Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want my deposit back

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by elizabeth1962 View Post
    copper - the point is i do need support. I cannot afford to be on my own. Women do not make as much as men. That is a fact. I have friends that are women that work full time and they tell me they couldnt afford to live on their own. Rent, car expenses, fuel, food. It is to expensive to live in this province.
    OMG that is the most pathetic statement I've ever read. I think this also counts as a colossal FAIL for her parents and teachers.

    Comment


    • #47
      She was greedy, and lucky her ex caved.

      the point is i do need support. I cannot afford to be on my own. Women do not make as much as men. That is a fact.
      Maybe 20 years ago...heck I'll go ya one better...I'll settle at 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010.

      I have friends that are women that work full time and they tell me they couldnt afford to live on their own. Rent, car expenses, fuel, food. It is to expensive to live in this province.
      You don't have children. So...move? and no, you cannot keep the same lifestyle you had with a double income (well, 1 and 1/2 income in your case I guess) after you separate. To expect this is to be selfish, greedy and no offense, stupid in the extreme.

      You certainly can't afford to support yourself on 20 hours a week. Welcome to adulthood.

      Lump Sum spousal offer = retarded move. Yes, let's just GIVE money away. One cannot claim a LUMP SUM on income tax. That of course assumes you are entitled to it AFTER we double your income. (Does that put you above 45% of HIS NDI? If so, then you are SOL) That would be the most fair way to do things, since you work about 50% of the hours you SHOULD be.

      You work 4-5 hours a day, he works full time, so he's obligated to support her because he's bothered to work full time and you haven't?

      Sheesh give me a break. Go find a second job, or get yourself some full time hours there sweetie, then come whine about being "entitled" to spousal.

      Comment


      • #48
        Reply to NB

        Actually, i dont feel i screwed myself at all. It is over and done with and i can move on with my life.

        I also knew that at the time i made the agreement, my financial monthly income was going to go up dramatically, a raise and a stopping of child support.

        She would have had an opportunity to seek way more support than what the guidelines dictated at the time. Our difference in income was 28K and now it is 50K a month due to a promotion i knew was coming and the child support ceasing.

        As for me caving, i was going to have to pay her something, as even the mediator and my lawyer told me. Is it right? NO!! But why fight the inevitable.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by kelly001 View Post
          Actually, i dont feel i screwed myself at all. It is over and done with and i can move on with my life.

          I also knew that at the time i made the agreement, my financial monthly income was going to go up dramatically, a raise and a stopping of child support.

          She would have had an opportunity to seek way more support than what the guidelines dictated at the time. Our difference in income was 28K and now it is 50K a month due to a promotion i knew was coming and the child support ceasing.

          As for me caving, i was going to have to pay her something, as even the mediator and my lawyer told me. Is it right? NO!! But why fight the inevitable.
          as long as you are happy with the outcome that is all that matters.

          Comment


          • #50
            And that is what is wrong with Family Law! Expectation and entitlement to the same life the low earner was enjoying.

            The lower income earner (short, medium, or long term marriage) is told by the law that they should get half of what is and 1/2 of what is to come.

            In some cases, the greed is very evident.

            Comment


            • #51
              When people get married, they make a comittment to share their lives together. The higher income earner makes that comittment and is bound to it. The promise is made for life.

              In some ways, an argument can be made that family law is charitable in that it relieves the higher income of a lifetime committment based on the length of the marriage. And the parties are further allowed to contract out of SS via a marriage contract. So the prudent high income earner has an out if he/she wishes to take it before the marriage.

              When it comes to CS, it is the child's right to enjoy the same standard of living to which it has become accustomed. Yes, it sucks that the theory is eroded in practice by greedy and lazy ex's that see an Easy Street to 15 - 20 years of support for him/her via CS, but what's the alternative?

              And the child, being defenseless and blameless, needs that protection. The alternative is to let the higher income earner walk away from his/her comittment and that is NOT in the best interests of the child.

              No easy answers at all. But in the case of marriage you have an out to SS. In the case of a child you have to pony up until they are an adult. That may mean ponying up for the ex as well so the child is well taken care of.

              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