Is this fair????????????????


Goober
#1
'Trophy husband' awarded $157K from B.C. widow - British Columbia - CBC News

A former world-class figure skater, model and wealthy widow has been ordered by a British Columbia court to pay her so-called "trophy husband" more than $157,000 in support after a 14-year relationship.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Randall Wong ruled that 66-year-old Gordon Walker was the spouse of 86-year-old Valerie Fortune Brown and is entitled to support as a result.

Before the relationship, Walker lived on welfare or was periodically employed, but then became a "kept man" and "economically dependent," with Brown covering all of his living expenses and luxuries, including about 60 trips to destinations around the world, said the court the ruling.

"Now at 66 years of age, with a long-time economic dependency, the breakup of their relationship has caused Mr. Walker to be economically disadvantaged in terms of what he had been accustomed," said Wong. "His future job prospects are extremely limited."

In addition to the $157,000, Wong ordered Brown to pay Walker interest dating back to Jan. 1, 2012 but also issued a permanent restraining order because of letters the man wrote to Brown's legal counsel, threatening to write his memoirs about the couple's sexual experiences.
Only a 'heavy luggage porter'

Brown had argued Walker was just a platonic live-in friend, a domestic male security escort and travelling companion, as well as a "heavy luggage porter."

Citing Walker's "reprehensible conduct," Wong also deprived the man of his court costs, which normally would have been granted.

The court heard Brown was raised in England, educated in a private girls' school, became a world-class figure skating champion and a model for art sculptures before she married twice.

After her second husband died in 1994, Brown was left with an estate of nearly $8 million that included investments, property and retirement income.

Meantime, Wong described Walker as a Grade 12 graduate and former bookkeeper, clerk, dispatcher and sales executive.

The two met in June 1997 at a federal polling station on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast, and within days she was helping him find work, buying him lunch, food hampers and even a $120 pen.

By September of that year, Brown invited Walker to move into her home, states Wong's ruling, and that same month she gave him money to buy a new home that both were supposed to inhabit but didn't.

The court also heard that during the relationship, Brown bought Walker a $10,000 Rolex watch, a new Lexus SUV and opened several joint bank accounts to cover expenses.
Plastic surgery

"Ms. Brown even underwent cosmetic face lift surgery to remove facial wrinkles and furrow on her forehead," wrote Wong. "This was done despite Mr. Walker's concern and objection, reassuring her that she looked beautiful to him."

Wong said the couple never married, maintained separate bedroom but shared hotel and ship-cabin rooms with twin beds during their travels.

Walker even signed a residency agreement in August 1998, after Brown had returned from a trip to eastern Canada to visit her children.

"In their 14-year relationship, the [Walker] regarded himself as a 'kept man' and a 'trophy husband," wrote Wong, who noted Walker became more assertive in the relationship, pestered Brown for partial ownership of her assets and frequently asked her to marry him unsuccessfully.

Wong said Brown eventually became disillusioned with Walker and concerned he was abusing his credit cards for cash advances and personal use and was secretly withdrawing funds from their joint bank account.

"She felt she could no longer trust him," said Wong. "She was also concerned with protecting her adult children's potential inheritance, if Mr. Walker continued to aggressively press for a greater share of her holdings."
 
karrie
+3
#2
Is there ever such a thing as 'fair' when relationships break up?

I'm sorry, but you don't take out a joint chequing account with your body guard/porter. They were clearly a couple. 157 000 is a pittance.
 
SLM
+1
#3
Frankly she was stupid to not put anything in writing. If it was not a 'romantic relationship' as she claims, then she should have had an employment contract drawn up, because that's essentially what she's saying he was. If it was a romantic relationship, she walked into it eyes wide open, knowing full well he was unemployed and she provided support.

I really don't have any sympathy for her.

Is it fair? Meh, it is what it is.
 
captain morgan
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Frankly she was stupid to not put anything in writing.

There is no real value in a pre-nup (or however you want to define this arrangement).

To all the ladies of the 21st Century... Welcome to the jungle... It ain't gonna be pretty
 
damngrumpy
#5
Everybody wanted equality and that is happening I guess, Kerrie is right there is no such
thing as fair in a relationship. For younger families don't use children as a weapon they
will resent both of you. For older relationships think about the outcomes before entering
into a relationship. If it goes sideways someone and everyone is going to pay one way or
another. I just find it sad that people at their age can't find ways to get along.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#6
If any alimony is fair, then this is. It is a bit small however. Is that per year?
 
Nuggler
#7
15,700 per annum for 10 years.

Not much.
 
WLDB
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Is there ever such a thing as 'fair' when relationships break up?

That was my first thought. If you look for fairness in such a situation more times than not you'll be disappointed to say the least.
 
Goober
+1
#9
If it was a women in the same position would there have been support payments as well? They were clearly a common law couple.
 
Niflmir
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

There is no real value in a pre-nup (or however you want to define this arrangement).

To all the ladies of the 21st Century... Welcome to the jungle... It ain't gonna be pretty

Actually, pre-nuptial agreements can have some astounding consequences:

French Man Ordered to Pay Ex-Wife Nearly $12,000 in Damages for Lack of Sex | Fox News

Hmm, that fox article is crap. The original story I recall is that they agreed to have a jewish marriage, where a certain amount of sex was obligatory.
 
SLM
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

There is no real value in a pre-nup (or however you want to define this arrangement).

To all the ladies of the 21st Century... Welcome to the jungle... It ain't gonna be pretty

Geese and ganders, chickens and ducks. Everybody's feeding from the trough now.
 
earth_as_one
+4
#12  Top Rated Post
Switch the genders around and I have no doubt the settlement would have been significantly greater.
 
taxslave
+2
#13
I didn't see anywhere in the article if this is a one shot deal or per year? If it's one shot that is getting off cheap.
 
Angstrom
#14
This concept that you owe someone you no longer live with anything is by far the stupidest thing in human history.

Even when you live with someone. The idea they you are obligated to do anything for That person is hands down the most retarded altitude in our society. And we wonder why our kids expect everything to be given to them with a silver spoon.

Its created a whole class of people hunting for a free meal ticket..... Dumb law's for dumb people.
Last edited by Angstrom; Feb 13th, 2013 at 10:30 PM..
 
gopher
+1
#15
she should have been forced to pay more
 
Sal
#16
I think I agree with Angstrom here. She picked him up and lavished him with gifts and gave him a good life. Now she no longer trusts him and wants to be separated from him, she owes him why?

He lucked in to a good situation so now she owes it to him to mother him for the the next ten years. I don't catch the concept actually. If they were true partners and he contributed to the earnings then for sure. But just because a leech lucks in I don't think the luck needs to keep running.

On the other hand she got off easily enough, it's not the money, it's the principle of it.
 
earth_as_one
#17
Sal,
How about if it was a trophy wife instead of a trophy husband? Would you have the same viewpoint? If so then your comment is fair. But if not, then you may have a gender bias against men.

Angstrom,
The law regarding common law relationships came as a result of dead beat men, who lived with, but didn't marry their long time partner, maybe even having a couple of children together... Back in the day, when more women played a supporting role in the relationship, they often sacrificed their career and ability to earn a decent living to put their man through post secondary school, raise children and look after the home. All too often when the man was at the peak of his career and the couple should be enjoying the fruits of their joint efforts, the man would toss the woman on the street. If they weren't married or they are living in Quebec, she'd have no recourse. The spouse with the big job would reaps 100% of their joint efforts, often having exclusive title to the family home. The spouse who slaved and sacrificed would be screwed her out of secure retirement, despite the supporting role.

In such cases, I totally agree with the law, which requires the spouse with the greater income to support the spouse with the lower income.

But if the spouse never contributed in a significant way to the other spouse's success as appears to be the case in the OP, then I agree with Angstrom and Sal.

To be fair, people should get to keep the assets they brought with them into the relationship. But once they are living together in a long term relationship (married or not), all newly acquired assets and wealth should be considered jointly owned and divided equally upon separation. Post secondary degrees and career promotions acquired during the relations should also be considered joint assets, meaning the one with the big job has to pay support.

I disagree with Quebec's laws regarding common law relationships.
 
Sal
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Sal,
How about if it was a trophy wife instead of a trophy husband? Would you have the same viewpoint? If so then your comment is fair. But if not, then you may have a gender bias against men.

This is not about gender, it's about contribution.

Quote:

To be fair, people should get to keep the assets they brought with them into the relationship. But once they are living together in a long term relationship (married or not), all newly acquired assets and wealth should be considered jointly owned and divided equally upon separation. Post secondary degrees and career promotions acquired during the relations should also be considered joint assets, meaning the one with the big job has to pay support.

Agreed because it's about contribution.

No contribution, no support regardless of gender.

In reality it may be hard to assess contribution in some cases but that's where the courts could come in.

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

she should have been forced to pay more

why?
 
taxslave
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

This is not about gender, it's about contribution.

Agreed because it's about contribution.

No contribution, no support regardless of gender.

In reality it may be hard to assess contribution in some cases but that's where the courts could come in.

why?

Cause her boy toy had become used to a lifestyle that he desperately needs to maintain since he is likely too old to find another gullible sugar momma.
 
Sal
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Cause her boy toy had become used to a lifestyle that he desperately needs to maintain since he is likely too old to find another gullible sugar momma.

Bingo... maybe instead of sucking off of someone else he should have been dreaming up ways to make some money....oh wait, thanks to our laws, he already did...
 
PoliticalNick
+4
#21
I have no doubt if the genders were reversed the amount would be a lot larger and possibly include a maintenance program. Even a pre-nup isn't iron clad, look at Paul Macartney, he paid millions more than the pre-nup allowed for.
 
DaSleeper
+3
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I have no doubt if the genders were reversed the amount would be a lot larger and possibly include a maintenance program. Even a pre-nup isn't iron clad, look at Paul Macartney, he paid millions more than the pre-nup allowed for.

+ 1 See.....I don't disagree with you all the time
 
karrie
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

I have no doubt if the genders were reversed the amount would be a lot larger and possibly include a maintenance program. Even a pre-nup isn't iron clad, look at Paul Macartney, he paid millions more than the pre-nup allowed for.


No, if the genders were reversed at that age it might not be much different.

Currently the main reasons women get large settlements are
a) they didn't attend school, opting instead to start families
b) they had children, which limits their career options
c) they had joint investments

In this case, none of those were at play, so the settlement likely wouldn't have been huge.
 
Sal
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

No, if the genders were reversed at that age it might not be much different.

Currently the main reasons women get large settlements are
a) they didn't attend school, opting instead to start families
b) they had children, which limits their career options
c) they had joint investments

In this case, none of those were at play, so the settlement likely wouldn't have been huge.

and to add one more point to these, women in the workplace are only beginning to receive equal pay for equal work...we still aren't there yet.
 
Goober
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

No, if the genders were reversed at that age it might not be much different.

Currently the main reasons women get large settlements are
a) they didn't attend school, opting instead to start families
b) they had children, which limits their career options
c) they had joint investments

In this case, none of those were at play, so the settlement likely wouldn't have been huge.

And what about the life he had become accustomed to. What he was before is not relevant. They were common law for 14 years. The woman lied and was proven to be a liar in court. Yes he was an idiot but that again is not relevant.
He was shafted.
Without a prenup he was entitled to more. I am sure his lawyer will appeal.
 
earth_as_one
+2
#26
Good luck with that. He's a guy. Men are supposed to be independent. Only women can be dependent on men. Men can't be dependent on women.

Maybe he should get a sex change... then he'd have a better chance.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Feb 14th, 2013 at 01:42 PM..
 
L Gilbert
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

'Trophy husband' awarded $157K from B.C. widow - British Columbia - CBC News

A former world-class figure skater, model and wealthy widow has been ordered by a British Columbia court to pay her so-called "trophy husband" more than $157,000 in support after a 14-year relationship.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Randall Wong ruled that 66-year-old Gordon Walker was the spouse of 86-year-old Valerie Fortune Brown and is entitled to support as a result.

Before the relationship, Walker lived on welfare or was periodically employed, but then became a "kept man" and "economically dependent," with Brown covering all of his living expenses and luxuries, including about 60 trips to destinations around the world, said the court the ruling.

"Now at 66 years of age, with a long-time economic dependency, the breakup of their relationship has caused Mr. Walker to be economically disadvantaged in terms of what he had been accustomed," said Wong. "His future job prospects are extremely limited."

In addition to the $157,000, Wong ordered Brown to pay Walker interest dating back to Jan. 1, 2012 but also issued a permanent restraining order because of letters the man wrote to Brown's legal counsel, threatening to write his memoirs about the couple's sexual experiences.
Only a 'heavy luggage porter'

Brown had argued Walker was just a platonic live-in friend, a domestic male security escort and travelling companion, as well as a "heavy luggage porter."

Citing Walker's "reprehensible conduct," Wong also deprived the man of his court costs, which normally would have been granted.

The court heard Brown was raised in England, educated in a private girls' school, became a world-class figure skating champion and a model for art sculptures before she married twice.

After her second husband died in 1994, Brown was left with an estate of nearly $8 million that included investments, property and retirement income.

Meantime, Wong described Walker as a Grade 12 graduate and former bookkeeper, clerk, dispatcher and sales executive.

The two met in June 1997 at a federal polling station on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast, and within days she was helping him find work, buying him lunch, food hampers and even a $120 pen.

By September of that year, Brown invited Walker to move into her home, states Wong's ruling, and that same month she gave him money to buy a new home that both were supposed to inhabit but didn't.

The court also heard that during the relationship, Brown bought Walker a $10,000 Rolex watch, a new Lexus SUV and opened several joint bank accounts to cover expenses.
Plastic surgery

"Ms. Brown even underwent cosmetic face lift surgery to remove facial wrinkles and furrow on her forehead," wrote Wong. "This was done despite Mr. Walker's concern and objection, reassuring her that she looked beautiful to him."

Wong said the couple never married, maintained separate bedroom but shared hotel and ship-cabin rooms with twin beds during their travels.

Walker even signed a residency agreement in August 1998, after Brown had returned from a trip to eastern Canada to visit her children.

"In their 14-year relationship, the [Walker] regarded himself as a 'kept man' and a 'trophy husband," wrote Wong, who noted Walker became more assertive in the relationship, pestered Brown for partial ownership of her assets and frequently asked her to marry him unsuccessfully.

Wong said Brown eventually became disillusioned with Walker and concerned he was abusing his credit cards for cash advances and personal use and was secretly withdrawing funds from their joint bank account.

"She felt she could no longer trust him," said Wong. "She was also concerned with protecting her adult children's potential inheritance, if Mr. Walker continued to aggressively press for a greater share of her holdings."

lol Pair of duds n culls the both of them. She likely wanted a pet and he likely is a lazy shyte with little ambition.
 
Sal
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol Pair of duds n culls the both of them. She likely wanted a pet and he likely is a lazy shyte with little ambition.

yeah, pretty much that was my read on it... like attracts like ...even the unlikeliest pair have something in common
 
Goober
+3
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

yeah, pretty much that was my read on it... like attracts like ...even the unlikeliest pair have something in common

Lacking good character would or could be top of the list.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Lacking good character would or could be top of the list.

Lacking (any) character could be the factor.
 

Similar Threads

4
‘Not Fair to Be White’
by Locutus | Jun 23rd, 2012
4
Fair Trial for SH??
by Ocean Breeze | Jun 10th, 2005
17
Is it fair?
by Paco | Nov 22nd, 2004
no new posts