Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking moral support and advice

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

  • Seeking moral support and advice

    Hello- Unlike others, I have not been lurking long. Just diving in and hoping to find information and moral support through this struggle.

    Married 25 years ago. One daughter 19. Asked for separation over a year ago and set the wheels in motion, getting house ready for resale, sorting and dividing stuff, requesting H to prepare asset distribution spreadsheet. He has been very slow but progress has been made.

    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. He also chose to switch careers from something high to low paying, then unilaterally decided to retire at 55. I have been working full time every day of my life at work and at home. I am exhausted and want out. Unloading a too big house will help. Ours was never a marriage of equal distribution of labour.

    Bottom line now, that we have read about Ontario family law, is he gets twice the assets I do (b/c of his inheritances) and I have to pay him spousal support to the tune of up to 50% of the differences in our income. So he gets to continue to goof off while having a much larger retirement nest egg and I am doomed to continue to toil to keep him in the manner in which he has become accustomed. This is not right. What possible incentive can he have to go back to work? Will I ever be able to unload the freeloader?

  • #2
    Quit your job, work "under the table."
    Tell everyone you retired and that your boyfriend is now supporting you.

    This seems to work nicely for my ex.

    Comment


    • #3
      It's my understanding he cannot claim the imheritences be excluded unless he kept the money completly seperate from marital assets and finances. Once he put the money into the marital home he lost the ability to have it excluded.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Blink.

        When he put the money into the house it became marital property. He doesn't get extra back because it came from an inheritance.

        He has an obligation, when determining his potential for income, to invest his assets. He should be receiving a reasonable return, and this should be counted as his income.

        If he has $1,300k income, then he should be able to get $52k return. This should be the minimum income he is imputed with.

        If his previous career would pay more, then he should be imputed with that income.

        You do not pay support based on his income of $0. You may not have to pay support at all.

        If you provide us with some additional details we may be able to offer some additional observations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Additional details. I am 55. He is 57. Married 25 years. So rule of 65 applies. He started out making big bucks in IT. Burned out and took lower paying job in charitable/political sector 12 years ago. 15K a year after receiving a very substantial inheritance, plus interest on his investments. I toiled my way to now just this year earning 100k, 20K more than last year and less in years preceeding. He did NOT stay home to raise children. He did not support my career through unpaid work. He chose to change careers because he had inheritance assets. His asset base will be legitimately I believe twice mine upon separation. He has done careful tracking and their are spreadsheets and investment account statements to prove it. Anything else pertinent you need to know that has not occurred to me to provide?

          Comment


          • #6
            We both acknowledge the home asset is shared. Thank God or I would be far worse off. Other inheritance fund is invested and was able to be tracked.

            Comment


            • #7
              Little confused on some things you are saying, so just to clarify,

              -12 years ago he quit a high paying job due to large inheritance?
              -He decided to retire at 55 because he had the means to do so
              -He is investing his assets
              -He has a spreadsheet showing where all the money went?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                Little confused on some things you are saying, so just to clarify,

                -12 years ago he quit a high paying job due to large inheritance?
                -He decided to retire at 55 because he had the means to do so
                -He is investing his assets
                -He has a spreadsheet showing where all the money went?
                I thought she said that he burnt out so he took a lower paying job.

                Comment


                • #9
                  both are true burn out and inheritance coincided and created need and opportunity for career change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                    I thought she said that he burnt out so he took a lower paying job.
                    You're right, sorry...

                    I am going to be honest though, if someone has a high stress job and they spend many hours working and all the sudden come into enough money that allows them to take a lower paying job, I think MANY would jump at that opportunity. I think it has been said before, that no one can be forced to work. It seems he still worked and was investing his money, thus has some sort of income.

                    I am curious to know, who brought up SS and why is he entitled?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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%.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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

                              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