Social Security Administration and Same-Sex Marriage

There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, some interesting legal developments in the wake of the landmark SCOTUS same-sex marriage decisions from June.  This post details a recent policy adaptation emanating from the Social Security Administration in reaction to the landmark case.

Now known as a "Windsor Same Sex Marriage Claim" in the SSA's Program Operations Manual System, a same-sex couple may apply for social security benefits so long as:

• the applicant couple were married in a state that permits same-sex marriage; and
• the couple is domiciled at the time of the application for benefits in a state recognizing same-sex marriage.

BuzzFeed Politics reporter Chris Geidner characterizes this new policy as the federal government's first significant implementation of the SCOTUS' Windsor decision, striking-down the Defense of Marriage Act and its, er, traditional definition of marriage.  According to Geidner, applicants that were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but are domiciled in a state that does not recognize such marriages at the time they apply for benefits, have their benefit applications placed on hold status.

In limbo with the SSA; that's not where you want to be if you've worked for, and are entitled to benefits.  We here at the Law Blogger agree with Stanford Law Fellow William Baude's take on the issue, for the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

But the [SSA's policy] decision has the unfortunate effect of ensuring that same-sex couples will be married for some federal purposes and not for others. My view is that one of the important attributes of marriage as a legal matter is the way it functions as a cross-cutting and trans-substantive. [sic]  So this is not a good thing. This should be a reminder that Congress really ought to step up and enact a choice of law rule, but I am not holding my breath. [Brackets supplied.]

Baude suggests another class of applicants potentially entitled to benefits; civil unions.  Lots of litigation will go down before the line eventually gets drawn.  And if the federal coffers are not to be depleted, there must be a line somewhere.

Until then, we will be looking for the significant cases to emerge from the federal courts that navigate the tricky intersection of same-sex marriages and social security.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: DOMA,domicile,same-sex marriage,SCOTUS,Social Security,Social Security Administration

Social Security Assistance for Low-Income Former Spouses

Worries about finances typically go hand in hand when one begins the divorce process.  Most couples experience serious financial concerns when looking at maintaining two separate residences with the income that once only supported a single marital household.  

During the divorce process, the “we” becomes “only me” and everything from retirement assets to the kitchen pots and pans are divvied up during the settlement process.  Typically, this means a much leaner financial lifestyle for the spouse that wasn’t the earner, at least for a transitional period.  Financial concerns are especially immediate for those who divorce later in life and who haven’t regularly earned income during the marriage.

However, the Social Security Administration may offer a silver lining to those who earn considerably less than their former spouses.  There is the possibility that a low-earner may be able to collect Social Security benefits based on the higher earnings of their former spouse.  The best part is that doing so does not impact your former spouse’s ability to collect their benefits.

In order to collect benefits based on your ex-spouses earnings, the following eligibility requirements must be met:

• You were married to your former spouse for at least 10 years and you are at least 62 years old.

• You have not remarried.  If you do remarry, you are no longer eligible to receive social security benefits based upon the earnings of a former spouse.

• The amount you would receive based upon your own earnings is less than what you would receive based upon the earnings of your former spouse.

Also, if you have been married several times, and are currently unmarried, you may be able to choose the highest yielding benefit from your ex’s as long as you meet the above-mentioned criteria.  

If your former spouse yet to apply for Social Security benefits, you may still apply and receive divorce spouse benefits as long as you meet the eligibility criteria and you have been divorced from that spouse for at least two years.

While the divorced spouse benefit is not a financial savior for everyone going through the difficult ordeal of divorce, it is important to remember that this benefit exists. Every little bit helps when trying to adjust to a new financial lifestyle.

For more information from the Social Security Administration Website, click here.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,Social Security Administration,spousal benefit,SSA

Frozen Sperm and the Social Security Administration

The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments mid-Month in a very interesting case of first impression involving frozen sperm and Michigan's laws of intestacy.  The certified question before our High Court  is whether frozen sperm equates to "children" under the intestacy statute.

In this case, the procedure is as unusual as the fact pattern.  The case comes to the Supreme Court on a certified question from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.  The case took more than five-years to get to the state court.

The case arose when the Mattisons, a married couple, arranged for Mr. Mattison to bank his frozen sperm in order to preserve it for later impregnation and prior to receiving chemotherapy to treat his cancer.  The couple desired to preserve their ability to have children but were worried that Mr. Mattison's chemotherapy would damage his sperm, complicating their efforts to conceive a child.

After actively preparing his wife to receive his frozen sperm, Mr. Mattison died back in 2001.  Ms. Mattison subsequently was implanted with her deceased husband's frozen sperm, conceived and gave birth to twins.

Ms. Mattison's application on behalf of the twins for survivor benefits was denied by the Social Security Administration.  The SSA took the position that the children did not survive their wage-earner father under the definition of the terms "child" and "survive" in Michigan's probate code; the Estates and Protected Individuals Code.

In listening to oral arguments in the case, it did not appear that the High Court Justices, particularly Justices Robert Young and Stephen Markman, were very receptive to Ms. Mattison's position.  Justice Young exhibited palpable irritation that the certified question, which appears to have no statutory support in EPIC, took so long to make it's way to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Although many other states are considering similar questions, we here at the Law Blogger predict that our Supreme Court will decide in this case that the Mattison twins are not entitled to receive the survivor benefits from their deceased wage-earning father on the basis that they simply did not exist at the time of their father's death.

Toward the end of the very brief oral arguments, one of the Justices asked Ms. Mattison's attorney whether he had considered raising the frozen sperm survivorship issue with the Michigan Legislature.  We agree with Justice Young when, during oral argument, he wondered aloud whether the certification of this particular question was essentially a violation of the constitutional separation of  powers.

Unfortunately for the Mattisons, Courts cannot legislate from the bench.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: frozen sperm,intestacy,intestate,Justice Robert P. Young,Justice Stephen Markman,Michigan Supreme Court,Pamela Mattison,Social Security,Social Security Administration