Why on earth would I take him out for coffee to discuss it? Because our society has gotten entirely too "sue-happy" and it sickens me when everyone seems to think that thier first course of action needs to be taking legal action. I understand, you are not advising me to contact a lawyer, but by the tone of your response, you seem to imply that I should want to squash him like a bug. (Okay, while I might fantasize about that, it's certainly not a very grown-up response!) I should mention that since we moved out, aside from the security deposit thing, he's made efforts at continuing to be friendly with us-- always waves, always says hello, etc. Over the summer, he even tried to give us an electric hedge trimmer that I'm sure he got free somewhere (our properties are separated by a hedgerow-- and yes, my husband is meticulous in maintaining it, by hand). So it's not like he's going out of his way to avoid us. I would like to maintain that degree of civility if at all possible. Confronting him directly and in person, as far as I can see, is the most straightforward, honest, non-cowardly way to go about it. And since I want to do it on neutral ground (neither his house nor ours) and in a public place (lessen any potential for a scene), the local diner for coffee seems to make sense. I have documentation on our state landlord-tenant laws that I intend to bring with me. If he can look at that and still refuse to return the money, then small-claims court would be a possibility.

First of all, let me confirm something. Are you actually seeking SSI (Supplemental Security Income)? It is designed to help elderly, blind, and/or disabled people, who have little or no income. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. OR are you actually referring to SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance)? This is benefits paid to you and certain members of your family if you are "insured," meaning that you worked long enough and paid Social Security taxes. SSDI is NOT based on income like SSI. Knowing which one you are seeking will help a lot. As is mentioned above, it is very helpful to seek out the help of an attorney who specializes in this matter, especially if you have been working on this for a number of years. Most attorneys do not charge anything upfront to help. Their pay is usually a percentage of the back pay you will get IF you are successful in getting approved. If you are never successful, then they do not get paid. Make sure you confirm the charges upfront and get it in writing. Below is a link to a message board site that is very helpful when dealing with SSI and SSDI. You can get a lot of your questions answered there. Good luck! Here is a link that might be useful: EXPERT LAW FORUM - SSDI & SSI

That's exactly what I thought, kudzu. You refuse to accept the math simply because you don't trust the government. That's fine if it makes you feel good because, you think, you've managed to outsmart those sneaky old federal bureaucrats. I sincerely hope you're enjoying your retirement and the SS checks you've been receiving for these past years . What bothers me is that you're misleading others with bad advice about something that's very important for their futures. For example, you claim that the math is so complicated that neither you nor I can figure it out and that the breakeven point may somehow really be later than 78 because of "the time value of money" -- the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar some years down the road. That's certainly true but a deferred SS benefit grows at the guaranteed rate of 7% interest each year for four years -- the rate is 8% for those who hold off four more years until they're 70 -- PLUS whatever rate the COLA is for that year. COLAS have averaged 2.5% for the last 10 years, BTW. Since the deferred benefits is larger each year, the COLA on the growing benefit will also be larger than the COLA for the static early benefit. Considering that, the real breakeven point is probably somewhat less than 78 years not more. The real truth is that the government knows that, no matter what it tells people about waiting to take SS, most (about two-thirds) will take it as soon as they can. Many of them have no choice because they truly need the money. Others may have serious medical problems that are likely to shorten their lives. But many just can't wait to finally get something back from SS after paying in for so many years. Or they're afraid SS will run out of money. Or, like you, they refuse to believe that the government's advice to wait could possibly be true. Of course, each one of the 66% who start taking at 62 costs the government less in lifetime benefits than any and all of those who hold off. The relatively few who hold off until 66 will cost it more and the even fewer (like me) who hold off until 70 will cost it the most. That's why the breakeven point can be set at a lower age than actual life expectancy. The majority who take early collectively create a large enough surplus to fund those of us who hold off taking until later. So I thank you for the contribution, however tiny, you will likely make to help fund the later stages of my retirement.

It doesn't matter if it's your first, second or fifth marriage, you have to look out for yourself because nobody else is. A second wife should not depend on a guy anymore than a first wife should. I agree that it's fair to be compensated when you put your career on hold to have children and take care of the family, but it's not fair to think you will walk away from the marriage with a better financial position than the person that is the higher wage earner. It's not fair but life's not fair. If it were, men would be giving birth, not us. Your advice KKNY to not get involved with a man with children and not expect him to provide financial and other support is good advice. I wouldn't date a guy that didn't see or support his children. I also wouldn't date a guy that talked bad about his ex. But, the flip side to that argument is that when you get divorced, you have to accept that when he gets remarried, he legally obligates himself to his spouse and possibly more children. His obligation to his first family don't go away and they shouldn't suffer because he remarries, but if he is able to support the new family by increasing his income, then it doesn't impact his first family. The problem is that when the ex wife sees his income go up (or the added income of his new spouse), then she wants her share to go up too. If his income goes up and he doesn't have more mouths to feed, then maybe it would be fair to give more to the first family. MAYBE. It also depends on the ex wife's financial situation. I agree with Ashley that an ex wife can't sit on her duff demanding increases because he's working his butt off to make more. She's not married to him, she needs to do for herself... how pathetic is that? My husband's ex has gotten spousal support for 12 years on a marriage that lasted only one year. (Well, she hasn't finalized the divorce, probably because the court may stop her spousal support) She will continue to get it until he takes her back to court to stop it. My guess is that he is afraid they will increase his child support and reduce the spousal support (which is tax deductible for him) and so he lets it go.