Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 01-29-2007, 08:32 PM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix
Couldn't this same argument be used regarding the $2000.00 in monthly spousal support? It was an agreement. The fact that his gains or losses have fluctuated are that, HIS gains and losses... the original agreement was $2000.00 per month in spousal support.

I don't see a difference...
That's because the equalization laws have already been applied. The assets were split and the agreement done. Equalization ends at ground zero. The value of each item is determined at the time of signing, and each party takes that asset. If it goes up or down, that's the chance yah take.

Support is COMPLETEY different from assets. Support is a monthly obligation subject to the laws of the divorce act, the regular course of life and common sense. Support is a moving target unlike assest division. The act states that a material change can trigger a review of support. The guy lost his job. As well, there are a couple of new spouses that were no there at ground zero. This is certainly triggers a review. Time also can trigger a review. The entire concept of support is to get the other party going with regards to self sufficiency. It is not a lottery for life as some people expect it to be.

The original agreement is for $2K per month. He paid that. And now circumstances have changed. That's is the way it goes in the divorce act.

What I don't get is that everyone is keen to jump on the guy since he increased his net worth post divorce, yet how unsympathetic they are since he lost his job. hmmm..
  #62  
Old 01-29-2007, 08:41 PM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildrose
Thank you Phoenix. I was thinking the same thing but posting on here is like beating a dead horse so I made the choice not to bring any more information up on here. But I'm sure someone will have an argument with your post.
Would you rather we say:

"Yes, hammer your ex for support since he lost his job"
"Hammer your ex since he increaed his net worth post divorce"
"For sure he must pay you even though it has been years since divorce"'
"For sure he must pay you even though you are living with someone"
"For sure he must pay you even though he is living with someone"
"For sure he must pay you contrary to the divorce act"

What a hollow victory indeed. What a sad day for women.
  #63  
Old 01-29-2007, 11:24 PM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyo
as well there aren't 2 spouses are there? wildrose isn't common law yet- he does have a spouse, but then first family first would apply. He knew of this obligation when he choose to start another family.
Yikes. That's splitting hairs don't yah think? So he remarries, but she lives with someone. So I guess it only counts if they wait until common law or until they remarry. And thus my previous statements about the remarriage clause is validated. It's a useless statement.

Personally, I'm getting extremely tired by the "first-family-first" nonsense. That's why it is called a divorce. So he must remain indebted to her regardless? BTW, I have clearly stated why her SS clause is completely open to both wide interpretation and the divorce act. Why are you defending it?
  #64  
Old 01-29-2007, 11:40 PM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decent Dad
So he must remain indebted to her regardless?
Well... IMO, yes.
  #65  
Old 01-30-2007, 08:50 AM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix
Well... IMO, yes.
So under no circumstances is support allowed to change. Wow, now I know why the Family Law courts are so full.
  #66  
Old 01-30-2007, 03:32 PM
workingthruit workingthruit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 83
workingthruit is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decent Dad
So under no circumstances is support allowed to change. Wow, now I know why the Family Law courts are so full.

I know why too Decent Dad - cause not all of us are "decent" - some of us are greedy, and manipulative and use our children, our sex, our 'helplessness' to continue to milk our ex-spouse for as long as possible.

Women who expect life-long support simply don't want to support themselves, and at this point in time, the courts are encouraging this disgraceful (yep, I said disgraceful, cause it is, you should be ashamed) behaviour.

It makes me ill - it literally makes me feel nauseous - to hear these kinds of stories ... long, drawn out tales of woe about how deserving a woman is ... how dedicated to her family she is/was ... what a hero she is/was, this is what I have to say - Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Your ex wasn't successful at his job because you stayed home and raised his children. (*more on this later) He was successful because he worked hard, is smart and made an effort - an honest effort.
To work.
Not an effort to convince a judge that he deserved someone else to support him until the day he died. This is totally different, and even if you do it full-time, it still isn't a real job.


There are thousands and thousands of successful business men with wives who work, so that argument does not wash with me. (I happen to live with one such man right now!!!)
Whether or not I work doesn't effect his career, not for one second. We have an equal relationship, we both act like adults, when I work late, he is with the kids, and vice versa. Wanna know why? Because we are both parents, we are both adults, we both have an obligation to support ourselves and our children. We are not looking for handouts, and if we should ever split up, I'll go right back to supporting myself - because I am proud, and independent and a responsible contributing member of society.

I strongly suggest all women try out this outlook, it's truly liberating.


* RE: his children - just while I am ranting here ... Anyone but me ever notice that they are HIS children when the woman was "forced" to forego a career to raise them, but they are HER children when she is demanding full child support and primary residence ... but perhaps that's a topic for another day.
  #67  
Old 01-30-2007, 03:36 PM
serrona serrona is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 72
serrona is on a distinguished road
Default

Wow, you really hit the nail on the head here workingthroughit. Bravo!
  #68  
Old 01-31-2007, 12:52 PM
Decent Dad Decent Dad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingthruit
I* RE: his children - just while I am ranting here ... Anyone but me ever notice that they are HIS children when the woman was "forced" to forego a career to raise them, but they are HER children when she is demanding full child support and primary residence ... but perhaps that's a topic for another day.
Don't get me started...

Well said, btw.
  #69  
Old 11-27-2008, 10:56 AM
tyra tyra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
tyra is on a distinguished road
Default

I am new to this site and recently read this thread. At first I thought not to respond but there are a few things that wildrose has said that I have taken offence to.

My story:
My husband was married for 8 years. His ex decided to leave the marraige after she had an affair with her best friends husband. They at that time had a one and half year old. She took the child with her. My husband first settled for one weekend on one weekend off and wednesdays. He decided at that tiem it was best for his daughter since he was under great stress at work...working extremly late most evening..trying to pay his mortgage and her new apartment. Mistake number one. They split all their matrimonial assests..50%. He then was ordered to pay her expenses while she went back to school.
A year later we meet. A year later we marry. I own a home and he has is home. We both sell and purchase a home together. The Ex then tries to get money from the sale of both of our homes( so back to court we go). She loses. We decide that it is time that we have more time with SD...we have spent tens of thousands of dollars in court fees doing this. We have obtained ALMOST 50% after we sign an agreement that no matter how much she earns we will never ask for an offset. If we didn't do this then they said we only want more time so that we don't have to pay.
We have to pay her SS for a total of 9 years!!!! She was a stay at home mom for 1 1/2 years...she was 34 at the time.

What I take offence to ....I have no option but to work. We have 2 other children...which she said that he shouldn't have had...first family priority..and the courts obviously agree. I work hard to support my children so that they can have a similar life to what his first child has. If I didn't work we would live somewhere not so nice and we would not be able to put money away for their education..we are forced to put money away for his daugther's education. What we earn after they divorce should be irrelevant...there is no entitlement to what he or I have (other that CS increases) but that isn't how the courts have seen it....the decrepancies between households should be minimal.

I would love to be home with my children but it is not financially possible. So, I rely on daycare, the kindness of family and I make my schedule flexible so that I can partake in their activities. So after a hard day at work I cart them off to swimming lessons, play dates, I feed them dinner, I grocery shop, I shop at second hand store for their clothes and I clean my house

If we didn't pay her SS our lives would be different. If she didn't punish my husband and make him go to court to gain what is his right..access to his daughter equally, we would have tens of thousands of dollars more.

I agree...it doesn't matter how long you have been married...the courts will grant you SS. You will win. It makes me upset to know that there are women who think it is their entitlement. His ex felt that it was her right to my money....I earned everythng I have on MY OWN!!!! I use my income to support us and on top of that I include his daughter...I buy her clothes, taking her on outings, buy her gifts when she has a party to go to, she goes on vacations on our dime...her mom has never taken her anywhere.

I have ranted enough about this but it is just unfair that women can't find away to do it themselves. We pay lots of child support and that is what our obligation should be not to increase his Ex's standard of living.... it is just WRONG!!!!!
  #70  
Old 11-27-2008, 04:38 PM
frustrated11 frustrated11 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 247
frustrated11 is on a distinguished road
Default

I totally agree with tyra....Some women just are total idiots. My husbands ex put their son in daycare without his consent (she should be in contempt of court), paternal grandmother had agreeed to watch him for free. She claimed that she put him in daycare so that she could look for full time work, took her almost 2 years to get that. SO full days daycare, with her at home partying all the time, nothing we can do. If we had the $$ we would go for primary care, but as its is, we have him 35-40% of time and lawyer says we don't have him enough to go for shared custody, that the judge would just think we were looking to get out of child support...We are not. but when you get calls saying that she doesn't have money for winter boots or new clothes but she just had her hair and nails done at a posh spa in the city...you get mad. Also, she is not paying any rent..so where is this money going,...her $$ intended for their child. There should be an accounting of where it is spent, as I know others in the same boat where the primary care givers are using the for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I know there are legit people out there, but sometimes you get so frustrated
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 Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 21 05-03-2019 06:21 AM
The suit against FRO moves forward part1 AtALoss Divorce & Family Law 51 09-30-2013 11:01 AM
Spousal Support Elimination and Child Support Variation? AC_103 Financial Issues 17 04-05-2011 07:13 PM
press release: Ontario's Family Responsibility office Peggy Parenting Issues 8 10-22-2010 10:20 AM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 09:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 AM.