Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 02-03-2011, 09:28 PM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

More info on this is that the spouse benefit is only for the spouse. So my take if I get anything for this I may just return the money to her daughter which I raised like my own child. For the rest of her family I do not think I want to talk to them as I received only threat from them.

Last edited by Max22258; 02-03-2011 at 09:31 PM.
  #12  
Old 02-04-2011, 10:18 AM
KeepSmiling KeepSmiling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dorking
Posts: 347
KeepSmiling is on a distinguished road
Default

I realize now that you are not talking about the CPP death benefit, but the survivor benefit.

But still, do you really think that you are entitled to this?

Why did the Judge include in his order that you were to be considered "spouses" until October of 2011?

Since you never recognized your "married" status before, why do you think you should get any benefit from it now?

Can't have it both ways.
  #13  
Old 02-04-2011, 06:48 PM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

well this benefit is for spouses, and also for common law, since we were so many years together we were recognize common law. When you look at the form itself it says common law. Why did the judge put that in his order was because she was entitled to benefit from my life insurance in case of my death until Oct 2011. I believe he inserted that to show that she could benefit if I died, well it goes both way. Well actually i Doubt that I would be even considered by the government agency but if I was then all common law and separated people would be entitled to a certain amount. This has the potential of being good to the spouses that separate and in case of anyone's death. See I believe that as long you pay support or received it then if one's died you are not left in the cold if you have not gain another relationship at the time.
  #14  
Old 02-04-2011, 07:06 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,403
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

Did the judge also see your income tax where you filed as single and didn't acknowledge your common law status?

It's interesting to see how things change depending on what the benefit is to you.
  #15  
Old 02-04-2011, 07:11 PM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

The income tax is irrelevant, as most people can claim single even in a common law relationship. The fact that 2 people where claiming that they were in a common law for 10 year is enough. The income tax form is only use for divulgation of the revenue 99 pourcent of the time not to determine common law..
  #16  
Old 02-04-2011, 08:30 PM
DunnMom DunnMom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On-Tar-IoOoO
Posts: 294
DunnMom is on a distinguished road
Default

Regardless of what's "legal"or not ... quite frankly it's quite ICKY that YOU would seek compensation from your deceased ex considering their are children involved.

Says a LOT for a persons character.

And I'm quite glad I don't know you IRL.
  #17  
Old 02-04-2011, 10:36 PM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

Not really, it is returning the money where it should have belong. Your money goes to the government when you work all your life for a pension. When you died they cash it in. This way someone gets some back and like I said before it will go to her daughter. These are not my children and they would not be able to claim that anyway. Just like most people you react before reading it all. Besides comments like yours should be thought out before writing it!!!
  #18  
Old 02-04-2011, 10:45 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,403
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

I just find it funny that you want the government to give you the spouse's survivor benefits that she paid into all along while at the same time saying you never acknowledged her as your spouse to the same government to avoid the tax implications. You didn't claim her as your spouse when she was alive but now that she'd dead you feel entitled to claim the benefits of her being your spouse.

Regardless of what you say your intentions for the money are, it's just so hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
  #19  
Old 02-05-2011, 08:22 AM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

Well tax is another mattter as long as you don't owe money. During the whole time we were together I claim my daughter. So in any case we were together for about 10 years. If it was reversed, I would not have mind that she does that as we did live together for that long. There is nothing hypocritical about it, as we never hid that we were together. Take this scenario, a women and man separated and he support her for spousal support. He died, she lose all the support payment and has to fend off on her own. If they would have that wording on the separation, she would be entitled to a survivor pension. I think there should be a limitation of time if a couple separate but in any case if no one else could claim for this I do not see the harm to any one. It is an entitlement that the government give to people that are spouse or considered as spouse. In the eye of the law they do not look at your income tax, it is if you live together for more then 3 years you are considered common law. This is basic stuff. Anyway my intention is to give her daughter the money I am entitled to. I challenge you to prove not to talk but prove that this is not in accordance with the law.
  #20  
Old 02-05-2011, 09:04 AM
KeepSmiling KeepSmiling is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dorking
Posts: 347
KeepSmiling is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max22258 View Post
Not really, it is returning the money where it should have belong. Your money goes to the government when you work all your life for a pension. When you died they cash it in. This way someone gets some back and like I said before it will go to her daughter. These are not my children and they would not be able to claim that anyway. Just like most people you react before reading it all. Besides comments like yours should be thought out before writing it!!!
Ironic how a response that is not in agreement with Max is made without thought!

I think I have come accross this before ... unless you agree with him ... you're wrong.

I still don't agree with Max!
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:40 PM.