Does anyone know any details around this area of the law?
I realize the equalization payment can sway from 50/50 if one of the partners has recklessly depleted assets behind the other's back.... but what about a scenario where there are no net assets left at time of separation? i.e. negative net worth:
- Man has recklessly depleted say 100K secretly behind woman's back during 8 year relationship (3 yrs marriage, 5 yrs co-hab).
- Woman now demands divorce and says will hire lawyers to get as much as possible out of Man, whos only asset is a 50K fair value pension to be earned 25 years down the road.
- Out of the $85K of current debt now, only 30k is legally under Man's name. Remainder $55k is under wife's, and wife & parents joint.
- So, say hypothetically the judge says "Man needs to pay woman $55K in restitution for past reckless depletion", or something like that. And, in addition, the Woman has also been awarded $3.5K in monthly support according to the ontario child/alimony calculators. So, the combination of Man's new $55K debt, current debt and sppport payments would force the man to rent a room in a basement eating tuna for the rest of his kids lives, leaving basically no disposable income. Given the $3.5K/month awarded in support to the spouse, Man has no way of paying off his current, or to-be-assigned debt and is likely facing bankruptcy.
Also, as the Man is at fault, even if he doesn't hire a lawyer, I'm assuming all legal fees incurred by Woman could also be assigned to Man... (or at least half)
Does anyone know if there is some sort of stop-loss rule where Man could be spared of assigned equalization debts he can't reasonably pay? I don't think I know how this really works, but I would have thought the support/alimony is done first, and then a whopping penalty would be tacked on in addition for the depletion? It just seems to me there must be some maximum to the amount of future punishment-payments to be made by Man in this case. On the other hand, Woman and her parents would be stuck with $55K in debt under their names that Man could have perhaps otherwise paid off with the recklessly spent funds in the past.
In the end, I'm wondering if judge would look at all facts and ensure every single penny that Man earns for the next twenty years goes to Woman, with no money left for quality of life. Or, is there some grace provided to Man in this case.
And no, Man has no money for a lawyer haha.
I realize the equalization payment can sway from 50/50 if one of the partners has recklessly depleted assets behind the other's back.... but what about a scenario where there are no net assets left at time of separation? i.e. negative net worth:
- Man has recklessly depleted say 100K secretly behind woman's back during 8 year relationship (3 yrs marriage, 5 yrs co-hab).
- Woman now demands divorce and says will hire lawyers to get as much as possible out of Man, whos only asset is a 50K fair value pension to be earned 25 years down the road.
- Out of the $85K of current debt now, only 30k is legally under Man's name. Remainder $55k is under wife's, and wife & parents joint.
- So, say hypothetically the judge says "Man needs to pay woman $55K in restitution for past reckless depletion", or something like that. And, in addition, the Woman has also been awarded $3.5K in monthly support according to the ontario child/alimony calculators. So, the combination of Man's new $55K debt, current debt and sppport payments would force the man to rent a room in a basement eating tuna for the rest of his kids lives, leaving basically no disposable income. Given the $3.5K/month awarded in support to the spouse, Man has no way of paying off his current, or to-be-assigned debt and is likely facing bankruptcy.
Also, as the Man is at fault, even if he doesn't hire a lawyer, I'm assuming all legal fees incurred by Woman could also be assigned to Man... (or at least half)
Does anyone know if there is some sort of stop-loss rule where Man could be spared of assigned equalization debts he can't reasonably pay? I don't think I know how this really works, but I would have thought the support/alimony is done first, and then a whopping penalty would be tacked on in addition for the depletion? It just seems to me there must be some maximum to the amount of future punishment-payments to be made by Man in this case. On the other hand, Woman and her parents would be stuck with $55K in debt under their names that Man could have perhaps otherwise paid off with the recklessly spent funds in the past.
In the end, I'm wondering if judge would look at all facts and ensure every single penny that Man earns for the next twenty years goes to Woman, with no money left for quality of life. Or, is there some grace provided to Man in this case.
And no, Man has no money for a lawyer haha.
Comment