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.
Is this fair????????????????
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Maybe he should get a sex change... then he'd have a better chance.
Last edited:
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
Spousal Support
Script 123 gives information only, not legal advice. If you have a legal problem or need legal advice, you should speak to a lawyer. For the name of a lawyer to consult, call Lawyer Referral Service at 604.687.3221 in the lower mainland or 1.800.663.1919 elsewhere in British Columbia.
This script discusses spousal support payments, sometimes called “maintenance” or “alimony”. This discussion applies equally to support orders for married spouses and common-law spouses.
What is spousal support?
Spousal support is money paid by one spouse to the other when a married or common-law relationship breaks down and the couple have separated. Spousal support isn’t paid just because a couple were married or in a common-law relationship; the spouse seeking spousal support must prove that he or she is entitled to receive it. The reasons why a spouse might be entitled to receive spousal support are discussed in more detail later on.
Who can claim spousal support?
Everyone who qualifies as a “spouse” can claim spousal support after separation. Spouses are people who are legally married as well as people who aren’t married as long as:
the couple have lived together in a “marriage-like relationship” for at least two years, and
the claim for spousal support is made within one year of separation (although the one-year period can sometimes be extended if the other spouse provided financial support after separation).
Whether a spouse is entitled to spousal support, and if so in what amount, depends on the specific circumstances of each couple.
How do you get spousal support?
Spousal support can be worked out in a separation agreement. If you can’t agree, the court can make an order for spousal support.
Which court do you go to?
Married people can apply for spousal support under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Relations Act. If they choose to apply for spousal support under the Divorce Act (or both laws), they must make an application in Supreme Court. If they apply for support under the Family Relations Act, they can apply to either the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court. Each court has its own forms, rules and procedures.
Common-law spouses can only apply for spousal support under the Family Relations Act. They can apply for spousal support in either the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court.
What are “interim” support orders and “final” support orders?
After a couple separates, either spouse may begin a court case asking for an order for spousal support, and other orders such as for divorce or about the care and control of the children. In between the beginning of the court case and its end, spouses often need to ask the court for “interim” orders for spousal support. It can often take a year or more to bring a court case to a trial or a settlement. Interim orders for spousal support are meant to be temporary and only last until another interim order is made or until the court case ends.
Final orders are made by a judge following trial, or with the agreement of the parties following settlement. Final orders are meant to be permanent.
Common Law in BC, Separation and Divorce | Maclean Family Law
ere is the revised definition of spouse that extends new property rights and spousal support liability in a relationship of less than 2 years if a child is born.
Spouses and relationships between spouses
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
(2) A spouse includes a former spouse.
(3) A relationship between spouses begins on the earlier of the following:
(a) the date on which they began to live together in a marriage-like relationship;
(b) the date of their marriage.
(4) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) spouses may be separated despite continuing to live in the same residence, and
(b) the court may consider, as evidence of separation,
(i) communication, by one spouse to the other spouse, of an intention to separate permanently, and
(ii) an action, taken by a spouse, that demonstrates the spouse’s intention to separate permanently.
We expect arguments over whether spouses lived together for 2 years in a “marriage like relationship” to increase with the new legislation. Similarly, we expect arguments when a child is born and a spousal support claim is made to occur over whether the relationship was a short fling resulting in an unplanned pregnancy or a more robust “marriage like” relationship. The stakes are huge in these cases given how long spousal support can be paid for even a 1 or 2 month marriage like relationship.
Strict limitation act periods exist and they can begin to run from before you actually separate see a lawyer immediately do not delay!
After March 18,2013 the deadlines are:
Script 123 gives information only, not legal advice. If you have a legal problem or need legal advice, you should speak to a lawyer. For the name of a lawyer to consult, call Lawyer Referral Service at 604.687.3221 in the lower mainland or 1.800.663.1919 elsewhere in British Columbia.
This script discusses spousal support payments, sometimes called “maintenance” or “alimony”. This discussion applies equally to support orders for married spouses and common-law spouses.
What is spousal support?
Spousal support is money paid by one spouse to the other when a married or common-law relationship breaks down and the couple have separated. Spousal support isn’t paid just because a couple were married or in a common-law relationship; the spouse seeking spousal support must prove that he or she is entitled to receive it. The reasons why a spouse might be entitled to receive spousal support are discussed in more detail later on.
Who can claim spousal support?
Everyone who qualifies as a “spouse” can claim spousal support after separation. Spouses are people who are legally married as well as people who aren’t married as long as:
the couple have lived together in a “marriage-like relationship” for at least two years, and
the claim for spousal support is made within one year of separation (although the one-year period can sometimes be extended if the other spouse provided financial support after separation).
Whether a spouse is entitled to spousal support, and if so in what amount, depends on the specific circumstances of each couple.
How do you get spousal support?
Spousal support can be worked out in a separation agreement. If you can’t agree, the court can make an order for spousal support.
Which court do you go to?
Married people can apply for spousal support under both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Relations Act. If they choose to apply for spousal support under the Divorce Act (or both laws), they must make an application in Supreme Court. If they apply for support under the Family Relations Act, they can apply to either the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court. Each court has its own forms, rules and procedures.
Common-law spouses can only apply for spousal support under the Family Relations Act. They can apply for spousal support in either the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court.
What are “interim” support orders and “final” support orders?
After a couple separates, either spouse may begin a court case asking for an order for spousal support, and other orders such as for divorce or about the care and control of the children. In between the beginning of the court case and its end, spouses often need to ask the court for “interim” orders for spousal support. It can often take a year or more to bring a court case to a trial or a settlement. Interim orders for spousal support are meant to be temporary and only last until another interim order is made or until the court case ends.
Final orders are made by a judge following trial, or with the agreement of the parties following settlement. Final orders are meant to be permanent.
Common Law in BC, Separation and Divorce | Maclean Family Law
ere is the revised definition of spouse that extends new property rights and spousal support liability in a relationship of less than 2 years if a child is born.
Spouses and relationships between spouses
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
(2) A spouse includes a former spouse.
(3) A relationship between spouses begins on the earlier of the following:
(a) the date on which they began to live together in a marriage-like relationship;
(b) the date of their marriage.
(4) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) spouses may be separated despite continuing to live in the same residence, and
(b) the court may consider, as evidence of separation,
(i) communication, by one spouse to the other spouse, of an intention to separate permanently, and
(ii) an action, taken by a spouse, that demonstrates the spouse’s intention to separate permanently.
We expect arguments over whether spouses lived together for 2 years in a “marriage like relationship” to increase with the new legislation. Similarly, we expect arguments when a child is born and a spousal support claim is made to occur over whether the relationship was a short fling resulting in an unplanned pregnancy or a more robust “marriage like” relationship. The stakes are huge in these cases given how long spousal support can be paid for even a 1 or 2 month marriage like relationship.
Strict limitation act periods exist and they can begin to run from before you actually separate see a lawyer immediately do not delay!
After March 18,2013 the deadlines are:
Role reversal has nothing to do with this, it is a moot point. As for what he is entitled to, the law has determined what he is entitled to.
I disagree Sal. Check out this list of expensive divorces. No women on the list.
List of most expensive divorces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is McCartney's ex entitled to 12.5% of McCartney's fortune after 4 years while the guy in this thread entitled to less than 2% of his spouse's fortune after 14 years?
Former model Mills split from McCartney in April 2006 after four years of marriage. She originally sought 125 million pounds ($250 million), having claimed that her ex-husband was worth more than 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion). However, the court found that McCartney's fortune totalled just 400 million pounds ($800.5 million).
Mills told reporters outside London's high court today that she was "glad that it was over" and that "it was an incredible result to secure [her and her daughter's] future."
The couple split in April 2006 after four years of marriage, with the judgment based on Mills and McCartney co-habiting since June 11, 2002.
Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Saga Ends in $48.6 Million Settlement
I doubt you could find an example where a women got such a low % in a divorce settlement from a wealthy man.
List of most expensive divorces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is McCartney's ex entitled to 12.5% of McCartney's fortune after 4 years while the guy in this thread entitled to less than 2% of his spouse's fortune after 14 years?
Former model Mills split from McCartney in April 2006 after four years of marriage. She originally sought 125 million pounds ($250 million), having claimed that her ex-husband was worth more than 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion). However, the court found that McCartney's fortune totalled just 400 million pounds ($800.5 million).
Mills told reporters outside London's high court today that she was "glad that it was over" and that "it was an incredible result to secure [her and her daughter's] future."
The couple split in April 2006 after four years of marriage, with the judgment based on Mills and McCartney co-habiting since June 11, 2002.
Paul McCartney-Heather Mills Divorce Saga Ends in $48.6 Million Settlement
I doubt you could find an example where a women got such a low % in a divorce settlement from a wealthy man.
I was going to post pretty the same. Gender bias is the real reason why the court awarded so little and that's not fair. Double standards never are.
These aren't even comparable, it just a cut and paste list of settlements. You are going to have to do more work than that to prove your allegations.
These people were married. Many of the women on this list are and have been and continue to be women who generate huge amounts of income through their own merit. Many of them have children with their ex's.
You have just created a huge blanket statement while telling me above that in your opinion "But if not, then you may have a gender bias against men."
I contend the same may apply to you when reversed.
In the example in the OP, the judge determined this couple were living common law, which is the equivalent of marriage just like McCartney's relationship with his spouse. No children were involved in either case. The case in the OP was a 12 year relationship, while McCartney was only a 4 year relationship. In both cases one person in the relationship was relatively wealthy compared to the other. The only significant difference between the two cases, was the gender of relatively rich person.
I can't see why the man in the OP deserves less than McCartney's spouse.... or why McCartney's ex would deserve more than the man in the OP.
What's good for the Gander should be good for the Goose. But it isn't since:
...Family law assumes that women are the ones who are impoverished. Judges are seeking to rectify this state of affairs. The result is that the courts have often moved away from doing equity and fairness in the individual case in favour of righting the perceived wrongs of society in general. The net result is that it is very difficult to be a man and expect to be treated in an entirely evenhanded manner by the courts when it comes to an issue such as spousal support...
Emerging Trends in Spousal Suport - Part I | Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre | Toronto, Ontario
But I will admit the law has changed to be gender neutral and no fault in 1968.
Spousal support under the Divorce Act: a new direction (BP-259E)
But judgements still tend to award generous settlements for women when she is dependent on her spouse (I agree with this), but tend to be less than generous when the man is dependent on the women (I disagree with this). Gender should not make a difference. But this is one area where women have an advantage over men.
Maybe that's fair, since men tend to advantages over women regarding pay equity and opportunities for career advancement. But as a result, in some specific cases, like the example in the OP, the man gets the shaft, while the woman gets to keep the gold mine.
I can't see why the man in the OP deserves less than McCartney's spouse.... or why McCartney's ex would deserve more than the man in the OP.
What's good for the Gander should be good for the Goose. But it isn't since:
...Family law assumes that women are the ones who are impoverished. Judges are seeking to rectify this state of affairs. The result is that the courts have often moved away from doing equity and fairness in the individual case in favour of righting the perceived wrongs of society in general. The net result is that it is very difficult to be a man and expect to be treated in an entirely evenhanded manner by the courts when it comes to an issue such as spousal support...
Emerging Trends in Spousal Suport - Part I | Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre | Toronto, Ontario
But I will admit the law has changed to be gender neutral and no fault in 1968.
Spousal support under the Divorce Act: a new direction (BP-259E)
But judgements still tend to award generous settlements for women when she is dependent on her spouse (I agree with this), but tend to be less than generous when the man is dependent on the women (I disagree with this). Gender should not make a difference. But this is one area where women have an advantage over men.
Maybe that's fair, since men tend to advantages over women regarding pay equity and opportunities for career advancement. But as a result, in some specific cases, like the example in the OP, the man gets the shaft, while the woman gets to keep the gold mine.
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.
earth_as_one;1 But judgements still tend to award generous settlements for women when she is dependent on her spouse (I agree with this) said: