Enter the Lawyers in a Very Simple Case

[Roland]

Correct. I'm there. She will follow her lawyers advice. At this point the ball is in her court. It's an amicable separation but only up to a point.

I'm giving it one last kick at the can by having a second separation agreement written up that I think is fair and reasonable based on what my wife and I have discussed and agreed on. If she doesn't sign it I guess it will sit.
If the lawyers want to fight it out in court they can do so on their own dime arguing case law back and forth. Neither my wife or I will spend money on lawyers to do this. We know how costly that is just to end up in the same place.

I've worked all summer preparing the house for sale, paying the bills debts and mortgage, contacted and the mortgage company, taken on responsibilities of maintaining the house, keeping in good health and all that good stuff.

I'm at peace with a stepped down SS.

The part that I'm questioning is that in order to redo the mortgage in my name, sell the house and do the title exchange requires a separation agreement. That I get. It's the projection that I'll still be making 3x as much. I don't want to be as it's stressful and I don't need the cash and she is stable and employed. I'd be making about 2x as much. I do understand about the hardship and equal footing part hence my offer to help out.
I'll see if I can get a Dr's letter that advises me to slow down the piecework and a letter from my work. I've been seeing a Dr. for years dealing with stress issues. Neither one is a sure thing but it's the truth and what I want to work towards.

[arabian]

Be very wary about the doctor's note angle. While your good old GP might be prepared to give you a note for good behavior (anxiety) he will think twice if he has to become an "expert witness" and these things can come back and bite you in the ass in the long time. Are you prepared, or rather is your doctor prepared, to be cross examined? Do you have any idea of the cost of that? You will find that doctors somehow become very hard to get appointments with when you want a "doctor's note" for family court purposes.

I think it is admirable that the two of you are trying to keep things civil. Have either you or your wife paid a "retainer" to a lawyer yet or are you both merely paying by the hour for legal advice? Once those retainers come into play things can get quite nasty. Lawyers know that you and your wife have assets. The presence of assets in a family law dispute can be quite tantalizing for lawyers. You and your wife are ideal clients. Now if they can only get the two of you fighting....

In order for your separation agreement to be valid your wife needs to have "independent legal advice." It is during this ILA that a not-so-informed woman finds out from the lawyer just how much she is agreeing to sign away. So I hope your offer is generous in light of this. She may be naive but the lawyer certainly isn't. Expect to hear about the "SSAG tables" but keep in mind these tables are different from child support tables in that they are recommended - not mandatory.

[Roland]

Okay. That describes my situation to the letter. Thank you for parsing that down in a few paragraphs. I'm relived to know the SSAG tables are not mandatory because SS is the bone of contention. I'm willing to be flexible but not to the cost of my health and sanity. She has to come to her own resolution that what I'm offering is good.
We have paid retainers. My friends and Dr recommended that I get a lawyer and follow the legal route.
I am stuck.
Her's is a collaborative lawyer, who my lawyer said won't go to court. So sense a period of waiting and waiting. This is not good. And I'm not sure what my choices are or if I even have any.

[arabian]

FYI - my lawyer is a "collaborative lawyer" (registered with that Provincial association etc) and he has gone to court for me 4 x each year for the past 4 1/2 years.

[stripes]

A lawyer who represents a client in a collaborative divorce process cannot also represent that client in litigation, at least in my province. This is to prevent spouses or their lawyers from derailing the collaborative process by saying "see you in court!". The lawyer I used for my (not very successful) collaborative divorce process could not represent me in litigation, but she represented other clients who were not involved in collaborative processes.

If you and your ex have formally initiated the collaborative process, then no, her lawyer cannot represent her in court. But if you haven't initiated the collaborative process, her lawyer isn't barred from going to court (unless s/he has chosen to only handle collaborative divorces. Being a "collaborative lawyer" just means that the lawyer has special training and qualifications to handle collaborative divorce procedures. Some such lawyers will only do collaborative proceedings, some will do other procedures well.

[arabian]

A lawyer who represents a client in a collaborative divorce process cannot also represent that client in litigation, at least in my province. This is to prevent spouses or their lawyers from derailing the collaborative process by saying "see you in court!". The lawyer I used for my (not very successful) collaborative divorce process could not represent me in litigation, but she represented other clients who were not involved in collaborative processes.

If you and your ex have formally initiated the collaborative process, then no, her lawyer cannot represent her in court. But if you haven't initiated the collaborative process, her lawyer isn't barred from going to court (unless s/he has chosen to only handle collaborative divorces. Being a "collaborative lawyer" just means that the lawyer has special training and qualifications to handle collaborative divorce procedures. Some such lawyers will only do collaborative proceedings, some will do other procedures well.

We had one 4 way meeting, letters were fired off over a 3 month period. We then were in court for a few Interim Orders and then proceeded to binding arbitration. (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

[Roland]

Done.

There where a few adjustments and it ended up costing a few thousand more however the agreement is done.

Stressful beyond a few words getting to this point.

I will not expose myself to this level of risk ever. Marriage is not for me. The legalities are bad enough and my situation was very simple. Knowing what I know now I won't be walking into this again. 2014 was the worst year of my adult life.

I'll own my part in the dysfunction and for sure I had a role. The her drinking and my resulting codependent behaviour which I'm in the process of recovery. I've kept a journal of my thoughts and feelings throughout and I will keep the journal and refer back to it and keep writing. I could not imagine being married again. That would be insane.

In the end despite the waves of anxiety, fear and uncertainty I'm glad I took the hard road and did the full on legal separation agreement with two very good lawyers. Hers and mine. I thank my ex for being honest and straight forward and sticking by what she had said at the very beginning just after the crash last March. This could have ended up in a rotten place for everyone. It was never a done deal until the agreement was signed.

I've been married. I've raised children, bought and sold houses, work hard and I can now move on in a reasonable amount of security that this chapter is done.
The legal aspects of marriage are not for me. It's to risky. I'm grateful for the insight I've gained and glad to have my life back.

She signed the agreement and we had a wonderful lunch the next day.

[FightingForFamily]

Lesson learned for me too. I like the idealistic idea of marriage but the law in Canada is not fair and the whole divorce process is nothing but a way to separate the hard-working from their money and assets.

[Janibel]

Lesson learned for me too. I like the idealistic idea of marriage but the law in Canada is not fair and the whole divorce process is nothing but a way to separate the hard-working from their money and assets.

Dear God yes! Why would anyone in their right mind want to get married in Canada? Even the most level-headed, cooperative spouses are sent over the edge with this combative BS that is family law.

It's extortion on a grand scale - a modern version of the feudal system with the lawyers as Lords ....

[Links17]

Move to Quebec, you can live with them but don't have to buy them.

[arabian]

Move to Quebec, you can live with them but don't have to buy them.

Yep a Socialist province. When you're done with 'em the government looks after em.

[Janibel]

Yep a Socialist province. When you're done with 'em the government looks after em.

True enough, that's why my province is "pert-near" bankrupt!

[Links17]

Yep a Socialist province. When you're done with 'em the government looks after em.

Yeah but when the government is paying them welfare they're a lot more "expedient" than when its not even their money....

"OK, well she hasn't tried working for 7 years, and she is 35....." ... "One more chance, .... and if you don't work... maybe you know just maybe we could consider maybe thinking about ummm.. stopping some spousal suppport i mean if you are ok with that, ok? you like that?"
-Judges when ex-wives refuse to work....

[shellshocked22]

Regarding Roland's last post....

First of all, I'm happy to hear you were able to get things resolved without destroying your finances.

Secondly I fully agree with your resolve to never get married in Canada again thanks to our ridiculous Family Law system which basically severely punishes the hard working partner. Whatever happened to people looking after themselves rather than sponging off a former partner ?

Sadly even "common law" isn't safe ! From a spousal support perspective, it's no different than marriage. The exception of course being those fortunate to live in Quebec in which common law does not require spousal support which quite frankly is the way it SHOULD be. If you want the benefits of being married (that is to screw over the higher earning partner) then GET MARRIED.

Mind you, even in Quebec there's no guarantee they won't change the law and even make it retroactive !

It's a shame really, there are many people out there who are honest, hard working and would never dream of shafting a former partner after a break up. Sadly, you won't ever know until it's too late........

[Roland]

I have to give my ex credit in that she stuck by what she originally proposed. She played fair. However this is not to say things where peachy. She's a tough nut and a loose cannon. As our now young adult daughter describes her, a wild card. And now she's in some kind of trouble with a car dealership with a deposit she wants returned for a car she promised to buy.
One crisis to the next. I'm going to a treatment center for a couple weeks in Northern Ont to deal with the codependency issues from the hangover of her drinking. At some point it is laughable. Everybody is recovering from yesterday.

Going forward I have no intention of living like a Monk. However, being a reasonably intelligent guy and with enough equity to buy in a townhouse and a job I'm taking ownership of my life. It's not that easy to do and there's no switch to flip for me and finding that sense of ease from the disease of alcoholism is process not an event. I will get there. I'm looking forward to a good summer as this legal log jam has come loose.

As for co habitation, no. I ain't no teenager and repeating behaviour and expecting a different result is nuts. I've also begun to share my experience with others guys who are about to walk down the path of marriage and my situation was simple. There should be a legal handbook given to every guy before they take the step beyond roommates.

I love this web site. The discussion of shared experience has helped me gain wisdom. See you in a couple weeks.