Can I claim Social Security on my ex-spouse's record?
If your marriage lasted at least ten years and you have not remarried, you may be able to claim a benefit based on your ex-spouse's earnings record. It does not reduce what they receive, it does not affect their current spouse, and they are not notified.
This is one of the very few things in a divorce with a single national answer, because Social Security is federal. Your state has nothing to do with it.
The basic conditions
Broadly, you generally need all of these:
The marriage lasted ten years or more, measured to the day the divorce became final. Not the date you separated, not the date somebody filed, the date the decree enters. This is the one that catches people, and it is a hard line rather than a guideline. Nine years and eight months is not ten years. One thing does bend it: if the two of you divorce and then remarry each other no later than the calendar year after the divorce, the gap is ignored and both marriages count together toward the ten. A longer gap and the count starts over.
You are currently unmarried. Remarrying generally ends the ability to claim on an ex's record, though if the later marriage ends, eligibility can return. There is one exception worth knowing before you decide anything: if the person you marry is already receiving certain benefits of their own, including widow's, widower's, or divorced-spouse benefits, remarrying does not end your claim. Ask Social Security to confirm what the new spouse is receiving before you rely on it.
You are at least 62. Your ex's age only matters if they have not claimed yet. If your ex is already receiving Social Security retirement or disability benefits, their age is irrelevant, so you can claim at 62 on the record of an ex who is 55 and drawing disability. Only when your ex has not claimed anything do they also need to be 62 and eligible on their own record. So before you decide to wait for a younger ex, ask whether they are already drawing something, because back payments reach only six months and every month you wait is gone.
Your own benefit would be lower than what you would receive on their record. You do not collect both; you effectively receive the higher amount.
Your ex generally needs to be entitled to benefits. If you have been divorced at least two years, you can usually claim even if they have not started claiming yet.
If your ex receives Social Security disability rather than retirement, the same divorced-spouse framework applies - and disability benefits raise separate questions about what can be divided and what can be garnished.
Timing changes the number. The most a divorced-spouse benefit can be is half of your ex's full benefit amount, and only if you claim at your own full retirement age. Claim at 62 and the reduction is permanent, it does not go back up later. Waiting past full retirement age also does not grow a spousal benefit the way it grows your own, so the two decisions are worth running separately.
The three fears, all misplaced
It does not reduce their benefit. Not by a cent. Their current spouse is unaffected too. This is the single most common misunderstanding and it causes people to leave money unclaimed out of a sense of fairness that is not required of them.
They are not told. The Social Security Administration does not notify an ex-spouse that a claim has been made on their record, and while your application is still pending it will not disclose it to anyone at all. Once you are actually receiving the benefit, an ex who contacts Social Security and asks can be told your name and the benefit amount. What they can never get from Social Security is your address or any clue to where you live.
They cannot block it. It is not something they consent to, and a court cannot award your ex a share of it, because it is a federal entitlement rather than marital property. That does not stop the two of you from taking an expected benefit into account when dividing everything else.
Where the ten-year rule actually bites
If you are somewhere near the line and a divorce is being timed, this is worth knowing before the date is set. The difference between a marriage of nine years and one of ten can be a benefit for the rest of your life.
That is not a reason to stay in a marriage. It is a reason to ask, if the timing is already flexible, whether it is worth being deliberate about.
The rule bites hardest on couples whose legal marriage date understates the partnership, which is common for same-sex couples who could not marry when they became a couple.
Survivor benefits are different and often larger
If your ex-spouse dies, a divorced surviving spouse may be eligible for a survivor benefit, which is generally worth more than the spousal benefit and follows different rules, including different treatment of remarriage after 60.
There is also a route here that has nothing to do with the ten years. If you are raising your late ex's child, and that child is under 16 or disabled and drawing on their record, you can qualify at any age no matter how short the marriage was. Someone who was married four years and is raising a nine-year-old should still ask.
People routinely miss this, sometimes for years, because nobody tells them.
What to do
Check your own record at ssa.gov, which shows your earnings history and estimates.
Call or visit the Social Security Administration rather than relying on anything you read, including this. They will tell you what you qualify for, and it is free. Take your marriage certificate and divorce decree; they generally want proof of both the marriage and its length.
Do not assume your attorney has covered it. This is federal benefits rather than family law, and it sits just outside what a divorce lawyer is engaged to handle.
Divorce after 50 covers the wider financial picture this sits in, and rebuilding financially covers the rest.
Social Security rules are federal and change, and the details of eligibility, timing, and survivor benefits are more intricate than any summary. The Social Security Administration itself is the authoritative source and it costs nothing to ask them directly.