Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Introductions

Introductions If you're new to the forums, drop by and introduce yourself.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2013, 11:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post

I am curious to know, who brought up SS and why is he entitled?
I'm wondering the same thing. From the information provided, it doesn't sound like he has any grounds for expecting it - i.e. he didn't sacrifice his own economic potential to advance your career (in which case he might be entitled to request SS as compensation); and he's not being left in dire financial straits because he can't support himself outside the marriage (in which case he might be able to request SS based on need).

He's not entitled to spousal support just because you currently earn more than he does - the onus is on him to prove that he has a legitimate claim. "Rule of 65" refers to the duration of spousal support, not the legitimacy of it. This "rule" means nothing if there are no grounds for claiming it in the first place.

It sounds like he's getting off with a pretty sweet financial deal - he doesn't need any more of your money.

Concerning the inheritance - as I understand it, this is only exempt if the money never "mixed" with any of your own money or your joint money as a couple. My experience: my ex received significant inheritance several years before we split. Part of this was invested into repairs to the marital home, and thus became absorbed into our joint assets. He wasn't able to get that money back. The rest of his inheritance was invested in GICs. Even though these were held in both names, because all the money in them came from his inheritance, they were considered exempt from the equalization, and he kept all of them.

(Because my ex is a real prince of a human being, he tried to argue that he should get a greater than 50% share of our joint assets because my parents are still alive, and so anything I inherit from them when they pass away will be mine alone (unlike his inheritance from his parents, which was partially shared with me by being absorbed into the cost of the marital home), and it was not fair to him that my parents were still alive. This did not fly).
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 12:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 274
mememe is on a distinguished road
Default

Are there any court cases to support the notion that money invested and not used for the house etc. can be exempted. My understanding is is that the most you can retrieve back is 50% of your spouses half of the inheritance.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 07:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mememe View Post
Are there any court cases to support the notion that money invested and not used for the house etc. can be exempted. My understanding is is that the most you can retrieve back is 50% of your spouses half of the inheritance.
A lot of things have little or no case law because the legislation is clear and no one has been stupid enough to take it to court.

I have no idea what you mean by 50%.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:10 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Working Woman is on a distinguished road
Default

H asked/demanded SS and claims entitlement is due current disparity in income, which from my reading MAY be enough to justify it. I have taken advice from a response to my other question about custodial payor - 19 year old student . Someone said "don't assume SS entitlement" and "ask him to justify it." I have asked H to do just that in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:29 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Working Woman View Post
My brilliant, but borderline Asberger's H received multiple inheritances over the course of our marriage some of which was used to buy and renovate our home.
I would caution you on bringing attention to any mental health related issue you may "believe" your "brilliant" ex-partner may have before the court. Unless you have factual evidence that the other person indeed has been properly diagnosed it is of very little value of you to make these kinds of potentially discriminatory remarks about mental health.

Some clarity please:

1. Is the person you are alleging is "brilliant" truly diagnosed on the autistic spectrum or is this an "ass-upmption" you are making? If it is what cogent and relevant evidence (e.g. medical diagnosis) can you produce to a court in support of such a statement? Finally, to this question what *relevance* does a diagnosis of this kind bring to the argument other than to inflame it and create conflict?

2. By using the term "borderline" are you discussing the Axis II disorder of the personality (Borderline Personality Disorder) or that the diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder is on the "borderline" of being a diagnosis.

Feel free to wax poetic about how you "feel" about the other person in your dispute on this forum but, be very mindful of the sensitivities that others, and especially justices, have about throwing around terminology like this in affidavits and other written correspondence.

Unless there are children/adults in immediate danger and a medical professional is willing to testify or willing to "form" the person in question trying to present 'evidence' of any mental health concern is useless.

Everyone these days showing up at the court house filing documents are all claiming that the other parent / their partner is some how emotionally disturbed.

Hearsay is just that and often only demonstrates how much either party dislikes each other generally. My recommendation it is best avoided.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:32 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Working Woman is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
I

(Because my ex is a real prince of a human being, he tried to argue that he should get a greater than 50% share of our joint assets because my parents are still alive,.
Interesting Stripes that you should say this. I think people who lose close family early in life and inherit money as a result are profoundly changed by it all. They can and often do acquire an elevated sense of "entitlement". I think that is why my H is also asking for SS. There was profound grief in losing his parents which then resulted in inherited monies. There is grief in losing me. He wants money....

The problem with this understandable emotional reaction, is that no amount of money in the world can really fill the void of lost loved ones. And the laws surrounding inheritance do not acknowledge the grief a son or daughter in law feels about the sudden loss of his or her in laws or the impact of that loss on their spouse. I loved them too and miss them deeply but there is no direct financial compensation for my loss save the enjoyment I gained from the nicer home he bought with some of the proceeds of his inheritance. But I do not have an expectation of financial compensation for emotional loss either.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:35 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Working Woman View Post
H asked/demanded SS and claims entitlement is due current disparity in income, which from my reading MAY be enough to justify it. I have taken advice from a response to my other question about custodial payor - 19 year old student . Someone said "don't assume SS entitlement" and "ask him to justify it." I have asked H to do just that in writing.
Spousal support is often awarded because of differences in income. The SS guidelines are not legislation. They do include a statement that just because someone makes more they are not entitled to SS. But, as they are not legislated they are just recommendations a justice is free to ignore and some times do.

Quote:
On its own, a mere disparity of income that would generate an amount under the Advisory Guidelines formulas, does not automatically lead to entitlement. There must be a finding (or an agreement) on entitlement, on a compensatory or non-compensatory basis, before the formulas and the rest of the Guidelines are applied.

Page 3.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/s...g_a1-gu_a1.pdf

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:44 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Working Woman is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you for your cogent reply and candid warnings !! Very well put.
I did write a cranky note with provocative and highly speculative language and I really appreciate you pointing out how unhelpful that would be in any other context.
My "borderline Asberger's" is just me mouthing off. There is no diagnosis. He is just a very brilliant geeky guy with enormous powers of concentration who does not like to be social but prefers to be a hermit and work alone.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 10:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

I posted two backwards case law references in another thread last week that could serve to emphasize that point. Sometimes being deprived of your partners income is enough grounds for support, and sometimes it is not.

The overarching theme is to note that Judges can be unpredictable and going to court is always rolling the dice to some degree.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 10-15-2013, 08:40 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Working Woman is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks for the case law references and the quotes from SSAG which point exactly to the exasperating ambiguity surrounding entitlement. It all seems like a recipe for employing lawyers. I will wait to hear H's justification and amount request.
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
Spousal/Child Support advice northbaydad72 Divorce & Family Law 8 11-03-2010 02:32 AM
press release: Ontario's Family Responsibility office Peggy Parenting Issues 8 10-22-2010 10:20 AM
child and spousal support Catherine M Financial Issues 9 02-26-2007 05:32 PM
Does this sound right to you? jlalex Divorce & Family Law 6 05-18-2006 11:42 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 PM.