View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2017, 12:38 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough

Originally Posted by Breezer View Post
We've figured out equalization, now I will owe him $289K, based on his share of house and my pension. Now, this week his lawyer advised that he expects a cash payout of the equalization, not a pension rollout. I don't know how they expect me to come up with this in cash. As far as I understand, I will discuss with my lawyer, I can pay him out any way I choose so he won't have a choice but to expect majority from pension rollout.

I absolutely cannot understand how any judge would expect me to pay mid range SS in this case, but that is what they are insisting on.

Any more insight/advice before I meet with my lawyer?
A judge probably would not expect any of that. Your ex's lawyer probably doesn't either.

But it is your ex's lawyer's job to make this sort of demand. The lawyer is supposed to try to get the best deal possible for your ex, and they often do it by scare tactics. The lawyer may be advising your ex privately that it is highly unlikely, if not downright impossible, but they will demand it nonetheless, and never look like they have any doubts.

This can affect the results in one of two main ways:

If you cave in from the bullying during the negotiation stage, they win!

If it goes to court, a judge can usually only award things that they ask for, so they have to ask for the best case scenario for themselves. If you can't come up with solid reasons to oppose it, they win!

So your job, with your lawyer's assistance, is to come up with reasonable rebuttals, backed by documented facts, why their position is unreasonable and yours is not.

It shouldn't be too hard, from the sounds of it. Don't panic, take deep breaths, roll your eyes at their scare tactics, and get to work with your own counter-offer.

In negotiations, it's normal for people to ask for the most outrageous price, and be willing to settle for less, somewhere in between the two extremes. That translates to family law.

I think it's unfortunate, because if one person is reasonable and the other is extreme, then the middle of that still unfairly favours the extreme person.

It's extremely standard for pension administrators to section off spousal divorce payouts into locked-in RRSPs.
Reply With Quote