My ex has not been present for any of our conferences, just his lawyer and I while he calls in. Our trial is next month and im wondering if he will be physically present. Am I entitled to this info? Will his lawyer have to inform me or alternatively is this info I can request from his lawyer? We havent seen this "man" since 2008. Showing up for the first day of yrial and he being there will be very unsettling.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Respondent presence
Collapse
X
-
I'm not a lawyer but......
He has the right to be physically present. Even if he informs you otherwise, he can change his mind at the last moment. It is a fundamental right of that parties to an action have the right to be present.
The alternative would be to settle out of court and avoid him that way.
-
Im aware its his right. I simply would like to know if he will or will not be there.
Settling would be wonderful. As I do not receive cs or ss nor am I asking for any...I really dont have much to bargain with. Custody was already given to me...he offered to let me have sole custody and he also offered no support. The judge ordered no access.
If anyone else had helpful info as to if I am permitted to know if he will show or not, id be very grateful.
Comment
-
-
:-). Perhaps that poster doesnt, who knows. But let me put it like this...the ex has sent 5 wires since 2010, each wire between 180 and 300. He lives in a country where Canadian law means nothing. He has been claiming to be unemployed. I discovered on August 30, that he is indeed employed as the head of telecom with a top electronic company. So, I look up the number and call him at work. The next day he wires 300 and the month after that he wires 500. Odd?
If the judge orders the house sold, the equity will be gone towards the debt and my child still won't get any financial support from her "father". If his equity is given to me, my child stays in her home, goes to her school with her friends and I continue to pay the debt on my own. Im not exactly sure how anyone with half a brain could consider that ss. But...to each their own.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oink View Post^^^Ahahahah...I knew the SS/entitlement spinesless lazy bones will come back and get you for those comments
I guess post #7 doesn't believe CS is the right of the child then?
Why don't you get out there and save our country again today?Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by takeontheworld View Post:-). Perhaps that poster doesnt, who knows. But let me put it like this...the ex has sent 5 wires since 2010, each wire between 180 and 300. He lives in a country where Canadian law means nothing. He has been claiming to be unemployed. I discovered on August 30, that he is indeed employed as the head of telecom with a top electronic company. So, I look up the number and call him at work. The next day he wires 300 and the month after that he wires 500. Odd?
If the judge orders the house sold, the equity will be gone towards the debt and my child still won't get any financial support from her "father". If his equity is given to me, my child stays in her home, goes to her school with her friends and I continue to pay the debt on my own. Im not exactly sure how anyone with half a brain could consider that ss. But...to each their own.
Many separated families move forward with no cs being paid - I've never counted on cs being paid, have never accepted cs table amounts, and know that I can raise our child on my own financial merits if need be.Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.
Comment
-
For starters...there is quite a bit of caselaw to support equity in lieu of cs. Its not some scheme of mine to milk him for money. As I've already stated, I am raising my child on my own.
If and when the house is sold, have of the equity goes in a trust for her. This has been in my offer to settle that he refused.
However...lets say that I am awarded the house, so I make all the payments, I pay his/joint debt, and provide for my daughter on my own...I do absolutly everything on my own...given the fact that I provided her everything, the equity is to reimburse me. Its exactly the same as if he was sending 1k everymonth into an account. But when it came time for her clothing or soccer I was just taking it from my own account. Then I need to buy myself a...new pair of glasses and I then transfer the money from the cs account into mine...its the same thing.
I realize I have made some enemies on her due to my opinions on ss. But equity in lieu can not be misconstrued as ss. If you would like to think it so to make yourself feel better, knock yourself out. But in no shape or form am I benefiting from the house being awarded to me. If he were an honest man and living in Canada he would be paying high levels of cs every month. To date, he's paid almost nothing.
Comment
-
Are you ever going to have anything intelligent to post, or must we suffer you talking out of your ass forever?
Reminds you of that annoying creep in high school that turned stalker hostile after you rejected his name-dropping stories...lmao.
I realize I have made some enemies on her due to my opinions on ss. But equity in lieu can not be misconstrued as ss. If you would like to think it so to make yourself feel better, knock yourself out. But in no shape or form am I benefiting from the house being awarded to me. If he were an honest man and living in Canada he would be paying high levels of cs every month. To date, he's paid almost nothing.
However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Its, however, meaningless to my set of circumstances. I wish you luck in getting this done so that you can recover some of the funds that are fairly owed to you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by takeontheworld View PostFor starters...there is quite a bit of caselaw to support equity in lieu of cs. Its not some scheme of mine to milk him for money. As I've already stated, I am raising my child on my own.
If and when the house is sold, have of the equity goes in a trust for her. This has been in my offer to settle that he refused.
However...lets say that I am awarded the house, so I make all the payments, I pay his/joint debt, and provide for my daughter on my own...I do absolutly everything on my own...given the fact that I provided her everything, the equity is to reimburse me. Its exactly the same as if he was sending 1k everymonth into an account. But when it came time for her clothing or soccer I was just taking it from my own account. Then I need to buy myself a...new pair of glasses and I then transfer the money from the cs account into mine...its the same thing.
I realize I have made some enemies on her due to my opinions on ss. But equity in lieu can not be misconstrued as ss. If you would like to think it so to make yourself feel better, knock yourself out. But in no shape or form am I benefiting from the house being awarded to me. If he were an honest man and living in Canada he would be paying high levels of cs every month. To date, he's paid almost nothing.
You keep stating you don't want or need CS or ss but in the same breath you cut him down every chance you get for not paying it.
Comment
Comment