball (1975), Dick Tracy (1990), For The Boys (1991),
Honeymoon In Vegas (1992), Elf (2003), and The Outsider (2014). Now, instead
of slowing down and thinking about retirement, Caan has had to continue
taking any work that comes his way just to keep up with the bills. Caan
has even had to accept roles he believes could damage his reputation simply
because Stokes is spending all of Caan’s savings. Although Caan is
75 years old and has recently had some minor difficulty with his health,
Stokes’s pattern of overspending has made clear the fact that she
has no plans of allowing him to retire.
Caan is now taking a stand and he has stated that he will not continue
to work in movies or shows that may tarnish his reputation. In doing so,
he will be voluntarily decreasing his income and thus potentially opening
the door for argument that his support obligations should change to reflect
his lower income. The legal issue that Caan’s decision will undoubtedly
raise is the question of whether he is free to make such a change in income
or if his support obligations require him to maintain his previous level
of income.
Many support payors and recipients in Ontario, Canada, have raised a similar
question in the context of voluntary retirement. As income is very important
in determining the quantum of child support and spousal support, the amount
of support that a support payor must pay may decrease if his or her income
is lower. In order to prevent support payors from dodging their support
obligations by opting to earn less, Ontario family law requires that support
payors not be intentionally underemployed or unemployed.
When a party has chosen to reduce his or her income without a compelling
reason for doing same, Ontario courts have held that said party’s
income may be imputed for the purposes of calculating support obligations.
This generally means that if work is available and the party is physically
able to work without risk to his or her health, he or she must continue
working. This creates a dilemma for support payors like Caan, who have
reached retirement age but are still able to work. Although older support
payors may wish to transition into retirement or semi-retirement, they
may be financially unable to do so unless they can reduce their support
obligations as they cannot afford to continue paying the same amount of
support once their income is reduced.
Trends in Ontario jurisprudence suggest that the difficulty in obtaining
a reduction in support based on retirement increases with the number of
years of marriage and decreases over time and as the payor ages. This
is because a support payor seeking to reduce support will have to establish
that his or her reduced income is a “material change in circumstances”
that can warrant a reduction in support. Further, where retirement is
deemed voluntary, courts have held same is not a material change that
could warrant a reduction in support.
Ontario courts have held retirement to be voluntary and not a material
change warranting reduced support obligations in the following circumstances:
-
When the retiree was not obligated to retire and was physically able to earn a
significant income; -
When the retiree failed to provide adequate medical or vocational evidence to
establish inability to work or inability of the employer to provide accommodations
for health concerns; - When a spouse retired or planned to retire for “lifestyle reasons”
or due to stress in the workplace; and - When a spouse failed to pursue post-retirement income though able to do so.
In the case of Caan, a court may be sympathetic to the fact that he is
75 years old and there may be fewer blockbuster hits readily available
to him, however, the desirability of available work is not a consideration.
This may justify taking roles that pay less than the old hits he used
to star in, however, a court may not be inclined to reduce support on
the basis that income is lower due to a choice to refuse work the payor
does not want to do. A court may, however, consider potential health implications
of continuing to take on the same volume of work.