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

[Sal]

Generally speaking in divorce court the lawyers get the gold mine and the couple both get the shaft.

you have that right. Then again if people would approach divorce in a logical, rational way, they would save a bundle. I know someone who is a legal assistant. It can get so bad that people are paying their lawyers over $100.00 an hour to argue over soup cans in the cupboard. It can be easy or it can be hard. We decide which road to travel down with our approach.

 

[gerryh]

He got 14 happy years of being Freddy the Freeloader living the good life at her expense from the money which SHE had made. Guess he should have put some of that aside. Most woman would have. ;-) She is heading toward check out time in the form of death. She needs to protect her kids, she made the money, they are a family. He did okay. He should shut up, take the money and run.

Switch genders in your statement and I would lay odds YOU would be screaming.

 

[Sal]

Switch genders in your statement and I would lay odds YOU would be screaming.

*Shrug* Okay. You may lay whatever odds you want. That is your opinion based solely upon your own personal bias with no factual backup. Thus there is nothing for me to defend.

 

[gerryh]

*Shrug* Okay. You may lay whatever odds you want. That is your opinion based solely upon your own personal bias with no factual backup. Thus there is nothing for me to defend.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[earth_as_one]

Not true...she is a business woman who is world reknown for her contribution toward prosthetics for those less fortunate...She has won gold medals in skiing...she came into this relationship as a wealthy "partner". As such, she had a skill set and ability to support that lifestyle independent of him.
I know you can't but there is a huge difference and the court acknowledged the difference. Regardless of how you twist this, it is not gender biased.

Now you are talking... Women should be equal in every regard but they are not. Frequently when women marry into extreme wealth they are expected to fit into a certain "role". That usually means abandoning their career for a career which assists their spouse to build theirs. It's called a "team" it involves "partnership." Although she may not be taking in money directly (although sometimes is) she is seen in the right places with the right wives, and they mingle with the right people. It's a lifestyle.

When they split they are given part of what they built together.
Which is what I have already stated.
for the reasons stated.
He got 14 happy years of being Freddy the Freeloader living the good life at her expense from the money which SHE had made. Guess he should have put some of that aside. Most woman would have. ;-) She is heading toward check out time in the form of death. She needs to protect her kids, she made the money, they are a family. He did okay. He should shut up, take the money and run.

1) I doubt the man in the OP will be able to continue to live the lifestyle he had when he was living with his ex, unlike McCartney's ex.

2) The man in the OP was likely expected to fit in a certain role too, just like women who marry into wealth. He was expected to escort his spouse, carry her bags, open doors... (my understanding is that he was a "kept" man).

3) McCartney also had 4 children from a previous marriage. I wonder how they felt about McCartney's divorce settlement?

4) I bet McCartney's ex lived the good life for the 4 years she was with McCartney and benefited from his wealth, connections and position. I suspect, she never had to pay for much during their time together. They were a couple, just the people referenced in the OP. But because she is a woman, she got 12.5% of McCartney's wealth after only 4 years, while the man in the OP got less than 2% after 14 years. If McCartney's ex got less than 2% of his wealth, you might see the unfairness and I doubt you'd call her a freeloader.

 

[Goober]

1) I doubt the man in the OP will be able to continue to live the lifestyle he had when he was living with his ex, unlike McCartney's ex.

2) The man in the OP was likely expected to fit in a certain role too, just like women who marry into wealth. He was expected to escort his spouse, carry her bags, open doors... (my understanding is that he was a "kept" man).

3) McCartney also had 4 children from a previous marriage. I wonder how they felt about McCartney's divorce settlement?

4) I bet McCartney's ex lived the good life for the 4 years she was with McCartney and benefited from his wealth, connections and position. I suspect, she never had to pay for much during their time together. They were a couple, just the people referenced in the OP. But because she is a woman, she got 12.5% of McCartney's wealth after only 4 years, while the man in the OP got less than 2% after 14 years. If McCartney's ex got less than 2% of his wealth, you might see the unfairness and I doubt you'd call her a freeloader.

Pauls divorce is not relevant- UK Laws apply also privacy concerns were addressed. One reason why it was a large settlement.
But I agree with most of your points in number 1 and 2.
The settlement to me would have been different if the sex of the persons was reversed.

Look to child custody upon divorce. Why is it the mother has custody assigned at over a 90 % rate. Yes mnay men want and or agree to that to avoid a costly and messy divorce. But that in itself does not justify the high rate of women winning custody.

 

[Angstrom]

Sal,


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.

In any situation I still feel that our courts, and legislative body is overstepping in there power.
They are creating a country where people are choosing to never get involved too seriously to avoid this BS.

Many Canadian women have to import men from other nations to marry because Canadian males
know too well they will get ****ed if they enter a long relationship.

It's easy to play the victim card. If women want men to treat them as equals I suggest they start acting like one and stop asking for a free meal ticket.

No one ever owes nothing to anyone. They only do it cause they care.

 

[gopher]

It's easy to play the victim card. If women want men to treat them as equals I suggest they start acting like one and stop asking for a free meal ticket.

All I say is, the only legal standard to apply is gender neutrality at ALL times.

 

[jake123]

Can she now go back and refile her income taxes claiming this deadbeat as a spouse- full dependent- they never claimed as married or common law even though she paid everything. That is 14 years of tax filings she should now be able to refile because of this really stupid outcome. When you leave a relationship- you leave with what you brought in to the relationship and anything you contributated to with your own earnings &/or sweat equity.

What a complete moron this Gordon Delbert Walker and I wonder how he can look in the mirror and respect himself. I hope he never sees a dime of her money- Gordon -you should just go back to the welfare office where you belong or go to work at Walmart.

 

[B00Mer]

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.

LOL

Women want equal rights until they are actually given equal rights... then they cry foul. :lol:

That is 14 years of tax filings..

You can only go back 5 years to get a refund.. I did 3 years recently and got $4600 from the Gov.

Friggin H&R Block sucks.. I went to a real accountant to get revisions done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0T0wjAV8RM&feature=share&list=PL5AE8EF14F9DA339E