Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

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

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 12-21-2012, 06:52 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,339
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
Provide proof you had more. Ask that she prove her numbers. All problems solved.

Evidence solves many problems.
Cogent and relevant evidence solves many problems.

In fact, Mr. William Eddy differentiates high conflicted people on the basis of the evidence they often provide.

A highly conflicted person will bring allegations in the form of "emotional reasoning" which have no "hard" evidence attached. This comes in the form of massive paragraphs of nonsensical information about some time the other party did something so horrible. This often comes with additional hearsay affidavits from "friends" stating that the person told them this story so it "must" be true. (double hearsay)

The highly conflicted like the "you-said I-said" arguments before the court. This is because they are often cyclic reasoners who are driven by emotional reasoning. They want the court to "feel" how awful of a person you are even which they have no evidence in support of their argument.

Mr. Eddy also states that the major differentiating factor that evaluators, courts and lawyers need to be aware of is this:

The highly conflicted gather negative advocates to create "distortion campaigns" and the non-conflicted collect tangible, cogent and relevant evidence (documents in support of their argument, real eye witnesses who can testify in the first person, medical records, etc...)

Suffice to say... The vast majority of "expert" custody and access evaluators don't "get" this. Even the really expensive Section 30 ones...

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #22  
Old 12-21-2012, 11:17 AM
Pursuinghappiness Pursuinghappiness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,819
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

lol Tayken...exactly.

Evidence isn't saying..."25 years ago, everything she owned wasn't metal and was chewed by a cat..."

Quote:
A highly conflicted person will bring allegations in the form of "emotional reasoning" which have no "hard" evidence attached. This comes in the form of massive paragraphs of nonsensical information about some time the other party did something so horrible.
lol....
  #23  
Old 12-29-2012, 03:54 PM
katc katc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 78
katc is on a distinguished road
Default

The 50/50 on the matrimonial home doesn't count if you have an agreement in place stating otherwise, does it?

I bought the home and completely expect that money back when the time comes that we physically split. (Tho' we do intend to co-habitate until we can financially afford to sell.)
  #24  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:26 PM
ddol1 ddol1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 968
ddol1 is on a distinguished road
Default

I believe if both of you agree and your agreement will pass as far as the legality of the document you will still face the fact that it goes against one of the most basic of currrent family law principles for property - this would be the MH , regardless of who paid what will be split 50/50. What you are presenting (you paid for it all) and the circumstances you find yourself in IMHO will be the ultimate scale your agreement will be judged on. This would mean you do end up in front of the judge, I would still consider the increase in equity in which the property gained over the length of marriage as sharable?
  #25  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:32 PM
katc katc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 78
katc is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree that the equity over and above what we paid for the home is to be split 50/50 and that my original down payment is returned to me.

He too has agreed to that, has put it in writing, it's just not been witnessed / notarized or whatever it is you have to do with it.

There is plenty of documentation (sale of prior home / purchase of current home) to support where that down payment came from.

He'd be a fool to fight me for that.
  #26  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:33 PM
Mess Mess is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

You can have any agreement you choose for your settlement. Your settlement should have independant legal advice, meaning you both have the advice of individual lawyers representing you to advise you of the ramifications of your agreement. You both then sign, and it is a binding contract.

Yes, what you are describing goes against the Family Law Act section regarding the matrimonial home. You cannnot force this arrangement on your ex, but if you are amicable, you may come to an arrangement.
  #27  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:36 PM
katc katc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 78
katc is on a distinguished road
Default

Currently, he's amicable. He doesn't want independant legal advice.

I did up the agreement myself, it clearly states who paid for what, who gets what, with supporting documentation attached.

That downpayment is mine, and needs to be secured as such ... soon.

Hindsight clearly is 20/20 - why I ever gave up my investment is mindboggling (love - at the time, makes one do stupid things I guess).
  #28  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:52 PM
Mess Mess is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

I know what love does.

6 years after separation it is not possible to make a claim for equalization, in Ontario.

In the meantime, if he wanted to reopen the agreement, it is not a slam dunk. He would have to show, factually, that you deceived him or that he was uninformed.

If I were you and doing a kitchen table agreement, I would have some record that he admits he is informed about the Family Law Act, that he has done research, and that he agrees that the settlement is fair according to his personal needs and ethics. Word it anyway you wish. Maybe have him send you an email to that effect and save it and print it out.

If he takes you to court in 5 years, you need something to back yourself up.
  #29  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:55 PM
katc katc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 78
katc is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks Mess. I have just such an e-mail from him.

He's a good guy - won't try to "screw" me, of that I'm pretty certain.

He knows I'm a strong woman. Not a stupid woman.

I did the agreement - would love to have someone look at it, see if I'm going about it the right way.
  #30  
Old 12-29-2012, 05:03 PM
Mess Mess is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

I love that he is a good guy and you are a good woman. If all of us were like that this would be a better world.
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rental income of property previously owned jointly northyorker Financial Issues 1 03-21-2011 02:54 PM
Division of Property 2 years after separation/valuation date Technodaddy Divorce & Family Law 10 09-12-2010 10:29 PM
Debt before marriage newone2010 Financial Issues 11 07-02-2010 09:59 AM
Couple of quick questions... Les Financial Issues 8 02-06-2006 01:50 AM
matrimonial home FPI Divorce & Family Law 3 01-19-2006 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 PM.