Kaley Cuoco and Ryan Sweeting: Marital Troubles?

Inquisitr has reported that although Kaley Cuoco and Ryan Sweeting have
only been married for a few months, there have been a number of reports
indicating trouble in the marriage. Inquisitr further reported that friends
of the couple advised that their dysfunctional marriage is about to crumble
into divorce.

This case gives us the opportunity to address the legal issues that arise
out of a short term marriage, in particular, whether a party may be awarded
spousal support arising out of the breakdown of a short term marriage.

Section 15.3 of the
Divorce Act expressly provides that courts must give priority to orders for child support
before awarding spousal support. Kaley Cuoco and Ryan Sweeting have no
children together, making this provision of the
Divorce Act irrelevant. However, the legislation and case law engrains the principle
that spousal support decisions must take into account the overall economic
circumstances of families at separation, and the availability of resources
to meet these claims.

Section 15.2(4) of the
Divorce Act provides the factors that a court shall take into consideration when making
an order pertaining to spousal support. In particular, it provides that
the court:

[s]hall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances
of each spouse, including

1. 1. the length of time the spouses cohabited;
   2. the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
   3. any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

If either Kaley or Ryan were to make a claim for spousal support upon the
breakdown of their marriage, a court may find it difficult to award spousal
support considering the length of time the parties cohabited (that is
if they commenced cohabitation as of the date of marriage).

Secondly, the objectives of a spousal support order are detailed in section
15.2(6) of the
Divorce Act. This section of the Act provides that the support of a spouse should:

1. 1. recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising
      from the marriage or its breakdown;
   2. apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the
      care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the
      support of any child of the marriage;
   3. relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown
      of the marriage; and
   4. in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each
      spouse within a reasonable period of time.

After a careful consideration of the above-mentioned objectives, Ryan or
Kaley would find it difficult to make a successful claim for spousal support.
Not only was the marriage of a short duration, but there is little room
to make the argument that there were any economic advantages or disadvantages
arising from the marriage or its breakdown, or any economic hardship caused
by the breakdown of the marriage. Further, a court would wish to promote
the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse, and, given the length of
the marriage, may conclude that the parties ought still to be economically
self-sufficient.

In short, if Kaley and Ryan were to separate, either party would find it
difficult to make a successful spousal support claim in an Ontario court.
Short term marriages, i.e. those lasting just a few months, often do not
have the factual basis to support a spousal support claim.