Distraught!!

[Auggie]

See, the way I see things, a spouse (male or female) should not benefit by leaving over the situation had they stayed. For eg: this home. Would she have $150,000.00 in cash in HER account had she stayed? No. So, why should she reap the benefits of bailing on the relationship? She shouldn't that's why.

In your example, neither benefited. He had to re-mortgage the house for $150K yet lives in the same house.
She gets $150K and needs to borrow another $150K to live in a similar house she was used to.

If they both contributed equally to the marriage in different ways it's fair to make a 50/50 split but I know you put little value on being a homemaker or raising children.

We don't know Barbara's contribution to her marriage so we can't judge if she's asking for too much. Stories about how other people made out well have no bearing on her situation.

 

[Chunky]

As I see it, equity accumulated during a marriage is always split 50/50 . The only problem I have is with spousal support and what is truly fair and equitable for both parties.

 

[SillyGirl]

What is considered reasonable in Canada as far as for how long alimony is awarded?

 

[tboy]

In your example, neither benefited. He had to re-mortgage the house for $150K yet lives in the same house.
She gets $150K and needs to borrow another $150K to live in a similar house she was used to.

If they both contributed equally to the marriage in different ways it's fair to make a 50/50 split but I know you put little value on being a homemaker or raising children.

We don't know Barbara's contribution to her marriage so we can't judge if she's asking for too much. Stories about how other people made out well have no bearing on her situation.

Actually no, you are incorrect sir. To live in the same house, she could (theoretically) purchase one for a lot less than $150K. (then, it was years ago). To make your argument valid you should say: live in the same house, in the same neighbourhood, in the same area. You also miss the point that the "value" of the house is estimated and based on the fact that a) they'd have to sell HIS house to get that return b) they'd have to find a buyer to pay that much and this would all have to be done at that very second as housing prices fluctuate.

Kind of like appraisals on diamond rings. There is the appraised value, then what you can buy it for. I've seen rings appraised at $10,000.00 that were purchased for $1500.00.

The 50/50 split should have been on the actual "real" purchase price of the house, not the "pull a number out of my ass" price.

Neither benefitted? Jesus dude...are you serious? The ex wife ended up with $150,000.00 in CASH and he ended up with a $150,000.00 mortgage....how is that not a benefit? If she had stayed in the house and married she wouldn't have that $150,000.00 and he wouldn't have a mortgage......

As for the value of a homemaker (they didn't have kids), as stated elsewhere in this thread, the value of those services rendered certainly don't equal what the courts say they are. Plus the courts don't consider the COL deduction of the value of those services. If she (or he for that matter) were actually earning x amount, a large chunk of that would be spent simply on "living" expenses. So why is that not considered? Further to that, if she was actually being paid during her tenure as a homemaker, then BOTh their standard of living would have been better would it not? Since they would then be a 2 income family......

 

[tboy]

What is considered reasonable in Canada as far as for how long alimony is awarded?

I had heard that it is up and until she remarries and did a search....came up with this:

"If the marriage was short, less than a year, and there are no children involved, the court may put a time limit on the alimony payments. The judge determines the amount of time.
If the marriage was longer and involved children, there is not usually a time limit on alimony payments. Applications can be made to change or end spousal support if one party's financial situation changes."

In other words, if she gets a well paying job. Now it is also my experience that there is no need for her to do so since she is already being "paid" well. Better paying jobs usually mean full time, or higher stress/higher demand type jobs"

See, many think I'm being unreasonable to say that because we are only talking about money here and financial rewards, that we should only consider that when determining alimony. Plus, as I've said, I am 100% against anyone leaving a marriage and ending up better off than if they had stayed in the marriage (financially). I know of two instances where the spouse was far better off financially when they left. One instance was where the husband was distraught over the breakup and his business failed. When he went to have payments adjusted (now I wasn't there so I can't speak verbatim) the judge basically said: well, you should have tried harder to keep your business going. The kicker is he had to take a job doing the same thing working for someone else and no WAY was he making anything close to what he was when he was running his business.

Sorry, but there is nothing anyone can say that will convince me that a spouse should be better off financially when they leave a marriage, no ifs ands or buts. There is also nothing anyone can say to me to convince me that there shouldn't be an incentive for the spouse to become self sufficient after the marriage ends.

Furthermore, if the spouse ends up co-habitating with someone, I think the alimony payments should stop.

 

[Madman]

Kind of like appraisals on diamond rings. There is the appraised value, then what you can buy it for. I've seen rings appraised at $10,000.00 that were purchased for $1500.00.

The 50/50 split should have been on the actual "real" purchase price of the house, not the "pull a number out of my ass" price.

.

I'm I mistaken in believing that a Certified Home Appraiser or a good Realtor based on comparable s sold in the area can very closely predict the selling price of a home? If we were to follow your logic then MPAC's way of assessing property tax is a farce (which I believe it is) because they are basing the property taxes on the value of a home which has not yet been sold and profits not yet earned.

Your ring analogy I'll buy into. I've done that myself with jewelry I've purchased over seas.

 

[tboy]

I'm I mistaken in believing that a Certified Home Appraiser or a good Realtor based on comparable s sold in the area can very closely predict the selling price of a home? If we were to follow your logic then MPAC's way of assessing property tax is a farce (which I believe it is) because they are basing the property taxes on the value of a home which has not yet been sold and profits not yet earned.

Your ring analogy I'll buy into. I've done that myself with jewelry I've purchased over seas.

The problem with that is, for the most part, yes they can predict the possible selling price. But all the key words there are possible, predict, and the underlying factor here is that the homeowner has to actually want to sell the house. As I said, if plans were in the works as a couple, to sell the house and move, then yes, the departing spouse would and should be entitled to half of the proceeds of the sale. But the underlying factor here is no, no plans to sell the house were being discussed. Therefore whatever "might" happen "if" the house was sold, is, IMO irrelevant.

We're talking the guy's childhood home here. A house and area he grew up in. He never planned on ever selling the house therefore the future value is irrelevant. This is a double edged blow to the head: not only was he FORCED to decide to either sell something he held dear to his heart, or he was also FORCED to get a mortgage where he was living mortgage free for 10 yrs.....furthermore, SHE benefitted by living mortgage free also. She was able to purchase clothes etc that they normally wouldn't have been able to afford on a single income.

The thing that everyone seems to miss is sure, she was a homemaker. Did things around the house like cleaning and laundry etc. But we're all assuming he did nothing. That on his time off he had a maid waiting on him hand and foot. Sorry, but he cut the grass, painted the exterior, maintained the house. When it was time to repave the drive was she out there with the bucket and blacktop? No, he (and I) were. When the shed was built in the backyard? Did she have hammer in hand? No....went the pipe in the basement started leaking did she fix it? No....she turned off the water until he got home and HE fixed it.

Yet when it came time to decide the "worth" she got 50%.....

 

[Insertion]

I have to hand it to you T, you present some good fodder for thought. Is there a family lawyer in the midst that can present an argument for the other side, it would make for a very interesting debate.

 

[SillyGirl]

I had heard that it is up and until she remarries and did a search....came up with this:

"If the marriage was short, less than a year, and there are no children involved, the court may put a time limit on the alimony payments. The judge determines the amount of time.
If the marriage was longer and involved children, there is not usually a time limit on alimony payments. Applications can be made to change or end spousal support if one party's financial situation changes."

If I'm understanding that correctly to mean that it's not unusual for alimony to be awarded for life, in most circumstances I would agree that seems excessive.

No wonder you guys have your boxers in a twist.

 

[Insertion]

If I'm understanding that correctly to mean that it's not unusual for alimony to be awarded for life, in most circumstances I would agree that seems excessive.

No wonder you guys have your boxers in a twist.

Here's another fact of divorce that puts my knickers in a twist. A spouse who is still married and has a child. The child goes to post secondary education, the family has a choice to pay or not to pay the tuition. A divorced spouse who no longer lives at home has no choice. If the child attends a University he/she is obligated to pay. That is simply not fair, it should be a choice as it is with a married couple.

 

[SillyGirl]

Here's another fact of divorce that puts my knickers in a twist. A spouse who is still married and has a child. The child goes to post secondary education, the family has a choice to pay or not to pay the tuition. A divorced spouse who no longer lives at home has no choice. If the child attends a University he/she is obligated to pay. That is simply not fair, it should be a choice as it is with a married couple.

Do you mean that is an automatic thing, legally? Would it still apply if the kid lived with the higher-earning parent?

A lot of this stuff was negotiated between parties in NY. Or settled by a judge, if necessary. While there were accepted norms in what was considered reasonable, there were few mandates. I didn't have to deal with child support though, I think that was one area where there was a flat percentage assessed.

 

[jiiimmm]

Funny thing is, they were separated already so technically, he wasn't having an affair.

You're not allowing him back into the house he paid for? Hmmm doesn't that sound a little hypocritical? Why do you feel that you have the right to bar him from home? If you're that pissed off and hurt, why wouldn't YOU leave?

I don't know that she's been a part of his success....if that were true then would she also be part of his failure? If he lost his job and couldn't get another would she stand on a street corner and blow truckers to pay the mortgage?

Allowed him the freedom to follow and build his career? How? By raising the kids? He didn't have any part of that? I doubt that.....I should think that HE allowed YOU the freedom to be a stay at home mom and raise the kids. Otherwise, you'd have been forced to go out and get a job yourself. I bet that if he didn't have a wife and kids he'd still be earning the same amount. I'm not saying he didn't benefit from having a wife at home. But that is the ONLY part that should be considered when alimony is being considered.

The absolute WORST thing a guy can do is have a stay at home mom for a wife. That is the deathknell for him if they should part ways. If she had a job she'd only be (morally) entitled to the difference between her take home and half his take home. Now, the courts will give her probably half his earnings. I feel alimony should be calculated based on the career path the wife was embarking on before the marriage. For eg: did she graduate highschool? college? did she even have a full time job? Was it something like a receptionist?

Something to consider is the life she would have had had she not gotten married....

One thing we ALL have to consider here: we're only getting one side of the story. Who knows? She could have gained 200 lbs, stopped having sex with him 6 yrs ago, and anytime he comes near her she pushes him away with disdain.......

I have to wonder: if a guy came on here saying he found out his wife was having an affair and he vandalized her car, threw all her clothes on the lawn and peed on all her shoes would we still be giving him our support? I bring this up because of that song about slashing the tires on his pretty little souped up 4 wheel drive, carved her name into his leather seats......I couldn't help but think how many womens groups would be up in arms if a song was written like that about a man doing that to a woman........

when you're right, you're right! I can't help thinking that the poor bastard's refuge has been taken over by a vindictive wife publicly airing their laundry. Surprised he hasn't been named yet. Sad. I also do not believe in stay at home moms. I know that may not be popular, but the kids will be fine, get your ass to work.

 

[tboy]

Do you mean that is an automatic thing, legally? Would it still apply if the kid lived with the higher-earning parent?

A lot of this stuff was negotiated between parties in NY. Or settled by a judge, if necessary. While there were accepted norms in what was considered reasonable, there were few mandates. I didn't have to deal with child support though, I think that was one area where there was a flat percentage assessed.

I think he means that when he doesn't have custody of the kid, he has no say in the matter. If the child and the mother decide he's going to school, the husband has to foot the bill. This is another issue: if the parents were together, the cost would be born by both. Therefore even if they divorce, the cost STILL should be born by both. ie: Mom pays for part out of her "income" and the husband pays for part out of his "income". (her income being alimony and child support payments). I don't think this should be an added on financial burden to the husband alone.....

Once again reason to have a limit on alimony and an incentive for the wife to become self sufficient.....

 

[Barbara]

LOL, this thread is still going and has morphed into a discussion about the fairness of divorce. As for my own situation I will be receiving a substantial alimony payment. I do have a decent job but our pays differ substantially. The children are old enough to make up their own mind as to whom they would want to live with. I am confident it will be me but in the end that will be their decision. He has offered to buy me out of the "matrimonial" home which I wholeheartedly agree with and requested. I must admit my lawyer had me smiling from ear to ear when he crunched the numbers and conveyed to me the amount I can reasonably request as a payment. The sun is shining brightly and will continue to do so for years to come.

 

[tboy]

If I'm understanding that correctly to mean that it's not unusual for alimony to be awarded for life, in most circumstances I would agree that seems excessive.

No wonder you guys have your boxers in a twist.

Sorry, I missed this post...and yes, not only is it for "life", there is a way around the rules that state the alimony would stop if she meets someone new. In fact, she could actually start a long term life partner relationship and live with the guy yet still keep getting the first husband to foot the bill.

In a case like this the new guy would get off scott free should anything happen as she couldn't claim alimony or support from him because she wouldn't have been able to claim him as a common law husband......but (and I seem to recall one case in the news like this) the ex wife DID claim after years of receiving alimony that her new guy was really a common law husband and demanded alimony from him too. Well, she bit herself in the ass because the ex husband went after her for back alimony that he'd paid her when she was in fact in a "marriage".

Now with that being said, you can sue for the back alimony but unless she has assets, he's screwed. As the saying goes, you can't get blood from a stone. (but in the case of alimony, even if the husband has no money he still has to pay...funny eh?)

 

[tboy]

LOL, this thread is still going and has morphed into a discussion about the fairness of divorce. As for my own situation I will be receiving a substantial alimony payment. I do have a decent job but our pays differ substantially. The children are old enough to make up their own mind as to whom they would want to live with. I am confident it will be me but in the end that will be their decision. He has offered to buy me out of the "matrimonial" home which I wholeheartedly agree with and requested. I must admit my lawyer had me smiling from ear to ear when he crunched the numbers and conveyed to me the amount I can reasonably request as a payment. The sun is shining brightly and will continue to do so for years to come.

Now let me ask you, and I don't want this to come off as argumentative, but is there no sense of "doing it for yourself" and simply cutting all ties with him? Or is it simply knowing you can live the highlife for the rest of your life on his dime?

Just curious as to the mindset behind comments like you made......

Now I can understand the vindictive nature of your actions, but what kills me with divorce laws is that even if Barbara cheated on her husband, she'd still be entitled to everything she's getting.....

 

[Barbara]

Now let me ask you, and I don't want this to come off as argumentative, but is there no sense of "doing it for yourself" and simply cutting all ties with him? Or is it simply knowing you can live the highlife for the rest of your life on his dime?

Just curious as to the mindset behind comments like you made......

Not to worry, believe it or not I am thick skinned Tboy and do not mind giving you my POV without getting into specific for obvious reasons.

I was married a long time ago. I had a very promising career and was on my way to being promoted, not to mention I was earning a bit more than he was back then. You never know what life brings you but shortly after our wedding day I was blessed with my first pregnancy. We were married only 2 months when I was given the news and by our 10th month of marriage my first child was born. At this point my career took a back seat.

We decided together to have our 2 children back to back and since we both knew he would become a very good earner he preferred that for the first 12 years of our children's lives they would be raised by their mother as he had been. I argued at first that I thought 2 years with their mom would suffice and also I believed that they would gain some extra social skills by being enrolled in a good Daycare but I couldn't sway him. He was adamant and at the time I was young and loved him so much plus I admired his family oriented mindset.

You could imagine after being out of the work force for approximately 13 to 14 years how difficult it has been in this new economy to try and regain what once was meant to be career wise. In short I took a back seat from my own personal growth while his career blossomed. His business has afforded him to travel the continent while I sat home with my children. We did take family vacations once or twice a year but most of the year I raised my children.

Based on what I have stated and if you were in my heels Tboy, would you cut all ties, let him take his well over 6 figure salary and live happily ever after as I try and make a go of it again starting from scratch?

 

[Auggie]

Now that Barbara's gonna be sitting on a wad of cash, it means fewer gifts to that tramp slut who took her man. :he:

 

[peace]

uhmmm is "she" really a slut? Isnt it kind of harsh? I mean the husband chose to have sex with another person outside of his marriage. He has to deal with the consequences. Maybe she wasnt aware of it. It happens often.

Please take me out of the running for a possible 3some with barbara and melanie as I am afraid that I 'll end up being broke.

 

[Auggie]

Maybe she wasn't aware he was married then, but she is now.
I'm just kidding with the tramp slut remark, she might be a lovely and kind homewrecker. :he: