Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So it actually happened - everything that can go wrong in a SS motion!!

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

  • #16
    i am on your side - tis why this has yes, got my motor going..... I am trying to relax but so much is not to plan (that must be the engineer/manufacturing in me - everything goes to plan, I was paid to make sure project stayed on plan. This I know has zero to do with definate, sure thing as there can ever be. I am trying to gain insight into good options, one's that make sense -- gets this over with. thks ddol1

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
      Can you clarify this?

      You ex made you an offer for SS and you pursued it in court instead of settling? This could be the clear cause of the costs order against you.
      A straight answer as to how are cost assigned in my SS Order
      I am sorry, I missed your post, I may have answered along the way but my difficulty was on the evening prior to the motion for SS:
      1>I was shown my lawyers basic entry of our incomes in Divorcemate and the low table amout was almost $1,200.
      2>My lawyer showed me the form with my ex's offer for $400 which my lawyer said to not accept.

      3>My lawyer gave me our reply/counter offer of $1,000 - then below the Divorcemate low figure of $1,200. I signed the counter offer fairly confident that the court would order support - my mistake, but I also thought my risk of paying costs was NIL. How could I not be ordered Spousal Support?

      4>the first time I saw my ex's Divorcemate calculation was after the motion. They had arbitrarilly added $6,000 to my income because they don't like my disability income - and a minor $500 for interest (they for some reason forgot to add her interest on her cash holdings today!!)

      THE KEY - this divorcemate report from my ex, faxed to my Lawyer a week prior to the motion and aside form the $6,000 attempt (I do not have the RRSP's to support removing 6K a year - I would be totally penniless in under 5 years) I must ask my lawyer how the heck did he not call that to the Judge?. The Divorcemate report low end figure from my ex was $650 (her offer was $400) and that was with them adding $$6,500 to my $11,000 CPP disability benefit!!!

      What is NORMAL??
      Nothing in my file of life is normal, my marriage settlement is not going to be normal, my spousal support I will expect shall be in the not normal cateogory - this is what happens when one spouse, me, spends 25 years in and out of the operating room and now I try my best to see the good in every day, the last few years, especially the last is still very dark.

      Verbal Submissions
      This will make sense at the last paragraph Surprize!
      Right after the two lawyers spent 1 hour in chambers with what I think was the senior Judge, the sitting Judge entered and right off the Bat she made acknowledgement that she sat on our CC - for that she offered my Lawyer to have her step aside. My lawyer declined and my motion began.

      My lawyer did not call up her main 13.1 disclosure and point out that I have all the last year's reciepts and her expenses are a good $2,000 less than her super inflated lies. Tayken says using this data is not normal and it is worring about the past when we are going forward. Fair but for the fact that the past can sometimes be a good guide to the future and I would say household expenses, food, insurance are not going to change that much in one year - so in this case I beg to differ in its importance. If it was not important I would think it should not be part of the disclosure - but it is. Gabby way of stating my lawyer did not call up her expenses infated numbers, nor the 6K they should not be allowed to tack on for their pleasure (I am sorry my body just gave out after a pretty good run).

      Judge's Ruling - My lawyer did call it Imprehencable?
      I hold out that nothing when I am involved is normal, and the Judge said this too - no case laws, nothing, so she was on her own. I had a worst case low divorcemate reccommended figure of $648, or $1,200 from my lawyer -- her offer for $400 and ours for $1,000 (is basically how much I do not have every month - I pull this out of my RRSP each month). The judge ordered $400 support based on the fact my ex had her statement at $1,500 left over after paying the bills each year. She was deemed to not have enough disposable income and she ordered the $400 only because it was in my Ex's offer on the table. She then ordered my Ex to find $15,000 (which will then go against the equalization payment that I will obviously receive) and give it to me - where she got it, the judge stated she didn't care (she did state that she beleived it is good for both to cash in RRSP's to support this family until this case is resolved).

      Costs - why was there costs?
      My Lawyer said I got 3K in costs because the judge did not order $401 SS - the Judge ordered to give me 15K is not support. If you have made it this far..........

      The surprize! is what this same judge said at our case conference (granted most documentation to prove our positions is not there). Not word for word, The judge said she was not pleased that I would consider excluding funds when she is not allowed the same benefit (she may have said rights) and I can tell you here if you think about this, You can win every single battle here but I can tell you now that does not mean you will win the war! I will make sure that all your wins will go against your support at least dollar for dollar. This really makes me sound jaded, hostile or high conflict, I actually asked my lawyer to translate what was said, just to make sure. He said it is true to a small degree (this I knew, a judge should take at least the earnings of a property but the the property is not depleted - just the interest comes as a form of income for support purposes) Lawyer finished with, "but she can't take your SS away because she wants to". Oh in case, this is a female Judge - but I am told this is not an issue as judges act gender neutral??


      My heart is now in this post..... this was is life. I admit, I am upset.

      Comment


      • #18
        If there was a blatant mistake made, and your lawyer acknowledges and agrees to it your lawyer can call opposing counsel and ask to meet with them about it. They are both officers of the court and if the judge made a mistake (and both lawyers concur) could the lawyers not address this in private chambers with the judge? Might be worth discussing this with your lawyer as it is pretty clear you are living in substandard conditions, your ex has the ability to pay.

        Just a thought.

        Comment


        • #19
          Tayken:

          I've long had the understanding that when litigants don't understand relevant vs non-relevant information in divorce proceedings, you can bet that they will be extremely upset about the results that come out of it.

          This whole thread (and the many leading up until now) continue to prove my hypothesis right.

          "What a tangled web we weave..."


          DDOL1:

          As for this:

          I only know what makes sense right here - do not risk even more of what $$$ remains, appeals are very expensive, very difficult to be hear and usually unsuccessful unless the judge made a serious breach of the law?
          What are you considering appealing? Especially if its a temporary order.

          You asked for something unreasonable and as a punitive measure had costs awarded against you. You shouldn't be whining...you should be learning.

          You are lucky...you proved entitlement for SS and have an interim award. Of course, it would have been better had you accepted the previous offer but now you know that in the future, you should be more reasonable so the cost penalty doesn't happen again.

          As Tayken said, you've been told a hundred times that her expenses, your expenses and 20 years worth of bank crap DON'T matter. Frankly, you are extremely fortunate that your lawyer has been so patient with you. You aren't a good listener and lament very ancient history which is completely irrelevant to your current divorce proceedings.

          I know that you may be operating at a shortfall each month to your current expenses but so what??? Who isn't? There probably a lot of people in this forum who receive SS or CS, who's expenses are far greater than their support payment. I'm not sure I understand why you think this is relevant. You're receiving disability. Your expectations are way out of sync with reality on what you think your ex should be providing to you.

          Frankly, you're lucky because you're on your own and you don't have to manage with a montly shortfall while trying to figure out how to take care of children. A lot of forum posters have children to take care of...not just themselves.

          If you have an expectation that your ex is going to pony up funds to encapsulate your monthly budget...I'm sorry but you are out of your mind....that's not how it works.

          Here's what you posted:

          lawyer's answer was always I don't care what her numbers are; to him each issue all in time - I care about what you have today and that is both your incomes.
          Listen to what your lawyer is saying. That is correct information. That is how support is determined.

          This:

          don't have time was his answer the night before when I told him a very bulleted list of things I thought he had to know. I was very specific to the SS related info, her very much out to lunch numbers, I have redone hers with good numbers utilizing all the statements and the like for the last year and longer to prove it; all this has to do with income and SS determination? No????
          ...is completely irrelevant. You can't "redo" her paycheck stub. You want to change what she's saying her expenses are and frankly...its completely irrelevant. Your opinion on her finances don't matter...hard evidence does. You've been told this hundred times now.

          I'll say it one more time. None of your re-calculated numbers matter...none of them...with regard to support. They may have some relevance for equalization but it depends on what you're trying to prove.

          The most important information you need right now is her income and your income.

          Some of the rest will come into play at the time for equalization. But what's going to be relevant there is the balances of your accounts at separation date. That's pretty much it.

          You've been told many times that your fixation with ancient history is going to do two things:
          1. Make your divorce a lot more lengthy than necessary,
          2. Make your divorce a lot more expensive than necessary.

          Rather than blame the lawyer or the judge, why not take a moment to listen to what they're saying to you.

          Do you really think your lawyer is completely incompetent? Do you really think the judge is some unwise maverick throwing out unfair and bizarre orders?

          Or is it more likely that you don't listen and that you have an unreasonable expectation of what you're entitled to?

          You have an interim order. If you're convinced and have real, relevant data...you can always re-visit it in the final order. But I can tell you, that a judge needs concrete, clear evidence. Not boxes of 20 year old crap...that's half your problem right there...too much, bad, irrelevant information. If your lawyer is parsing it, he's doing exactly the right thing. No judge is going to care about that crap.

          Your ex clearly wants to move on with her life...maybe its time that you did the same.

          Comment


          • #20
            My lawyer gave me our reply/counter offer of $1,000 - then below the Divorcemate low figure of $1,200. I signed the counter offer fairly confident that the court would order support - my mistake, but I also thought my risk of paying costs was NIL. How could I not be ordered Spousal Support?

            4>the first time I saw my ex's Divorcemate calculation was after the motion. They had arbitrarilly added $6,000 to my income because they don't like my disability income - and a minor $500 for interest (they for some reason forgot to add her interest on her cash holdings today!!)
            It sounds to me like your lawyer is calculating your SS without some of your disability income because you're putting it part of it directly into an RRSP. Her lawyer is calculating all of your disability as part of your monthly income including the amount you're putting into an RRSP. The interest on either side is irrelevant.

            Its hard to tell from your post. But its certain that the number that the judge decided upon was based on your current income and her current income. If you're thinking that you can exclude part of your income because you want to put it into an RRSP...that wouldn't work. I'm just speculating. Its hard to tell what the reality is because your calculations are so opinion based rather than fact based.

            What is NORMAL??
            Nothing in my file of life is normal, my marriage settlement is not going to be normal, my spousal support I will expect shall be in the not normal cateogory - this is what happens when one spouse, me, spends 25 years in and out of the operating room and now I try my best to see the good in every day, the last few years, especially the last is still very dark.
            I disagree. You want to believe that you're special in some way but I can assure you that your divorce will be handled the same way everyone else's is. The same evidence criteria, same length of time, same outcome based on evidence presented.

            the sitting Judge entered and right off the Bat she made acknowledgement that she sat on our CC - for that she offered my Lawyer to have her step aside. My lawyer declined
            What does this mean? The judge asked your lawyer to step aside from what? Your case??

            I have all the last year's reciepts and her expenses are a good $2,000 less than her super inflated lies. Tayken says using this data is not normal and it is worring about the past when we are going forward.
            You missed what Tayken said. He said that it was IRRELEVANT. So did your lawyer. You're not comprehending what you're being told.

            Judge's Ruling - My lawyer did call it Imprehencable?
            I hold out that nothing when I am involved is normal, and the Judge said this too - no case laws, nothing, so she was on her own. I had a worst case low divorcemate reccommended figure of $648, or $1,200 from my lawyer -- her offer for $400 and ours for $1,000 (is basically how much I do not have every month - I pull this out of my RRSP each month). The judge ordered $400 support based on the fact my ex had her statement at $1,500 left over after paying the bills each year. She was deemed to not have enough disposable income and she ordered the $400 only because it was in my Ex's offer on the table. She then ordered my Ex to find $15,000 (which will then go against the equalization payment that I will obviously receive) and give it to me - where she got it, the judge stated she didn't care (she did state that she beleived it is good for both to cash in RRSP's to support this family until this case is resolved).
            Judges rulings for support are very much based on evidence and data. Your ex presented her income...you presented yours. You may have also muddied the waters by presenting a bunch of irrelevant crap but it sounds like your lawyer may have been smart and filtered a lot of that out since it shouldn't be in the motion materials. Its very hard to tell. There was obviously a calculation done based on your incomes...and if that calculation was wrong...its pretty easy to prove the amount she gets from work (paystub) and the amount you get from disability (statement). If that calculation was done incorrectly, you should definitely re-visit for your final order.

            Costs - why was there costs?
            My Lawyer said I got 3K in costs because the judge did not order $401 SS - the Judge ordered to give me 15K is not support. If you have made it this far..........
            What this sounds like to me?

            The judge is trying to "school" both of you. She recognizes that your ex has access to monies that you need temporarily to live and is telling her to do her part to get you through to final order because you'll be eligible for an equalization payment from her. And she's awarding punitive costs against you to make you understand that you should accept fair offers instead of pushing to court unnecessarily. She probably looked at your evidence and realized it was insufficient, that you were being unreasonable and that you refused a reasonable offer that would have gotten you out of court.

            Trust me, that's what judges do or believe me, she would have split costs for the motion. The judge is trying to tell you something.

            You can win every single battle here but I can tell you now that does not mean you will win the war! I will make sure that all your wins will go against your support at least dollar for dollar.
            No one wins in family court.

            Oh in case, this is a female Judge - but I am told this is not an issue as judges act gender neutral??
            You think this is because you're male now? You've been projecting a lot of blame anywhere but at yourself.

            Interesting.

            My heart is now in this post..... this was is life. I admit, I am upset.
            Its always upsetting when your expectations aren't met. You need to ask yourself if your expectations are reasonable, however.

            Comment


            • #21
              Might be worth discussing this with your lawyer as it is pretty clear you are living in substandard conditions, your ex has the ability to pay.
              Arabian:

              I would agree that a completely unfair decision should be re-visited.

              But what determines substandard conditions? I know divorcing people who've lived in basements WITH children.

              Also how do you know his ex has the ability to pay more? She's in the house with the kids. Maybe she's working and having trouble managing too.

              Comment


              • #22
                SS calculations are very simple when you have the facts in order. If you believe or think or wish it doesn't count, it is what you have in proof, black and white!

                Comment


                • #23
                  PH - you are totally correct. I do not know anything about how the couple lived when together nor do I know how the wife lives now. I gather from what the father has posted that he received a lump sum payment for work injury and the money was used by the whole family for many years. Now the couple is separating and the right thing to do is to ensure that he has a decent standard of living. Hope the lawyers don't make all the money and both end up living in motels. When you are in a long-term marriage you make a commitment to look out for each other "till death do us part." When the marriage ends both parties are supposed to be able to walk away on equal footing. If one is disadvantaged (injury, no employment income) the law is set up so that everyone is supposed to come out of the marriage on equal footing. If this OP feels that items were overlooked or careless disregarded, and there is irrevocable proof of same, I hope he has his lawyer remedy the situation. I know that interim orders do set the pace for permanent orders and I would hate to see someone prejudiced because of an oversight or error.

                  No I certainly don't know all the details, nor do I want to for that matter.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    momforever1956: Agree with you if you have a straight forward well-written divorce judgment and an ex who has half a brain and doesn't hire idiot lawyers. My ex tries over and over to argue the divorce judgment which is very basic and straightforward. Last judge he went before told his lawyer that if she was going to go by their interpretation of the order that she would have to re-write the whole Canadian divorce act. You'd think he'd figure it out but no he just keeps on going... I figure we will be back in court in Jan or Feb.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by arabian View Post
                      how the wife lives now. I gather from what the father has posted that he received a lump sum payment for work injury and the money was used by the whole family for many years.
                      close! Yes started baxck in the 80's. Had an initial retroactive lump sum after winning in the court for the third time. That nearly all went to pay 2 years worth of bills, work insurance needed their money back - She actually did put a very small part aside but the proof is lost.

                      The real biggie in this house is yes, three cheques following three surgeries for Pain and Suffering, Loss of Enjoyment of life - this is a well documented type of damage that is not iincome related, and in a way, treated special just like the MH is treated special compared to just a house. The Pain damages is the most well understood of the whole mess at this point, consistant case law rulings. The key for most damage awards is you can't share it with the family.... once you use it to buy anything that is or could be used by the family it loses it's special status and becomes shareable.

                      This is one issue I have had a harder time to get the clean documents but I could not have any RRSP's so my wife put the money aside in one of the Mutual Fund Accounts. Then my ex went back to work and that was our chance to get it rolled into my RRSP as the deposit room allowed (you can't just dump 20K into your RRSP unless you have the employment income and available deposit room. She went balistic when politely, even on a friendly note, I tried to explain it, gave her the rules, acts and whatever would help but get to the word exclude and she went BALISTIC again - can't help her to understand any of this, plus she point blank admitted more than once when I used the FLA to try and get some form of living arrangement "I don't understand this (the FLA I printed out for her), it is all like jibberish to me".

                      No, this is about the time she had all the paperwork to cut me off the work benefit, oh and she then made what I consider inexcusable which was to put pressure on our eldest daughter to stop the purchase and giving the dog her meds she needs. This is when things went bad real quick, and she never let up - in the end this I can show a flow of a substantial amount of cash flow from the seperate savings to the RRSP acccount and it has sat there growing - since the funds have the excluded status my lawyer has found th ecase law to show that the growth retains the excluded status - this is significant as it was 20K growing for now for 30 years.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        SS calculations are very simple when you have the facts in order. If you believe or think or wish it doesn't count, it is what you have in proof, black and white!
                        Very true. I've heard of cases where the judge will consider some extraneous factors but most of the time, its a pretty simple calculation based on current income. You definitely don't need years of past banking data for an SS claim.

                        Now the couple is separating and the right thing to do is to ensure that he has a decent standard of living. Hope the lawyers don't make all the money and both end up living in motels. When you are in a long-term marriage you make a commitment to look out for each other "till death do us part." When the marriage ends both parties are supposed to be able to walk away on equal footing. If one is disadvantaged (injury, no employment income) the law is set up so that everyone is supposed to come out of the marriage on equal footing. If this OP feels that items were overlooked or careless disregarded, and there is irrevocable proof of same, I hope he has his lawyer remedy the situation. I know that interim orders do set the pace for permanent orders and I would hate to see someone prejudiced because of an oversight or error.
                        It sounds like the judge made a judgement in lieu of final settlement for 15k...so you're right..the judge probably considered that the OP needed some temporary relief because he's in the middle of an extremely lengthy divorce.

                        However, it also sounds like the judge made a costs order to ensure that the OP considers future fair offers instead of going to court unnecessarily. Judges aren't unsympathetic or hasty...they make these types of cost judgements for a reason as you know.

                        As far as "the lawyers getting all the money"...I agree, it would be unfortunate but as I've learned from my own situation and you've learned from yours...lawyers will get more money the more complicated you or the other litigant make the situation. So if you start dredging up ancient history, refuse to accept any culpability, and are hell-bent on revenge or unfair compensation...you can bet you're going to rack up a huge legal bill. And unfortunately, you'll force the other party to do the same.

                        I can guarantee you that there are two sides to this particular story.<!-- / message -->

                        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