Q: I have been married three times. All three of my husbands are dead. I divorced my first husband when I was 38. He died several years ago. I was married to my second husband for 15 years. He died when I was 62, and I am getting divorced widowβs benefits from him. I married my third husband when I was 66, and he died several months ago. I called Social Security to see if I could get benefits from my third husband. The call screener said no without any explanation. When I asked about my first husband, she said that marriage was too long ago so I donβt qualify. I am confused because I have a neighbor who told me she is getting widowβs benefits from both of her ex-husbands. So why canβt I?
A: Iβm afraid your neighbor is either lying to you or she is confused about what she is getting from Social Security. No one can get benefits from two (or more) husbandsβ Social Security accounts β at least, not all at the same time. If you have been married more than once and if you are potentially due spousal benefits from more than one husbandβs Social Security, you donβt get them all. You can only be paid off the record of the husband who has the highest benefit rate.
You said you are getting widowβs benefits from your second husbandβs record. So my hunch is that his Social Security account is the most generous. But I am a little puzzled by what you allege the Social Security representative told you over the phone. There is no law that says a marriage from a long time in the past disqualifies you for Social Security benefits. So if you were married to your first husband for more than 10 years, then you are potentially due divorced widowβs benefits from his Social Security account. But again, only if it would pay a higher rate than what you are currently getting from husband No. 2.
Also, you said you were given no explanation for why you were not due benefits from husband No. 3. Again, if his Social Security benefit is higher than No. 1βs or No. 2βs benefit, then you should get benefits from his record.
I suggest you pay a visit to your local Social Security office where you can sit down with a representative in person. He or she can look up the records of all three of your ex-husbands and show you which husband has the highest Social Security benefit rate. As I said before, my educated guess is that it is husband No. 2. But you deserve a better explanation than the one you got over the phone.
For those readers who are wondering why this woman was getting widowβs benefits from husband No. 2 while she was married to husband No. 3, please read the next question and answer.
Q: I am 72 years old and getting widowβs benefits from my husband of 45 years, who died two years ago. Iβve met a wonderful man, and weβd like to share our remaining years together. But a friend told me that if we get married, I would lose my widowβs benefits. Is this true?
A: It was true about 40 years ago. But not today. Original Social Security rules said that if a woman was married to husband No. 2, she could not get widowβs benefits from husband No. 1βs Social Security account.
But there were just too many news reports about older couples βliving in sinβ because a formal marriage would cause the elderly bride to lose her widowβs benefits. That got members of Congress all embarrassed, and they couldnβt act quickly enough to change the law. That means for about the past four decades or so, the rules have said that if a woman remarries after the age of 60, she can continue to get widowβs benefits from the first husband.
Q: I want you to tell me if this scenario is possible. Letβs say a guy named Henry was married and divorced three times. He was married to all three women for more than 10 years. If I understand Social Security rules correctly, when Henry dies, all three of his ex-wives could get Social Security benefits on his record, right? No wonder the system is going broke!
A: Well, that scenario β three women collecting benefits from one manβs Social Security account β is technically possible, but highly unlikely.
In the real world, one or more of those ex-wives probably would have remarried. And assuming those remarriages took place before they were 60 years old, that means they would no longer be due any of Henryβs Social Security benefits.
Also, in the real world, it is very likely that one or more of Henryβs wives would have worked and earned her own Social Security benefit. And those benefits would be paid first before they could collect anything from poor old Henryβs Social Security record.
In my 40-plus years of working on Social Security cases, I only saw one record where there were three women collecting benefits off of one guyβs Social Security account. In fact, itβs really not all that common to find records with two wives or widows getting benefits from one Social Security account.
I know from experience that people like to pin the blame for Social Security financial woes on suspected abuses of the system. Allegations of overly generous spousal benefits, too lenient disability rules and supposed excess payments to the minor children of retirees are frequent targets. As Iβve explained a hundred times in this column, there really is only one major cause for Social Securityβs long-range shortages: aging baby boomers. There are just so darn many of us. There are about 10,000 old geezers filing for Social Security retirement benefits every day, and thousands more with creaking timeworn bodies signing up for disability benefits.
