Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking moral support and advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      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

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
              It all seems like a recipe for employing lawyers.
              Yup!

              Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
              I will wait to hear H's justification and amount request.
              The nice thing for you is that the longer the wait for this to all get going, the more he proves he doesn't need the SS.

              Comment


              • #22
                Working Woman, your best friend right now should be Canlii. Spend as much time as you can reviewing recent cases similar to yours, and specific to determination and calculation of ss. From the little you have posted, I doubt your ex will be able to prove entitlement - certainly not compensatory. As to non-compensatory, will he suffer economic hardship as a result of the separation, will his standard of living be greatly reduced?

                Try to stick with cases within your province - Ontario ? Frankly I start looking for something on Canlii and then become so engrossed reading cases and searching for further decisions, I can get stuck in there for hours - it's really interesting stuff.

                To get you started, cases discussing ss entitlement and how calculated:


                CanLII - 2013 ONSC 4593 (CanLII)

                CanLII - 2013 ONSC 4593 (CanLII)

                Good luck!
                Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                Comment


                • #23
                  At the risk of highjacking this very useful thread with irrelevant commentary on exes:

                  The whole question of inherited money and its connection to lost parents is indeed very emotional. My ex had a terrible relationship with his parents, and a miserable upbringing - alcoholism, mental illness, domestic violence, etc. But they were wealthy. He felt they "owed" him the inheritance as compensation for all their inadequacies. He believes that he had been wronged by life, and that he derserves some kind of restitution, but nothing will ever be enough.

                  When we separated, he lost his relationship to my parents, who were very good to him, and now he can't even get money from their (future) deaths to compensate him for that loss. (As a side note - my parents are not wealthy at all, and I have a disabled sibling who will inherit most of what there is - so the amount of money involved here will be pretty small).

                  Since we split up, he has tried every trick in the book to get money out of me (I am the higher earner, but only marginally - incomes in 53%/47% ratio - and we have identical jobs for the same employer). There are a couple of threads here about the bizarre Section 7 claims he has tried to make and about his attempts to recalculate CS outside the FCSG guidelines. When all this started, it came as a complete shock - while we were married, he was never grasping or greedy about money like that.

                  I think the same emotional logic is at work here as with his parents - I have wronged him (by leaving), so I should pay and pay. The fact that I will not pay him more than I am legally required to just adds to his feeling that the world has cheated him.

                  I think this is not uncommon - people who have difficulty dealing with emotional loss turn to money, as though the money could somehow make it all better for them.


                  Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    The nice thing for you is that the longer the wait for this to all get going, the more he proves he doesn't need the SS.
                    This!!! I echo this sentiment.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
                      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.
                      if the in laws wanted you to have an inheritance then they would have named you in the will. It is their wishes and in no way should the laws interfere with their wishes. Why should you be compensated for your "loss"? Its not like they were killed in an accident without a will. To compare the feelings of loss a child (who has know the deceased all their lives) vs one who married into the family is beyond belief. The two cannot compare.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by stripes View Post
                        I think the same emotional logic is at work here as with his parents - I have wronged him (by leaving), so I should pay and pay. The fact that I will not pay him more than I am legally required to just adds to his feeling that the world has cheated him.
                        That's the big issue with family law in a nutshell. It all stems around relationship breakdown, and when people feel they are wronged, they want the other party to suffer (ie be punished). There are two ways to punish people. Fine them, or hurt them.

                        So you get exes who want to wring you for every last penny, not because they need the money, but because they want to see the other person lose the money. They will do this even if they don't get any money in the end but it all goes to lawyers. This attitude fuels the divorce industry!

                        Then you get the exes who add controlling, disruptive, harassing behaviour, trying to ruin the other person's life long after the breakup. Parental alienation falls into this category - people who want to punish the ex by 'winning' the children.

                        Lastly, there are the horrible, extreme cases. The ones where people murder their exes, or murder the children to hurt the ex.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          ^^ I just don't get that. I didn't want my ex to pay and pay for his wrongs against me, I just wanted to get away and have as little as possible to do with him. If you allow money stand in for justice, you'll never get any peace because no amount of money will ever make things right - and because there are legions of people who are only too happy perpetuate your quest to get money out of the ex, also known as lawyers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                            if the in laws wanted you to have an inheritance then they would have named you in the will. It is their wishes and in no way should the laws interfere with their wishes. Why should you be compensated for your "loss"? Its not like they were killed in an accident without a will. To compare the feelings of loss a child (who has know the deceased all their lives) vs one who married into the family is beyond belief. The two cannot compare.
                            I think you have misunderstood my sentiments entirely. Try rereading for comprehension. I would far rather have my in laws alive. Frankly we might not be separating if we had had their good influence in our lives. Further I do not begrudge H one single red cent of his inheritance. My beef is the expectation of large SS given he has twice the assets as me. The theory I attempted to articulate in my message is that inheritances change some peoples expectations about emotional loss forever. i.e they expect compensation for subsequent losses.
                            And.... in laws were killed in an accident...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                              Its not like they were killed in an accident without a will.

                              Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
                              And.... in laws were killed in an accident...
                              If we're going to be shitty at someone, perhaps we'll take the time to at least be shitty in context.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Working Woman View Post
                                I think you have misunderstood my sentiments entirely. Try rereading for comprehension. I would far rather have my in laws alive. Frankly we might not be separating if we had had their good influence in our lives. Further I do not begrudge H one single red cent of his inheritance. My beef is the expectation of large SS given he has twice the assets as me. The theory I attempted to articulate in my message is that inheritances change some peoples expectations about emotional loss forever. i.e they expect compensation for subsequent losses.
                                And.... in laws were killed in an accident...
                                my bad sorry

                                what he expects and what he will get are two different things.
                                Last edited by standing on the sidelines; 10-16-2013, 09:20 PM.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X