Q. After almost 10 years of marriage, my divorce has been finalized, but unfortunately the marriage ended a few months prior to 10 years. It is my understanding that unless the marriage lasted 10 years, I would not eligible for a spousal benefit from Social Security. My ex did work a sufficient number of years to qualify for a Social Security benefit, so I know that I would eventually have been eligible for a spousal benefit had the marriage lasted 10 years. My question is whether there are any exceptions to the 10-year rule.
A. I asked some Social Security experts I work with whether there are any exceptions to the 10-year minimum for marriage in order to be eligible for spousal and survivor benefits. They were aware of only one exception. The exception is applicable when an individual who was divorced prior to the end of 10 years of marriage is still taking care of a child from the marriage who is under the age of 16, or disabled, and eligible for children’s benefits. In this situation, the 10-year marriage requirement and the age requirements are waived. Under these conditions, the individual who was divorced would be eligible for spousal benefits until the child reaches age 16.
In this case, the letter writer was not eligible for spousal benefits, but I want to inform other individuals whose marriages did not last 10 years prior to divorce, that they may be eligible for spousal benefits if they are caring for a child under age 16. But benefits will stop when the child reaches 16. Bottom line: It is important for a marriage to last 10 years in order to qualify for a spousal benefit, and eventually for a survivor benefit.
Q. I currently receive a pension for work done outside the Social Security system. Although I have worked for several years outside of Social Security, the amount of work I did was not enough to qualify for a Social Security benefit. Accordingly, I never applied for a benefit based on my work history. I also never applied for a spousal benefit because the pension I receive was too high in order to receive one. I knew that two-thirds of my pension benefit exceeded the 50% of my husband’s Social Security benefit. However, when Congress repealed the Government Pension Offset (GPO) last year, which had the effect of removing the two-thirds offset, I knew I was then entitled to a spousal benefit. I did apply for the spousal benefit, and now receive one. I understood that the benefit would be paid retroactively to January 1, 2023. However, I did not receive any retroactive payment. When I questioned a Social Security representative, I was told that because I never applied for a spousal benefit previously, I was not entitled to a retroactive spousal benefit. Why should I be penalized because I understood the previous provisions of GPO, and did not apply for a benefit I was not entitled to?
A. You are correct that under the new SSA regulations, anyone who had not previously requested a spousal benefit prior to the repeal of GPO would not be eligible for retroactive payments. I agree that it does not seem fair. However, that is the way the legislation was written.
If you have a pension from work outside Social Security, and are not receiving a spousal benefit, make sure you apply for a spousal benefit if your spouse is receiving Social Security benefits based on his/her work record. Based on the mail I receive, many individuals who are eligible for spousal benefits for the first time because of the repeal of GPO have nonetheless not applied yet for benefits they are entitled to.
Elliot Raphaelson welcomes your questions and comments at raphelliot@gmail.com.