Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Que. alimony case to go before top court

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Que. alimony case to go before top court


www.cbc.ca

"Lola was 17 when she met the wealthy entrepreneur. The couple spent 10 years together and had three children.

When the couple split, Lola, now in her 30s, sought a $50-million, lump-sum payment from her former partner and $56,000 a month in alimony payments.

A woman known as Lola is seeking alimony after living with a man in a union that produced three children. They never married.
In 2009, Lola took her case to the Quebec Superior Court, where a judge rejected her claims, saying that under existing law, unmarried partners have no rights, duties or responsibilities to each other
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 3/24/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed closing underline tag




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Nice going, JERKS.

This is what completely tics me off about the law in Canada as it applies to relationships and why I have not considered anything more than a casual relationship with women since my divorce.

Here is a guy who made it amply clear to his partner that he did not want to get married, which under Quebec law meant that neither partner had any obligation to each other. She obviously enjoyed not only his company for ten years, but the lifestyle he afforded her, but when the day came when they split she goes to court to try and screw him and being a woman she naturally wins. And in this case it meant having to change the law to do it.

Just complete BS.

CBC naturally closes the article to comments, because they KNOW what an explosion of posts would follow.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


I have always felt alimony was total crap. Imo most who want it are those who have been spoiled and lived outside of their means and then want to continue that on someone elses dime while they do nothing. To me these are like golddiggers.

If you are accustomed to a certain lifestyle get a job and support yourself! If you are not married or with that person anymore all luxuries the other gave you are gone, lost in the split so if you want to continue that get a job and do it yourself.


I would never do this but then again I am not like most women...more bad women giving the good ones a bad name.

Ugh......



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


She hasn't won, so read your own article fully before posting. Many places Common law marriages are recognized, in general though this area of law is filled with misconceptions and archaic Patriarchal views (women are not (insert cause and reason here) to make the same living as the man who supported them)

That being said there are cases where support from the opposite party is called for, Perhaps this wealthy business man can just pay her way through 4 years of college (she was 17 when they started shacking up) and at the end of the 4 years all his obligations to her be done with, with the exception of child support for the kids. (Far cheaper than all that money she wants.)
edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
That's the sad thing, mblahnikluver. I know of several decent fellows who think the same way I do, namely, that there is NO WAY they/I would even consider getting into a serious relationship with a woman again.

We simply view women as contingent liabilities and we know we would lose.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Yes I am sure thats the reason you will not pursue a long term relation ship, there are things called prenuptial agreements as well as Post-nuptial agreements that can be made.

If people are not informed enough to treat serious life choices with as much caution and respect they do Business ones they deserve what ever they get in the end, including having to pay.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
 


She hasn't won, so read your own article fully before posting.


You are quite right, benrl, but the fact remains that this guy is being put through one extremely expensive HELL when all he did was correctly follow the law. And if this was the 1990's I would guarantee you that she would win at an SCC level as the then Court was totally controlled by hard left liberals and some of the most brutal radfems the planet has ever seen.

In those days the Court would regularly break separation agreements using the flimsiest excuses, and it was always in flavor of women.

That said, when Beverly McLaughlin became the head of our SCC a glimer of sanity started to arrive on the scene and in one key ruling they made it clear that unless a separation agreement was inherently unfair, etc. it is a contract and it holds. Namely, people need to be able to get on with their lives without an ever present fear that they would be taken back to court.

So I do hold out a glimmer of hope here, but very little.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You know the institution of marriage is devolved when it routinely descends into the realm of legal contract arrangements.... as if we were all royalty.

It may seem inappropriate but there are times when one person's success in life can be attributed, in large part, to their spouse.There are times when a spouse puts their life and ambitions on hold to fulfill the other. There are even times when two people actually love each other (as opposed to 'being in love' as the TV teaches) and would not approach the relationship as some treacherous leap of faith into the maw of uncertainty. But it appears it's increasingly rare; and people are not patient enough, or not willing, to compromise.... enter the 'lawyerly' merchants of justice....



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
there are things called prenuptial agreements


True, but unless you renew them regularly, they slowly become less and less enforceable.

Namely, your need to perpetually view your partner as a possible threat and it's not the way I am going to live any more.
edit on 24-3-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


And hes being dragged through it for his own stupidity, He is a successful business man so we can assume he has some intelligence.

He could of at any point taken her aside and drafted a document (perhaps at the time for the first illegitimate child between the two) Stating what her and his obligations would be to each other if they should split, at least in regards to the first child and any following child after.

He didn't so either he is stupid and careless (deserves what he gets) or he thought this all out and thinks his chances in the court system are better and out weighted the option of having any kind of agreement before hand.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
And hes being dragged through it for his own stupidity,


I fail to see how it is his fault, benrl, he was fully compliant with existing Quebec law as it applies to common law relationships.

Namely (from my link), "under existing law, unmarried partners have no rights, duties or responsibilities to each other."



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


See I take a different stance on this, for my partner I do not want a delicate flower who needs protecting, I want a partner, someone who is capable and has my back when it comes down to it.

In the end these agreements protect both parties not just the Male, its a view that this benefits only one party (having on (male) or not(female) ) that causes these problems in the first place.

My wife has made more than me on more than a few occasions (based on end of the year earnings) it can be a give an take, sometimes Ill make more, some times she does. A pre-nuptial benefited both of us, it simply lays out a plan on how we will handle assets held before the marriage, as well as assets we hold during. We also laid out what happens to any eventual kids in the future.

Its not an adversarial situation at all, its common sense for the times we live in. Whens the best time to really figure this stuff out, when the relationship is soured and you hate each other? Or when its just starting to get serious, where you can see a future with this person and you still respect each other.

Instead all we see are these idiots who didn't plan and plopped out kids for #s and giggles, children deserve more than that.
edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


He didn't plan out child support before having a kid, And I did say the flip side of it, Maybe he thought it all out, talked with his lawyer, and his lawyer told him "hey she's doesn't have a chance in hell" so he's A either stupid or B he's got his basis covered.

Your telling me he shacked up with a 17 year old, had 3 kids, and never once thought hey this girl is gonna come at me when this all goes bad?

edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
All well and good, benrl, but I remain that if they change the existing Quebec common law statute to screw this guy over, what's to say the Court won't at some date in the future change the law to screw the guy who has an agreement in place that you speak of?

Namely, how can you trust ANY part of the law as it applies to relationships if the SCC upholds this?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
 


He didn't plan out child support before having a kid.


Do remember, this case has nothing to do whatsoever with his obligation to pay child support - that is a given and it is covered by Federal Law, not provincial.

This case strictly involves her entitlement to Spousal Support and a division of assets.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Frankly laws should change to help protect the people, in this case it might call for a change it might not. I am not so cynical to simply say this women is not entitled to anything, this man did start dating a 17 year old, perhaps she does deserve some compensation just not the amount she is asking for.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
 


He didn't plan out child support before having a kid, And I did say the flip side of it, Maybe he thought it all out, talked with his lawyer, and his lawyer told him "hey she's doesn't have a chance in hell" so he's A either stupid or B he's got his basis covered.

Your telling me he shacked up with a 17 year old, had 3 kids, and never once thought hey this girl is gonna come at me when this all goes bad?



Child Support and Alimony are two completely unrelated areas.

Child Support is just as it sounds, and most likely he will have to pay child support, if he is the bread winner. The amount usually will be determined by a formula, and enforce by the court.

Alimony is has nothing to do with children or child support, and it's history was based on very old laws.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
 


Frankly laws should change to help protect the people, in this case it might call for a change it might not. I am not so cynical to simply say this women is not entitled to anything, this man did start dating a 17 year old, perhaps she does deserve some compensation just not the amount she is asking for.


Morally, I agree with you, but I am approaching this on a basis of trust in the law - no matter what the law.

How is anybody supposed to live in peace if they know that even though they have lived for years fully compliant with the law, the Court - at it's whim - can change the law and make it *RETROACTIVE* against you?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars It may seem inappropriate but there are times when one person's success in life can be attributed, in large part, to their spouse.There are times when a spouse puts their life and ambitions on hold to fulfill the other.


it is inappropriate to this situation since clearly from her age she was not established nor did she "support" this man "Eric's rise to business prominence... they are not splitting assets here. she wants a piece of what he has and the ruling will now cause preexisting laws to change.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


If I was not married, and found a 17 year old who I just had to have a relationship with, you would be damn sure I would be covering my bases left and right from the start.

Now fast forward a few years, and I have a kid with this 17 year old who thanks to me being real well off hasn't really had a chance (or more likely motivation) to foster her own career or education At this point I am seriously double checking all my legal coverage on the matter. For A. having shacked up with a 17 year old to start with. B. Knowingly spoiling the women (so she has no desire to earn her own living) C. Now having a kid which carries a huge legal obligation Which this case will ultimately come down to is the kids, in court she will say how she couldn't do XYZ because she was busy raising his kids while he earned.

Sadly once kids are involved thats all this becomes about.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join