So here we are revisiting Usher Raymond IV’s (“Usher”) matrimonial
matter. According to Fulton County Superior Court, the couple have finalized
their divorce. Usher and Takeka Foster Raymond have ended their approaching
two year marriage. Many reports speculate that the couple have been living
separate and apart for over a year since the initial filing for divorce.
Usher had initiated a filing for divorce back in June of this year.
Aside from the custody arrangement that is to be determined by the couple,
there are other remaining legal issues the couple need to deal with upon
their marital breakdown.
In order to satisfy the curiosity of many Ontarian minds, let’s take
a look at what would happen had the celebrity couple preceded with a divorce
in Ontario.
Equalization
In very general terms, equalization is the payment owed from one spouse
to the other because one spouse has a greater net worth on the date of
separation. The equalization payment is calculated by taking the net value
of each spouse at the date of separation, less the net value of each spouse’s
property at the date of marriage, and this becomes the net family property
(NFP). The spouse with the higher NFP pays the other spouse one-half the
difference between the two. Hence, this becomes the equalization payment.
The Court is able to vary the equalization payment if it is considered
unconscionable. One of the circumstances that would be considered unconscionable
is when the couple has been together for less than five years which is
the case here. You can find a more detailed explanation of
equalization payments here.
There are certain exclusions within the equalization payment (e.g. inheritances
and damages deriving from personal injury settlements). It is important
to note that equalization is not a physical division of the property.
Another contentious issue when dealing with equalization is the determination
of the separation date. This date needs to be definitive because this
is where assets and liabilities are valued. Hence, this is the reason
that the separation date is also known as the valuation date.
In Usher’s situation, one is only to watch an MTV episode of Cribs
where they view the celebrity’s homes and vehicles, and it is safe
to say that Usher had an assortment of vehicles with an extravagant home.
Based on the fact that Usher is a wealthy celebrity and his wife being
his former stylist, it is likely that he would owe his wife an equalization payment.
Matrimonial Home
The matrimonial home is a special type of property that requires different
treatment upon martial breakdown. If both parties are on title of the
matrimonial home, the net worth of the matrimonial home is equally divided
between the parties. However, if one spouse bought a home before or at
the date of marriage and it is the matrimonial home on the valuation date,
then the owner spouse cannot deduct the marriage date value of the matrimonial
home in the NFP statement. The value of the matrimonial home is included
as a valuation date asset, but without any deduction.
In Usher’s case, the home that the couple and their children lived
in until the date of separation is considered their matrimonial home.
Irrespective of who has title of the matrimonial home, both parties have
equal rights to the possession of the matrimonial home. Basically, Usher
would be precluded from throwing out his wife from the matrimonial home.
This right would continue until the parties are no longer spouses or until
an agreement or court order states otherwise.
Spousal Support
The issue of
spousal support is extremely fact driven. The circumstances, condition, and role of the
spouse within the marriage are all significant factors in determining
a spouse’s entitlement to spousal support. Also, the length of the
marriage and each party’s earning capacity is considered by the Courts.
The purpose of spousal support is to make individuals cognizant of the
implications of entering the martial institution or a relationship with
some permanence. Spousal support is meant to identify and monetarily accommodate
the disadvantages spouses encounter from their marriage or its breakdown.
In determining the duration of spousal support, the Courts consider the
length of the marriage/relationship and the amount of time that would
be required to allow the disadvantaged spouse to overcome the economic
hardship. The termination of spousal support seems appropriate when the
spouse becomes economically self-sufficient as far as reasonably practicable.
In Usher’s case, since his marriage was short lived (they were married
for almost two years), and his wife is young and able to work, it would
be difficult to convince the Court that Usher’s wife needs spousal
support. However, Usher’s wife may claim that she is entitled to spousal
support in order to sustain the standard of living that was present during
the marriage and prior to its breakdown. With this said, the Court takes
a holistic approach, basically they consider all of the above factors
in order to determine entitlement, quantum, and duration of spousal support.
Also, in determining spousal support, the Court uses its discretionary
power. The Court may consider the amount of the equalization payment made
by Usher, and if it is a substantial amount that would not warrant the
need for spousal support, the Court may not grant Usher’s wife spousal support.