Q: I was married to my husband for over 30 years. He was an old-fashioned man who said that a woman's place is in the home, so he never let me get an outside job. Therefore, I have no Social Security of my own. On the other hand, he was a doctor, and made a very nice living. I'm sure he will be due a comfortable Social Security retirement benefit. About two years ago, he dumped me and married one of his young nurses. At least our divorce decree left me with our house and a little bit of money. I am about to turn 62. He is 66. I am trying to decide if I should file for my share of his Social Security now, or if I should wait until I am older and get a higher rate. My husband won't tell me if he has applied for Social Security and/or how much he is due. So I called the Social Security help line and was told that the law prevented them from telling me what I am due on his Social Security account. How can I make a decision if I don't have all the facts?
A: First I am going to give you a ballpark estimate of what you might be due on Dr. Wonderful's Social Security account. Then I will help you get more precise information from your Social Security office.
Because your ex was a doctor, let's assume he paid the maximum amount into Social Security all his life, meaning he will likely qualify for a very high monthly Social Security benefit. That rate is currently in the $2,600 range. At age 62, you'd be due about a third of that, or around $870 per month. If you wait until you are 66 years old to file, then you would get a 50 percent rate, or $1,300.
But you should be able to get precise figures from the Social Security Administration. You said you tried were told they couldn't share that information with you. I'm afraid you talked to a bit of an overzealous Social Security clerk who is taking the laws about privacy of Social Security records a little too literally.
I recall my first few days as a trainee with SSA many years ago. One of the first things drilled into our heads was that something called "The Privacy Act" prevented us from disclosing any information about anyone's Social Security record to anyone else other than the record holder him or herself.
Almost all Americans agree that the law makes sense. You certainly don't want the government sharing earnings or benefit information from your Social Security files with other people. And "other people" means everyone — including spouses. This isn't much of an issue for most married couples. For example, I know my wife's Social Security benefit and she knows what I am getting. That's because we share that information with each other. And if we weren't that kind of a sharing couple, I would not be able to call SSA to find out what she is getting and she would not be able to call SSA to find out what I am getting.
However, as you are experiencing, this spirit of sharing sometimes goes out the window with a divorce. And if your husband won't tell you anything about his Social Security affairs, where can you get the information you need to decide when to file for your share of his Social Security?
The answer is from a more informed and reliable clerk at your local Social Security office. They will NOT be able to tell you if your husband has applied for Security benefits or how much he is getting (or what he is potentially due). But they can tell you how much you would be eligible for on his account.
In order to get that information, you're going to have to prove to them that you are who you say you are and that you are potentially due divorced wife's benefits on his account. So you will need your own ID, and you will have to show them a marriage certificate and divorce papers. And it will greatly help if you have your ex's Social Security number.
Some readers may have heard rumors that recent changes in the law prevent a divorced woman from getting Social Security benefits on an ex-husband's Social Security record until he has actually filed for benefits himself. But that is not true. A divorced woman can file for Social Security benefits on her ex's account even if he has not actually filed himself. He has to be at least 62 years old and potentially eligible for Social Security benefits, but he does not have to be an actual Social Security beneficiary.
Q: My husband and I divorced after a 20-year marriage when we were in our 40s. At the time, Social Security was the farthest thing from my mind, so I gave away my rights to his Social Security by signing the divorce papers. Now I'm 63 and about to retire and thinking about Social Security. My ex died several years ago. He was married to a woman who is in her 40s. I never remarried. Is there anything I can do to get that Social Security exclusion clause removed from our divorce papers so I might be able to get his Social Security?
A: You don't have to change anything with respect to your divorce papers. If your husband, or his lawyer, included a clause in the divorce decree to the effect that you are not entitled to any of his Social Security (which, by the way, is a fairly common practice), you can laugh all the way to the bank! That is an absolutely worthless legal prank.
Or to put that another way, federal law trumps anything a lawyer might scribble into a divorce decree. And federal law says that if you were married to him for at least 10 years, and are currently unmarried, and meet a few other eligibility requirements, then you are due benefits on his Social Security record.
And you'd have the same options any other widow has. By that I mean you could apply for reduced widow's benefits on his record now and then at 66, switch to 100 percent from your own Social Security retirement account. Or wait until 70 and get 132 percent.
So you should call Social Security at 800-772-1213 and make an appointment to file for divorced widow's benefits.
If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has the answer. Contact him at thomas.margenau@comcast.net. To find out more about Tom Margenau and to read past columns and see features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
View Comments