Que. alimony case to go before top court

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 

Laws change every day. I would not know how the retroactive thing in canada works but in the US at least it doesn't work retroactively, and again this case would only apply to people who spilt after the ruling at least if this was taking place in america.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
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.


I repeat again, benrl, this case has nothing to do with his obligation to pay child support - that is a given and is literally tens of thousands a month - after tax - over and above what she is seeking here.

What she is seeking here is spousal support and a division of his assets.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Alimony can and will come down to children when there is children involved, its a standard tactic to use the taking care of children defense when posed with the question why didn't you earn a career or education. IT will be used to determine the amount if any she is owed on the basis her taking care of the children was the equivalent to having earned a career.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Whats the proper emoticon for sigh with exasperation?

We can all say all we want this cases isn't about kids, but when she stands before the court, her lawyer will try very hard to make the case she couldn't do XYZ because this "successful" business man used this poor girl to have and raise his kids, while she slaved away with them he was out earning, and by her staying home it allowed him to earn "blah blah blah."

Family law is a sad place where your kids are a horrible burden to both sides.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Alimony can and will come down to children when there is children involved, its a standard tactic to use the taking care of children defense when posed with the question why didn't you earn a career or education. IT will be used to determine the amount if any she is owed on the basis her taking care of the children was the equivalent to having earned a career.


But marriage was not the case here, so alimony does not apply, nor can be used as a lever.

Alimony pertains to marriage, unless she can prove common law marriage and that may be difficult to prove, and varies in each of the provinces, in Canada.
edit on 24-3-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by leo123
 

Laws change every day. I would not know how the retroactive thing in canada works but in the US at least it doesn't work retroactively, and again this case would only apply to people who spilt after the ruling at least if this was taking place in america.


I don't have a problem with that as you always know where you stand, but in this case they are clearly attempting to change the law and make it *RETROACTIVE*.

Think for just one second the huge disruption this will create in Quebec if she succeeds. As the article says there are currently 1.2 million couples in Quebec living common law and this would retroactively apply against them as well.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I know people hate to be reminded of some things, things like Good does not always win, there is no santa claus, and NO love does not conquer all.

Having Pre-nuptial, domestic partnership agreements, or any other binding form of contract involved in your love life seems heinous and evil to all the romantics out there, but the truth of the time we live with is this.

1. Get involved long term with some one.

2. Have children with them.

3. Live with them.

4. Marry them.

You will be legally obligated to pay something, it may not be a lot, but you will, the more of the above 4 you have the more you will pay. SO if thats the case get a fricken agreement hammered out between your loved one and yourself. How hard is that? you love them, you should want to see them fairly treated (both sides.)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
this is reputedly a quebec billionaire who as also been a recent guest at the ISS.( research and you'll know)
This woman's children have been very well taken care of.
She is use to a lifestyle that is beyond your wildest dreams and now does not want to lose it.

My take on a common law mariage is that the Kids must always come first (Which has been done VERY WELL)

There should be nothing more for her in this case..... but the courts will decide!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
They had three children together, but he doesn't want to commit? Who is the jerk here. He's just thinking, "Why buy the cow if the milk is free?" except this one is fighting back. And given the OP's marital status and admitted issues with relationships, no wonder he feels that way, but it's not exactly objective, is it?
edit on 3/24/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



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


AND if thats the case (big if, it was already thrown out once), all those people breaking up will have to deal with this and could be sued by their partner (but they'd have to see this and go "oh hells no Im leaving this person" then should they even have been together to start with? might save some people from some future pain) OR all those people can stop and think rationally for a few seconds, talk with their loved one and write out what happens if they get separated, take it to a lawyer and get it finalized.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
They had three children together, but he doesn't want to commit? Who is the jerk here. He's just thinking, "Why buy the cow if the milk is free?" except this one is fighting back. And given the OP's marital status and admitted issues with relationships, no wonder he feels that way, but it's not exactly objective, is it?
edit on 3/24/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


schuyler

I think you need to be reminded that he told her repeatedly from day one that he had no interest in marrying her, so she entered into to this current situation fully compliant and eyes wide open, also knowing full well that the law states in Quebec that in common law relationships couples who break have zero obligations to each other.

Namely, fighting what? He is fully compliant with current laws and she wants to change the LAW, now that the law doesn't suit her fancy.

That's just plain arrogant as hell.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


yes, but her lawyer will argue that there was a de-facto marriage or common law one, and that the effects on his client where all there, and that by no legally recognizing the facts of their relation ship (kids, age, etc everything you would in a marriage divorce) that the court system is discriminating against her in a way that the law should protect.

Every aspect of their relationship will be argued in court, with the focus being on their children and her raising them, this case is not about the Alimony, its about if the Common Law Spouses have rights, and that is what the lawyer will use to build his discrimination case.

Which in turn will change the law, and allow her to seek alimony as a married person would, Frankly I think this man has some obligation to the Women, the question is, is it one that should be legally enforced, and by not enforcing is it the court discriminating against her?
edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 


Yes and they are already fighting the case from the point of it being discrimination against common law marriages.

This is why the whole marriage and government thing doesn't work, I always have thought there should be no marriages governed by the state, it should all be common law contracts if you want the states protection of your rights.

You want marriage go to a priest, you want Protection of your assets go to the state, and never the two shall meet.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
yes, but her lawyer will argue that there was a de-facto marriage or common law one, and that the effects on his client where all there, and that by no legally recognizing the facts of their relation ship (kids, age, etc everything you would in a marriage divorce) that the court system is discriminating against her in a way that the law should protect.


That's the way it is in the rest of Canada, but Quebec always did tap to a different drummer.

As I say, I have no problems with laws changing over time, but to make them retroactive will do a great injustice to the reputation of the law, IMO.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by leo123
 

Ill give an example here, I have a 73 Dodge charger, it was manufactured before any of the clean air laws, as well as the shoulder belt law here in the US.

Now I am not required to get it a smog test (it wouldn't pass if you slit the emissions across 4 cars) because it was made before the law.

I would assume if this law goes in effect it would only be used against any cases including this one on, so only people who have split after this ruling.

It really is a mess from enforcing and monitoring, you could get people holding off on breaking up until this law is set, or breaking up before its ruled on, again though I am unaware how your backwards canadian laws work (im kidding about the last part ours are probably more of a cluster F****)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
here is a lot more background on this case

www2.macleans.ca...

With a small excerpt that makes my blood boil

Lola moved to Montreal in January 1995, the beginning of what she calls the “five-star years.” She remembers $20,000-a-night hotels in Dubai. She could measure Eric’s rising fortunes by which class they flew: from economy to business, and on to his company’s $25-million jet—and, later, $40-million jet. Then there were parties: the yearly bash at their house that went on all weekend, where she’d meet faces she’d seen in magazines. Sometimes she had to call her sister in Brazil to find out who they were. She’d been anti-drug most of her life, but she tried drugs a few times. Cocaine wasn’t the end of the world, she figured. It helped her stay awake.

The way i see it the law is clear and her kids are taken care of for the rest of their lives and she had a fun ride while it lasted.... now she just wants more!
edit on 24-3-2011 by Perfect stranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
And just to add a little fuel to the fire:

Google is your friend:

IUC Exclusive: Billionaire ERIC was crushed when ex Brazilian gold-digger lover cheated on him

IUC Exclusive: Former Top Lawyer Says ERIC Deserves Gold Medal for Nonsense He’s Put Up With From Gold-Digger, Brazilian Ex Lover

IUC Exclusive: Gold-Digger LOLA Planned to Move Kids to New York or Brazil after Court Case against Billionaire

IUC Exclusive: Ex Lover Ran for Life from Gold-Digger



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Perfect stranger
 

Yes but the own excerpt you put shows how the lawyer is going to play it, she was there from the start when he was flying business all the way to 1st class and on. That one little sentence puts a new spin on the case, that doesn't seem to paint it as the Rich businessman and his arm candy, It sounds like she was there from the start.
edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)


Both parties know this will be about perception, how the court and or Jury perceives the other, both of these people have money to pay for the lawyers and publicist (it would seem) to put their own spin on the case.
edit on 24-3-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Some good points there. You might look deeper into the history of this guy It's a true "rags to riches story" in the grandest sense. From Homeless to the ISS..... she was not there from the begining



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Here is the Wiki page on him en.wikipedia.org...
The guy is admirable.. and turned a passion into huge bucks.... then gave back with the "one drop" foundation

IF this case will be won/lost on a "perception thing" .......Guy is the man!





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join