Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

breaking a prenup

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by hadenough View Post
    Walshch: you are dreaming. They rarely hold up and circumstances change, esp over the course of many years. ILA is definitely mandatory in any contract. What's shocking: is the few posters who think its okay to have someone pull the "rug" out from under someone else and leave them high and dry. Pure Greed. It's a real shame to see what some people put their partners through. A lot of the nastiness ought to be a crime actually. But hey, this is Canada. Land of lax laws.

    I am positive that someone in their 40's knows what a prenup is. For god sakes quit saying she had the rug pulled from her. Like billm said, she had the entire marriage to review it and more importantly she had a year after it was signed to seek legal council.

    I can see that the husband cheating on her has somehow affected your opinion and magically given you a clear vision of their almost 20 year marriage because you mention "It's a real shame to see what some people put their partners through". How do you know if he treated her badly?

    Comment


    • #32
      Cashcow; I was generalizing with regards to my comment about it being a shame what some people put their partner's and former partners through. As for she "had her whole marriage to review the pre-nup" - WHAT?! Is that what you think people DO over the course of their marriage? Review documents from 2 decades ago? Whatever...and for the record: I took into NO account that her husband had cheated on her. It's more surprising these days when infidelity doesn't factor in. The Courts really don't care about that anymore anyway. It's practically a given in this day and age. I don't know, nor do I claim to know how "badly" (or not) she was "treated" - so that point you made is invalid. Btw: my ex also claims to be a "cash cow" but what he really is, is a parasite. Maybe there are some "real" cash-cows out there, afterall. Hmmmm.

      Comment


      • #33
        Hello hadenough....

        Just curious, as to who is the cashcow vs parasite. Do YOU pay your ex or do they pay YOU ? I think that should define who is who don't you think lol ?

        Comment


        • #34
          Well let me satisfy your curiosity then: HE has recently been ordered to pay CS and SS after 3 years in court, and Trial (a few months back). I have nor rec'd a single dime as of yet: and have been shoveling out from under HIS debts, after he fraudulently declared bankruptcy. The debt load; in excess of $150,000. So yes; he is the Payor (at least on paper) and YES, he: that drives lixury cars, travels, etc is the Parasite. I hope that this brief explanation has painted a pretty clear picture "lol"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by cashcow4ex View Post
            I am positive that someone in their 40's knows what a prenup is. For god sakes quit saying she had the rug pulled from her. Like billm said, she had the entire marriage to review it and more importantly she had a year after it was signed to seek legal council.

            I can see that the husband cheating on her has somehow affected your opinion and magically given you a clear vision of their almost 20 year marriage because you mention "It's a real shame to see what some people put their partners through". How do you know if he treated her badly?
            It doesnt really matter whose rug was pulled.

            Without ILA, the prenup is open for argument, and the OP has a great case for it to be considered void.
            Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

            Comment


            • #36
              Agree

              Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
              Without ILA, the prenup is open for argument, and the OP has a great case for it to be considered void.
              I agree with this.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by BeenThereTwice View Post
                I agree with this.
                so the clause that she did not want ILA doesnt stand up at all??

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                  so the clause that she did not want ILA doesnt stand up at all??
                  No. The average joe can't waive ILA.
                  Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                    No. The average joe can't waive ILA.
                    so basically as long as i put that I waive ILA in a contact I can get out of it when it no longer suits me?? Nice to know.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      No.. I believe the judge WOULD give weight to the fact that she waived ILA in the first place. However, the judge would then look at the pre-nup itself to see if the part of the pre-nup being contested is "fair" to both parties or not. If it's "unconscionable" (patently unfair), tehn I think there would be grounds to overturn it. It's like ALL domestic contracts, both pre0nup and otherwise. If they are too one sided, they can get overturned. Not saying it's easy to get it overturned. Only that there is abundant case law to demonstrate that a domestic contract CAN be overturned, and that ABSENCE OF ILA is one of the factors involved.

                      To me it seems like a civil contract. Imagine that I BOUGHT a $10,000 car from you, and paid you $0 (and nothing else), and we wrote up a contract to support the sale, and you transferred the car to me. Later.. you take me to court claiming that I coerced you into this totally unfair contract. Clearly the judge would read the contract and SEE how unfair it is to you. The very unfairness of it would suggest that I took advantage of you, and would tend to support a decision unwinding the contract in some way. Even though it was a signed contract.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        just want to make sure in case i ever live with someone again. Want to make sure I protect my assets and my house.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          What I take away from this is that if you develop ANY domestic contract, then:

                          a) make sure both parties get ILA.

                          b) If either party waives ILA, make DAMN sure the agreement is fair to both sides.

                          c) make sure both parties get ILA.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            By the way.. I believe the domestic contract must also be WITNESSED to be enforceable at all. Read that somewhere. Not sure where.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hey Standingonsidelines....

                              I hear what you're saying ! Best way to protect yourself is NOT to get married again (obviously) and NOT to live common law also. Law keeps changing so what is OK today may change years later and you can still get screwed over !

                              I've even heard of the odd case where a couple has been DATING (NOT co-habitating) but often had "slumber parties". EVEN THEN, effing courts said it was basically common law and guy got nailed for $$$

                              I think I'll just buy a blow up doll, will be way cheaper. Unless blow dolls get rights under Family Law act, wouldn't surprise me lol !

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                                No. The average joe can't waive ILA.
                                Yes they can, we do it every day at my firm.

                                The need for Independant Legal Advice occurs when the LAWYER dealing with the parties has a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with the contact, but the appearance of impropriety of lawyer preparing a contract for the benefit of parties, while only representing one party, their client.

                                If two parties come to an agreement without the assistance of lawyers, there is no need for ILA, as they are already independent. The test of "unconscionability" is a common law test that. The courts would determine whether the agreement is reasonable, and if it is unreasonable or unconscionable, they can set it aside.

                                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