SS - ouch!

Status
Not open for further replies.
hadenough said:
By Caranna: "I''ve often thought that it would be great to have a marriage course including giving a taste to the star-struck lovers of what could and will happen should the marriage end up on the rocks. I don't see that occurring any time soon."

Yeah I'm sure a booth at the Bridal/Wedding shows that take place every year would not have a spot for a vendor trying to sell this course! What a dream-spoiler that could be.
Click to expand...

Well, one could imagine opening up a boutique catering exclusively to those embarking on their second, third, even fourth and fifth marriages. How about the second time around, third time's the charm, fourth takes the cake and five isn't enough? Just rolled off my tongue, maybe others have better names.
 
caranna said:
I've also been a bit surprised myself at how some usually sensible and levelheaded males on this forum will allow their buttons to be pushed (and thereby perhaps showing their true colours to emerge) on certain financial matters.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should ask all those women paying SS what their opinions are.
 
caranna said:
I've also been a bit surprised myself at how some usually sensible and levelheaded males on this forum will allow their buttons to be pushed (and thereby perhaps showing their true colours to emerge) on certain financial matters.
Click to expand...

Men on this forum that voice their opinion against ss are not only against paying ss, but would the situation be reversed and their female partner was the higher income earner, would not contemplate to become a financial burden on their female ex partners.

In regards to the topic of this thread, I was not aware of those specifics of this case. So point taken, and even though it makes me a little bit happier that it was not a prenap that was overturned, very little of my opinion changed.

Actually, I have a current situation that could be presented as an example.

My wife and I are looking into buying a large life insurance policy, so my mother-in-law decided to purchase one as well. I see nothing wrong if my mother-in-law asked me to sign an agreement if in case of our divorce, I should have no claim to that money (if it was inherited at that point). I see no duress in that.

Mind you, it is reasonable to expect that while married, we would be both benefiting, but upon separation, I can't see why I should be entitled to the money that my mother-in-law meant to provide for her daughter and her family. Once we are divorced we are no longer family and I would have no right to that money regardless signed contract or not. This is just my opinion and conscience.

Now in the OP case, there was a lump sum offer and division of assets that = to multimillion $$$.
 
JB514 - when you are separated and there is a new woman in your life it will be interesting to see how you feel at that time.

I read the McCain decision and what the judge noted was that Mrs. McCain wasn't fully apprised of her husband's total financial standing at the time she signed the agreement.

That would be reason enough to determine the agreement was null and void.
 
JB514 said:
Men on this forum that voice their opinion against ss are not only against paying ss, but would the situation be reversed and their female partner was the higher income earner, would not contemplate to become a financial burden on their female ex partners.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Can you read their minds that should the situation be reversed that they would collectively refuse SS? I highly doubt it.


Mind you, it is reasonable to expect that while married, we would be both benefiting, but upon separation, I can't see why I should be entitled to the money that my mother-in-law meant to provide for her daughter and her family. Once we are divorced we are no longer family and I would have no right to that money regardless signed contract or not.

That is your choice and it is a good and conscientious one. That does not mean that others, men or women, would follow your example.

Now in the OP case, there was a lump sum offer and division of assets that = to multimillion $$$.

Yes, that is true. If you are inferring by your quote that the wife is not entitled to "multimilllion $$$' I disagree. The assets should be divided equally/equitably, just as if there were not so many $$$.
 
under what obligation does he have to fully disclose his financial income.

personally if i were to get "married" i keep my shit separate adn she keeps hers separate.
 
arabian said:
JB514 - when you are separated and there is a new woman in your life it will be interesting to see how you feel at that time.

I read the McCain decision and what the judge noted was that Mrs. McCain wasn't fully apprised of her husband's total financial standing at the time she signed the agreement.

That would be reason enough to determine the agreement was null and void.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that I would change my mind because I would have a new woman, and to get the means to support her I would rip my ex "a new one"? Wow! thats low:(
 
caranna said:
How do you know this? Can you read their minds that should the situation be reversed that they would collectively refuse SS? I highly doubt it.

[I]Point taken, I can't speak for all on this forum, but I speak for myself.[/I]

Mind you, it is reasonable to expect that while married, we would be both benefiting, but upon separation, I can't see why I should be entitled to the money that my mother-in-law meant to provide for her daughter and her family. Once we are divorced we are no longer family and I would have no right to that money regardless signed contract or not.

That is your choice and it is a good and conscientious one. That does not mean that others, men or women, would follow your example.

Now in the OP case, there was a lump sum offer and division of assets that = to multimillion $$$.

Yes, that is true. If you are inferring by your quote that the wife is not entitled to "multimilllion $$$' I disagree. The assets should be divided equally/equitably, just as if there were not so many $$$.
Click to expand...

Actually I meant that it would be fair if she got half of marital assets, and additional 10 mil$$ is a bonus!!!
 
Happens all the time. Nothing personal intended by my remarks, if anything it is a projection of my own personal situation.

It's like when you get married you have the very best of intentions. People change. Circumstances change. New partners come along and quite often are quite resentful of an ex getting money. I'm living that nightmare right now so I know it does happen. Yes it is very, very low.
 
JB514 said:
Men on this forum that voice their opinion against ss are not only against paying ss, but would the situation be reversed and their female partner was the higher income earner, would not contemplate to become a financial burden on their female ex partners.
Click to expand...

Oh but you did speak for others when you made that remark. I accept your explanation however.

Sounds like you are a fair-minded and sensible person. It would be wonderful to have more people here with your attitude.
 
arabian said:
JB514 - when you are separated and there is a new woman in your life it will be interesting to see how you feel at that time.

I read the McCain decision and what the judge noted was that Mrs. McCain wasn't fully apprised of her husband's total financial standing at the time she signed the agreement.

That would be reason enough to determine the agreement was null and void.
Click to expand...

Well, I feel the same as JB514. If it had been me looking after our son at home for 2 years and the marriage ended, I wouldn't expect my ex wife to pay 100% of all my bills and expenses for 3+ years afterwards. I would probably appreciate a few months until I could get back into the workforce and then support myself and put my kids in daycare like everyone else does. I have worked everywhere from retail to teaching to engineering and given a break from the workforce I'm sure I could get back into any of those domains fairly easily.

Men expect to support themselves and generally derive self esteem from also supporting others. That's just the values of our culture.

Arabian is a smart lady, but she has a bit of a narrow minded view of SS since her situation comes at the end of 30+ years of marriage and a lot of her finances were invested into her ex's failing business ventures. Like everyone, she is an expert on her own case, but not necessarily everyone else's cases.

Regarding McCain, I didn't read the ruling yet... but my view is that not being "fully informed" shouldn't make much difference. At one point does greed overcome everything else? Apparently when 10M just isn't enough anymore...
 
Last edited:
caranna said:
I've also been a bit surprised myself at how some usually sensible and levelheaded males on this forum will allow their buttons to be pushed (and thereby perhaps showing their true colours to emerge) on certain financial matters.
Click to expand...

I show my 'true colours' in every post, don't you caranna?
 
billm said:
I show my 'true colours' in every post, don't you caranna?
Click to expand...

I try to be as candid and straightforward as possible when posting...why waste my time if otherwise? I don't reveal my real name or location however, for obvious reasons.
 
FightingForFamily - you are quite right that I am certainly not an expert on other people's issues. I'm no expert on my own either. What I do have a hard time with is when people make assumptive and derogatory remarks about traditional long term marriages. I have always stated emphatically that each case is different. To not accept that would be narrow minded don't you think?

I try to focus my remarks on SS with respect to our country's current legislation. Like it or not.

You should read the McCain decision in it's entirety and you will better understand the judge's decision. Like it or not it is accordance with our current legislation.

A perfect example of narrow-mindedness is when people make remarks about case law without reading it don't you think?????
 
arabian said:
...
You should read the McCain decision in it's entirety and you will better understand the judge's decision. Like it or not it is accordance with our current legislation.

A perfect example of narrow-mindedness is when people make remarks about case law without reading it don't you think?????
Click to expand...

Sorry Arabian, but this out of line - they never said the case was in error, they were stating their opinion about the way things should be, not the way they are.
 
I believe the thread was about a specific case. The link was provided. I think it's prudent to read about something before you comment on it. Simply logical.


I believe that cats should bark and dogs should sing. Relevance to divorce law in Canada?

There is a separate place for posting political views on this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top