Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SS - ouch!

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

  • #31
    It'a all relative...when you think in the context of the immense wealth involved, it is hard for the rest of us to fathom, but it is what it is.

    No matter what the amount of spousal support is involved, it sounds derogatory to state the spouse as being "living off" the earnings of the the higher moneyed spouse. I don 't think Mr. McCain was forced to spend the money he did on his wife and kids. This was their normal lifestyle.

    There is more than $500,000,000.00 in assets to be divided in the future so the previous amounts stated regarding SS are peanuts.

    The elder Wallace McCain threatened to disinherit his five children if their spouses did not sign the contracts, so of course they would do so, even under duress I would imagine.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hadenough View Post
      From the VANCOUVER SUN:
      Maple Leaf Foods CEO Michael McCain to pay $175k a month in spousal support
      "At its heart lies a marriage contract said to have been imposed by Michael McCain's late father, Wallace McCain, who co-founded McCain Foods.

      Court documents show the elder McCain threatened to disown his children if their spouses did not sign away their rights to spousal support and some business assets in exchange for a cash payout and some properties including the matrimonial home.

      In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Greer said that while the agreement may have seemed fair to Michael McCain when it was signed in 1997, over time it had become "unconscionable."

      What's more, she said the agreement was achieved under "subtle and psychological" duress because refusing it would have meant significant financial penalties for the couple.

      "How could the wife possibly have refused to sign under those circumstances?" Greer wrote in her decision, which dealt only with the issue of spousal support and not the pision of assets.

      She said it would have been impossible for Christine McCain to foresee what her situation would be in the future without spousal support.

      The couple married in 1981 and had five children, now between the ages of 19 and 26, according to the documents. Christine McCain stayed at home after their birth and said in an affidavit that she left financial matters to her husband during their marriage." (That's just an excerpt) Obviously the Judge did not see her as a "Liar" etc
      Given what was written here, I don't agree with the judge's decision.

      How could she refuse asks the judge. Umm, by NOT signing the document! Saying she was put under duress to sign and that alleviates her from the agreement, is absurd.

      The only 'duress' was not getting her hands on even more family money, the father in law's money. She didn't have to sign, but all things considered, she did.

      Again, I believe it is an insult to responsible adults that the government can over turn agreements like this where the person knew full well what she was signing.

      This nanny concept is so strong in family law, it is really upsetting. There is no shortage of people coming to this very forum claiming how their lives were ruined by being controlled, manipulated, or abused by others. When the reality is that they were in charge of their lives all along, and they made their own decisions, good or bad.

      Our society would be better off if everyone was responsible for their own actions, including inaction. Everyone has choices to make every day - and they need to be held themselves accountable to them.

      Comment


      • #33
        Billm: Did *you* know everything you know now 30 years ago? The way you tell it, she had this diabolical money grab planned all along. Bullshit.

        Yes, okay - in a perfect world we all make our choices and we are all responsible for them. People change over time. Circumstances change. Everything can change. For some of your comments, you have the compassion of a boa constrictor.

        The law was applied properly in this matter and in consideration of many factors and no doubt tons of case law.
        Last edited by hadenough; 01-13-2013, 05:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by caranna View Post
          No matter what the amount of spousal support is involved, it sounds derogatory to state the spouse as being "living off" the earnings of the the higher moneyed spouse.
          It is derogatory, and it is true.

          Recipients of spousal support are financial children, living off the avails of their ex spouse. If a recipient finds the concept insulting, then they should work for a living, like other adults do.

          Welfare recipients suck at the teat of the taxpayers, spousal support recipients suck at the teat of their ex spouse. Both groups are equally contemptible, and any derogatory descriptions are apt and appropriate.

          Comment


          • #35
            to Billm: I'm quite sure if Christine McCain refused to sign the agreement, her husband would have tried and forced her to do so; after all, he did not want to be disowned. I think the judge made a wise decision, and if you don't agree, tough, although you have every right to disagree.

            As for people who have been abused, they have every right to state what they went through. We all have choices but that does not mean we do not make mistakes along the way. These mistakes can help us to grow.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hadenough View Post
              Yes, okay - in a perfect world we all make our choices and we are all responsible for them. People change over time. Circumstances change.
              So why are payors of support responsible for the poor decisions they make, but recipients are not?

              Payors also made mistakes, marrying money-grubbing lazy spouses being chief among them. Nobody excuses them from the horrible contract they signed, so why should recipients get a free pass?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by caranna View Post
                to Billm: I'm quite sure if Christine McCain refused to sign the agreement, her husband would have tried and forced her to do so; after all, he did not want to be disowned. I think the judge made a wise decision, and if you don't agree, tough, although you have every right to disagree.
                No, they had the option of not getting married. They had the option of getting married and making their own way without daddy's money. They had the option of marrying other people. They had other options. This is why there was no duress.

                Duress is when something negative will happen if you don't sign. Having to make your own way in life is not a negative. Being offered a bribe is not duress. I believe the judge was twisting the concept of duress.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Take a valium Janus. In fact, take two.

                  There are many different scenarios. I had a trial where facts were presented and the small amt of SS I recv is largely compensatory. Acquiring the debt load of the "payor's" bullshit bankruptcy is more than enough punishment (financially and otherwise) for me and the amt he's ordered to pay is a pittance compared to what's been dumped on me. Hey, my fault for being with an idiot, I get that. If he had stayed away from my "teat" then I'd have stayed away from his. Consequences, consequences. Live and Learn. There was no "free pass" for me.
                  Last edited by hadenough; 01-13-2013, 05:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    To be honest, my advice for my children will be to never get married to anybody who has a lower income, under any circumstances.

                    Of course, if the reverse is true, then get married, and get married fast. Marriage is awesome for the unskilled and the lazy. Since those descriptors will hopefully not apply to my children, then, as I said, I will strenuously urge them to avoid marriage if they can help it in any way.

                    Frankly, my daughter is probably wasting her time becoming smart and educated. Financially speaking, it is probably more profitable to be the type of woman that rich men appreciate (and marry), so she can divorce them and reap the rewards. Hopefully after at least one kid, so she can really get the big bucks. I read about a finishing school recently in the paper, perhaps I should look into that.
                    This is the kind of lifestyle you want your daughter to live? And you are willing to groom her for it? That is abhorrent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ^ yes Caranna: it is quite a disturbing post ^

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by hadenough View Post
                        Billm: Did *you* know everything you know now 30 years ago? The way you tell it, she had this diabolical money grab planned all along. Bullshit.

                        Yes, okay - in a perfect world we all make our choices and we are all responsible for them. People change over time. Circumstances change. Everything can change. For some of your comments, you have the compassion of a boa constrictor.
                        ...
                        Compassion? She lived the life of a millionaire for over 30 years, she received over 10 million in lump sum spousal, she probably has even more in retirement and who knows what else.

                        She made an agreement years ago. If she was not a liar then, she became one the day she no longer agreed with it, yet said/did nothing about it.

                        I prefer to strive for a perfect world. Changes are part of that. I'm sure there was no part of the agreement that said 'unless I change my mind'. I'm assuming she was at least a normally intelligent adult. I would prefer to live in a world where adults can be held to their agreements, that's all. The threat of loosing access to father in law's money not withstanding

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          and the law is not always just.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            By Billm "Compassion? She lived the life of a millionaire for over 30 years, she received over 10 million in lump sum spousal, she probably has even more in retirement and who knows what else"

                            I made the compassion comment in reference (as I said) to some of your other comments. I'm pretty sure Christine McCain doesn't require your's (or anyone's) compassion.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by caranna View Post
                              to Billm: I'm quite sure if Christine McCain refused to sign the agreement, her husband would have tried and forced her to do so; after all, he did not want to be disowned. I think the judge made a wise decision, and if you don't agree, tough, although you have every right to disagree.
                              I am sure the husband wanted her to sign it, I'm sure she wanted to sign it. I'm sure she wished the father in law/husband never came up with the idea. But sign it she did, and I assume she is a reasonably intelligent and competent woman (don't you?), and she should live up to the agreement that SHE made.

                              Originally posted by caranna View Post
                              As for people who have been abused, they have every right to state what they went through. We all have choices but that does not mean we do not make mistakes along the way. These mistakes can help us to grow.
                              Agreed.

                              The mistakes I make help me grow. Growth also means not blaming others for your mistakes.

                              "I can't believe I let them tell me what to do" vs "They controlled me, I had no choice"

                              Big difference between these two attitudes. Which statement do you think shows someone who has grown?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "Growing" is indeed a good thing. A move forward. Personally, I blame myself for being foolish - funny thing is, my ex "blames" me for everything. Hopefully some day he will take a good long self inventory of himself and see where he needs to assign blameworthy conduct, to himself. Suffice it to say, I won't be holding my breath for that.

                                We all make mistakes, the problem is that a lot of people can't/won't admit (to) the mistakes or outright awful things they have done.

                                We can 'grow' as individuals and still have some compassion. *in my opinion*

                                There's a hell of a lot to be said for contrition.
                                Last edited by hadenough; 01-13-2013, 06:40 PM.

                                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