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

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
'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

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
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

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
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.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
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.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
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.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Switch the genders around and I have no doubt the settlement would have been significantly greater.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
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:

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
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

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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.

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.

she should have been forced to pay more
why?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
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

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48
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, 8O thanks to our laws, he already did...