Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-16-2014, 07:33 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Links you have no idea of what you are talking about. You forget one little thing - TAXES.

If she accepts a lump sum payment she will likely not get 40% of his income. If she accepts a lump sum payment she will likely get next to nothing in terms of SS. If she is awarded anything over the lump sum she will likely have to wait until he dies to receive it or until he starts to collect his CPP (maintenance enforcement can take 100% of that so he had better start saving).

Um. Yes "they" do let you go without. I don't know what you are reading but you are deluded. Seriously deluded.

Legal fees are paid by each party unless one is so incredibly outrageous and reckless that the court awards costs.

Links your way of thinking ludicrously portrays Janibel as someone looking for handouts. Yes MANY women live in abject poverty after a long-term marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 402
good_mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
These are coming from the opposing lawyer? Or your lawyer?

If it's the opposing lawyer, inform him that you would appreciate receiving these offers in writing, and that you will require at least a week to consider each one. Should he retract an offer by sending a new one before the week is up, you will have to begin again. Heck, make it two weeks due to the holidays.

This will accomplish several things:

You will get the offers in writing which you can review at your leisure, not being phoned up and pressured.

You will have time to think about the ramifications of accepting the offer on the table. If they send in a new offer before your thinking time is up, you know you can just toss the previous one and start over.

I don't know if it's your ex trying deliberately to stress you out so much as it may be him realizing he won't do well in court and being desperate to avoid it. Try to be encouraged instead of stressed! You could come out of this with a good negotiation!

If it's your lawyer, I guess you tell him pretty much the same thing.

What stops you from making an offer of your own? That's always a good idea. If you know that you want the house sold, and SS to be lump sum, make an offer yourself instead of waiting for his side to suggest it.
Above is the best way to handle it....if he is serious about an offer he will fallow rule 18. I would serve OP your last offer again as a reply.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 10:58 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Links you have no idea of what you are talking about. You forget one little thing - TAXES.

If she accepts a lump sum payment she will likely not get 40% of his income. If she accepts a lump sum payment she will likely get next to nothing in terms of SS. If she is awarded anything over the lump sum she will likely have to wait until he dies to receive it or until he starts to collect his CPP (maintenance enforcement can take 100% of that so he had better start saving).
I will provide you caselaw where women receive lump sums and monthly alimony. The things I cite are DIRECTLY from judgements I've read.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Um. Yes "they" do let you go without. I don't know what you are reading but you are deluded. Seriously deluded.
Not if at all possible. If they are going without so is the man but the ratio of income stays the same 40-60 or 45-55 or closer + the man has all the responsibility and the woman has 0 FOREVER.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Legal fees are paid by each party unless one is so incredibly outrageous and reckless that the court awards costs.
Not in Quebec. The discrepancy of income and if there is custody at stake guarantee the payor will also pay a portion of the legal fees except in cases of the mother being a psycho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Links your way of thinking ludicrously portrays Janibel as someone looking for handouts. Yes MANY women live in abject poverty after a long-term marriage.
I'm not passing judgement on Janibel. If you can find me a single woman in any case in any long term marriage who lived significantly worse off than her ex-husband before more than 75% of the duration of their marriage has passed after the end of their marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:47 PM
Janibel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Way up North
Posts: 1,497
Janibel will become famous soon enough
Default

"I will provide you caselaw where women receive lump sums and monthly alimony. The things I cite are DIRECTLY from judgements I've read."

I would be very interested in reading that case law, Links, could you post this for me please?Are these cases you mention from Quebec jurisdiction?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 01:44 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Links I think you are confusing SS with CS. FYI often in cases of long-term marriages there are not children of the marriage.

SS is negotiable - not set in stone like CS. I cannot speak for how things are done in Quebec.


Each and every case deciding SS is different. Some people negotiate a lump sum payout. Other people negotiate a combination lump sum with monthly support. Much depends upon the needs of the recipient and the ability of the payor to pay. Sometimes the SS is ruled to be "indefinite" however that 'indefinite' spousal support can be set at $ 1.00/year.

Yes there are many people who do not fare well and who do not 'divorce well' and often they are left without the resources (mental and financial) to pursue the matter in court. Often they just walk away from it all and collect welfare.

In my case my ex misappropriated company assets (which I had paid for) and for the most part he hides his income. I do not have the financial resources required (private detective) to chase after him. I am but one example of many, many people who have not ended up in a good financial situation after a long-term marriage failed. I am responsible for my legal bill and any other bill I may have since our separation/divorce. This is the reality.

On the up side, however, I will not lead a life of servitude to my ex in his old age. For that reason alone I feel like I am a winner.

Oh and by the way my ex is currently having his lawyer deal with MEP about his arrears while he is off golfing in Scottsdale. He is pleading to MEP that he is financially in dire straights. LOL.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 06:19 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Links I think you are confusing SS with CS. FYI often in cases of long-term marriages there are not children of the marriage.

SS is negotiable - not set in stone like CS. I cannot speak for how things are done in Quebec.
I'm not confused, SS is not set in stone but the guidelies in the rest of Canada are pretty dominant. It IS actually Quebec that doesn't follow the guidelines even then the judges tend to look at over all household incomes and go with the ratios I am talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Each and every case deciding SS is different. Some people negotiate a lump sum payout. Other people negotiate a combination lump sum with monthly support. Much depends upon the needs of the recipient and the ability of the payor to pay. Sometimes the SS is ruled to be "indefinite" however that 'indefinite' spousal support can be set at $ 1.00/year.

Yes there are many people who do not fare well and who do not 'divorce well' and often they are left without the resources (mental and financial) to pursue the matter in court. Often they just walk away from it all and collect welfare.
Negotiating is one one thing - I am talking about people who end up in court. You think welfare will let a woman just get on welfare without making sure she has pursued her ex for every single dime she can get from him CS and SS, are you dreaming?



Quote:
In my case my ex misappropriated company assets (which I had paid for) and for the most part he hides his income. I do not have the financial resources required (private detective) to chase after him. I am but one example of many, many people who have not ended up in a good financial situation after a long-term marriage failed. I am responsible for my legal bill and any other bill I may have since our separation/divorce. This is the reality.

On the up side, however, I will not lead a life of servitude to my ex in his old age. For that reason alone I feel like I am a winner.

Oh and by the way my ex is currently having his lawyer deal with MEP about his arrears while he is off golfing in Scottsdale. He is pleading to MEP that he is financially in dire straights. LOL.
I am not contesting people can be screwed due to actions of the ex what I am saying is that courts will divide the revenues like I said.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 06:20 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
"I will provide you caselaw where women receive lump sums and monthly alimony. The things I cite are DIRECTLY from judgements I've read."

I would be very interested in reading that case law, Links, could you post this for me please?Are these cases you mention from Quebec jurisdiction?
Recherche - JuriBistro UNIK!

Notice the Search Options on The Left

If you don't find any let me know and I will get you some.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 06:39 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

While I am not bilingual, at a glance this seems to merely highlight a few cases and certainly does not show all of the cases where the recipient received little or nothing. Therefore I have no confidence in the source sited as it does not measure up to legitimate research. IMO.

Again, I would emphasize that matters regarding lump sum and ongoing spousal support are decided upon in a case-by-case basis. There are many factors which can and do play out in court decisions.

You'll have to do better than this to convince me.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 07:16 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Links I think you need to realign your way of thinking about marriages in general. To help you think logically you should simply look at marriage as a business partnership between two people.

I know many people who have gone into a business without investing any money. They have invested their unique skills. One friend did just this and the business grew and did very well. He could have taken the safe route and been a highly valued employee and retire on a pension. Instead he is now fabulously wealthy. He took a risk and it paid off for him. He took on partners and grew the business. The partners did not invest any money, rather they invested their time and areas of expertise. Today my friends and his partners are enjoying the fruits of their labour. If he were to decide to sell his business he would have to buy out his partners for a very hefty sum. Marriage is no different. It comes down to mathematics in the end. If, at the end of the marriage, there are no assets remaining but one person continues to earn substantial earnings then the other partner is paid for their contribution to the marriage because they do not have the marketable skills to return to the work force and make the same amount had they not entered into the marriage in the first place. When people go into a marriage and one person contributes their unique skills and the other works outside of the home they are both contributing. Your perception on what is "valuable" work is irrelevant. It is a partnership.

I am getting very weary of your perception that women are lazy and don't contribute to marriage and rake their ex's with spousal support. Thankfully the laws in Canada recognize that people (women in particular) who have been in long term marriages are often financially disadvantaged when they divorce. Women who are in this position often do not have independent finances to pay for lawyers so they can obtain equity. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for disadvantaged women when the marriage fails. There is a moral and legal responsibility of the spouse to support the other person in the marriage.

I recognize that you are very bitter about this but please do not be so quick to pass judgement on others who are going through the devastating situation, such as Janibel is currently going through right now,process of divorce after being married for many years without looking at things fairly and honestly.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2014, 07:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,587
Serene is on a distinguished road
Default

Links is stating a fact. Albeit it's a little backhanded in the way he presented it. But I agree with him: women of long term marriages DO get half the assets and income share with their husband. Another reality is, when they income share, they tend to do better as they are not taxed at the same rate as their former spouse.

Listen: both my hubby and his ex "share" his income. He still pays tax on ALL his income he gets to keep. She pays none.

And she gets the full CCTB (almost another 1K a month).

That's not income "sharing" any more. As the scales are heavy to one side and lighter to the other.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dealing with Stress Jeff Divorce Support 8 11-05-2014 11:04 AM
Child stress Indicators FB_ Parenting Issues 9 02-01-2014 04:22 PM
Ex's Stress Leave has Lowered her Gross Income Teddie Financial Issues 18 04-11-2012 10:04 AM
How do you deal with the stress? inseperationhell Divorce Support 19 09-01-2011 07:40 PM
After all the stress is gone... Enigma General Chat 2 09-17-2009 08:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:30 AM.