# Well divorce kind of sucks



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

So my partner and I have decided to call it quits.

Anyone want to throw in some advice on how to handle the financial? Should I try personally or just go mediator right off (I'm in BC). Things aren't full on hate on but it's not like we're the best of friends anymore.

I was hoping I could rely on some other people experience as to what to watch out for. My partner has been the primary bread winner for the last couple years yet I walked in with some decent assets 10 years ago.

Thanks...


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Did you guys set up a marriage contract? Any children involved? Over the years if you think things are pretty equitable on the financial side of things consider discussing with your spouse and try to split things up 50/50 before approaching a mediator. If lawyers get involved and it gets messy - fighting over chump change, spousal support, etc. then you'll end up paying big bucks to the lawyers. If children are involved and there was a marriage contract things can get a little more complicated. No direct experience myself but I've seen lots of my friends and family go through the process. Sorry to here things didn't work out.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

need to know if there are kids. 

my ex and I (no kids) after 8 years, wrote up a sep. agreement on an 8.5X11 sheet of paper. I think we had to get it notarized (maybe just witnessed?), but other than that we didn't involve any lawyers. The bank and anyone else accepted that agreement.
For the house, we just both said a number we thought it was worth. Then we agreed to a number I would buy her out at and I got a mortgage. Keeping it saved RE and all the other fees. 
Years later when she wanted to remarry, she got the divorce done. 

Short term it sucks. But the pain will end.
For me, it was the best thing that ever happened in my adult life. I woulda kept trying to fix it. Her bailing was like my rebirth. took a year or so to realize that though. sounds cliche, but hang in there.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

My wife's best friend is going through an acrimonious divorce. She has been the main bread winner pretty much the entire marriage. Her ex quit his low paying job soon after the wedding. His plan was to start a home based business. The business went nowhere. It was just a pipe dream or maybe an excuse to sit home and do nothing. She paid all the bills including the mortgage. Now he is fighting her tooth and nail for spousal support, half of the house, etc etc etc.

All I can say is don't be like him.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Assets brought into a marriage can be excluded from any settlement IF they were not used to purchase the family home. Similarly inheritances received during the marriage can be excluded. Otherwise, all assets developed during the union are 50:50. This includes investments, pensions, air miles and other accumulations in systems of value.

Ongoing support is more complex and needs more information than you provided.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

If there is not a full hate on, good for you both. Try to remain civil (I know it's difficult). This can be the worst experience of your life, but only if you (or even one of you) let your emotions run wild. Remember fighting in court will only enrich the lawyers. Don't vent to your lawyers, either - each minute of venting time costs you billable hours.

Try not to argue over trivia - that lovely set of china can be replaced on ebay for a couple hundred. But don't give in on the big stuff, either. The final settlement has to be equitable.

If there are kids, try not to put them in the middle - they will be both of your kids forever, try not to make them choose sides.

This is going to be tough - sorry you are going through this.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> need to know if there are kids.
> 
> 
> Short term it sucks. But the pain will end.
> For me, it was the best thing that ever happened in my adult life. I woulda kept trying to fix it. *Her bailing was like my rebirth*. took a year or so to realize that though. sounds cliche, but hang in there.


The splitting up pain ends a lot faster than the financial pain...but I can relate to that..mine was a divorce from hell..dragged out for 3.5 years from separation, and we became bitter enemies each with our lawyers inciting us to fight each other and lawyers billing us monthly for basically not a lot of work at $350 an hour + gst.

Lawyers love the cases where the two parties don't see eye to eye..and actually encourage it, after all, its' good business for them, as they go laughing all the way to the bank. In the end it cost me about $50K in legal fees, a one sided court case...by a female feminist judge, and still paying for it now..but I'm free!!!:biggrin:


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

GoldStone said:


> My wife's best friend is going through an acrimonious divorce. She has been the main bread winner pretty much the entire marriage. Her ex quit his low paying job soon after the wedding. His plan was to start a home based business. The business went nowhere. It was just a pipe dream or maybe an excuse to sit home and do nothing. She paid all the bills including the mortgage. Now he is fighting her tooth and nail for spousal support, half of the house, etc etc etc.
> 
> All I can say is don't be like him.


Why not? He is an economic dependent and possibly contributed as much as a traditional wife who would be entitled to part of the family assets and spousal support. Does family law say male economic dependents are not entitled? If it was the other way around would you give the same advice? Probably not. If she was the economic dependent she'd get painted as the victim and encouraged to take him to the cleaners.

For decades feminists have claimed the wage earner, typically the male, has all the money and therefore all the power. Now she gets to exercise that power by giving him spousal support and half the assets. I hope you see that I am only trying to assist women in achieving equality.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

wendi1 said:


> If there is not a full hate on, good for you both. Try to remain civil (I know it's difficult). This can be the worst experience of your life, but only if you (or even one of you) let your emotions run wild. *Remember fighting in court will only enrich the lawyers. Don't vent to your lawyers, either - each minute of venting time costs you billable hours.*
> 
> Try not to argue over trivia - that lovely set of china can be replaced on ebay for a couple hundred. But don't give in on the big stuff, either. The final settlement has to be equitable.



In my case, we didn't fight over knives, forks or spoons. or her china she got before the marriage. I had no use for that crap anyway..but her unreasonable demands and not wanting to negotiate, but running off to the lawyers put me in a very defensive position, as I saw that she was after as much as she could rip out of me financially.

So true. In my case it was ridiculous demands for spousal and child support, kicking me out of the marital home 
( because she got exclusive use of it from the courts), then renting it out at my expense, and telling me she
could do anything with it that she wanted, because she got exclusive use of it..while the house was on the market..that really hit me below the belt..and after that it was WAR! She bought a town house in the meantime
with her boyfriend, and rented it out..to a family with large dogs that did some damage to it inside.
I could have stayed in the house and looked after it until it sold..but because of some damage inside, we took the
first lowball bid ...to get rid of it to avoid more tenant damage.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

GoldStone said:


> Now he is fighting her tooth and nail for spousal support, half of the house, etc etc etc.


Those are the risks you take when getting married. It can get real messy when people know how to play the system.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Nice post Pluto!
100% agree-i can't stand feminist logic


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Pluto said:


> Why not? He is an economic dependent and possibly contributed as much as a traditional wife who would be entitled to part of the family assets and spousal support. Does family law say male economic dependents are not entitled? If it was the other way around would you give the same advice? Probably not. If she was the economic dependent she'd get painted as the victim and encouraged to take him to the cleaners.


Males are just as entitled as females, but there are a lot of factors to be considered. I've seen it played out both ways.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Pluto said:


> Why not?


Because being a dick is a bad karma. Sooner or later it bites you in the butt real hard.




Pluto said:


> He is an economic dependent...


Yes, by his own choice. He chose to be a bum.




Pluto said:


> ... and possibly contributed as much as a traditional wife who would be entitled to part of the family assets and spousal support.


Nope, that was not the case at all. Did I mention that he developed a drinking problem? Or that he cheated on her right in their home while she was away at work?




Pluto said:


> For decades feminists have claimed the wage earner, typically the male, has all the money and therefore all the power.


Males *did* have all the money and all the power for ages.




Pluto said:


> Now she gets to exercise that power by giving him spousal support and half the assets. I hope you see that I am only trying to assist women in achieving equality.


No, all I see is a man who sounds petty and cynical.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

Whoa. As you can see, the wounds from this sort of bitter conflict can be long lasting. After all, your SO is the person who knows you best, and he/she is aware of all your buttons.

Try to take the high road (as distinct from being a doormat).


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Pluto said:


> Why not? He is an economic dependent and possibly contributed as much as a traditional wife who would be entitled to part of the family assets and spousal support. Does family law say male economic dependents are not entitled? If it was the other way around would you give the same advice? Probably not. If she was the economic dependent she'd get painted as the victim and encouraged to take him to the cleaners.
> 
> For decades feminists have claimed the wage earner, typically the male, has all the money and therefore all the power. Now she gets to exercise that power by giving him spousal support and half the assets. I hope you see that I am only trying to assist women in achieving equality.


I agree 100% with what you say, except in this particular instance I don't feel it's the case. When someone is deemed 'dependent', it is because they have had to stay home and take care of the kids etc. It sounds to me like this guy was, by choice, not doing anything to contribute- essentially being a freeloader. Goldstone says the guy quit his job and started a business that went nowhere- why didn't he go out and find another job or get retraining? If he was required to leave a career or miss going to university because he had to stay home and be a househusband, then yes he should be entitled to a fair divorce settlement. Doesn't sound like it in this case.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Spousal support - Ontario



> The law views spousal relationships as financial partnerships. When the partnership breaks down, the person with more income or assets may have to pay support to the other. *At the same time, the law expects adults to look after their own needs to the best of their abilities*.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Not every breakup has to be a repeat of one of the horror stories mentioned here.

However, there are a lot of financial (and legal) complexities in severing a 10-year relationship fairly for both sides. If mediator services are available in your province I would suggest you both try to agree to use a mediator. There's nothing wrong with both of you sitting down first and drafting how you think things should be divided as a starting point. But:
- it's unlikely you will agree on every point;
- a mediator will ensure you haven't forgotten anything that should be included;
- a mediator will know what the normal legal entitlements are, that may save you a lot of expensive legal bills fighting over the division of something that is already clearly set out in family law or case law.

As others have said, separate lawyers can become a very adversarial situation, that should be used as a last resort.

_"Should I try personally or just go mediator right off (I'm in BC)."_ Mediation services only work well if both partners agree to go the mediator. BC's web site http://www.familylaw.lss.bc.ca/help/who_Mediators.php says you can go to court to have an unwilling partner ordered to attend mediation sessions, but I don't know how productive such sessions would be if one partner is dragged unwillingly to them.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Carverman, you're so right when you say that some lawyers really encourage dissension. When I was divorced from my first husband, he was the one who filled for divorce, based on my relationship with my second husband which only began after our separation. My lawyer said that the first step was to counter-sue him for divorce, citing his frequent adultery over the years. I said no, that I had no interest in doing that - I just wanted rid of him as quickly as possible. She was insistent, saying that the divorce records would then show that I was the guilty partner when, in fact, I wasn't. I said I didn't care about that - after all, who goes to the courthouse and looks up court records to see who was considered the guilty party? And even if they did, my friends and family knew perfectly well what had been going on all those years (apparently I was the only one who didn't!)

He had assets worth over a million dollars in speculative mining exploration stocks, and our only other asset was a house that I had paid for myself. I told my lawyer that I would settle for the house (worth $120,000 at that time - many years ago), but he was welcome to keep his stock. I had a good job, and my reasoning was that, with the mortgage-free house, I could easily support our two teenaged daughters without counting on child support payments, which I knew I wouldn't get!

My lawyer followed my instructions, but she was very upset with me; she said I was not standing up for myself and that I should demand half of his stock. I said I wanted the house, and I had absolutely no interest in his stock - all I wanted was to get him out of my life and I was quite capable of looking after myself financially. The divorce went through very quickly, and it cost me a total of $1,800 (this was in 1982). I hate to even speculate about what it would have cost me if I hadn't stood up to my lawyer!

By the way, it's true, as KCowan said earlier, that in BC assets that one party brings into the marriage are not subject to the 50-50 split, but any increase in their value after the marriage (or establishment of a common-law relationship) is considered a family asset and so is subject to the split. That is a significant issue in BC, where house prices have sky-rocketed in a very short time.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Karen - you are a true lady.

OP. I am sorry to hear about your situation. It will all work out new way or another. I wish and you ex are able to work through it with as little anger as possible.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Karen said:


> By the way, it's true, as KCowan said earlier, that in BC assets that one party brings into the marriage are not subject to the 50-50 split, but any increase in their value after the marriage (or establishment of a common-law relationship) is considered a family asset and so is subject to the split. That is a significant issue in BC, where house prices have sky-rocketed in a very short time.


Just to clarify one point. In BC, at least, the house is subject to auto 50/50 division if based on joint tenancy regardless of the proportion of money each contributed to the purchase and upkeep of the house. It is not necessarily so if title is tenants in common and the split is something other than 50/50. There are pluses and minues to one type of ownership over the other. My SO and I have our house titled on a tenants in common basis since we established our relationship 'late in life', i.e. our 60s.


----------



## randomthoughts (May 23, 2010)

OK, I say this as a single person, so... you know, grain of salt, but no bias.

I think most places have an established set of formulas based on income, assets, years of marriage, child support, etc. While they might not always seem 'fair' they are, at least, objective. People leaving a relationship often over or undervalue their contribution to the relationship so I feel the best way to go would be to insist on using the formulas as much as possible. The formulas are not gendered, and more and more, neither are 'breadwinners'.

If that is agreed upon, then custody/child support becomes the major issue to resolve.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Why not? He is an economic dependent and possibly contributed as much as a traditional wife who would be entitled to part of the family assets and spousal support. Does family law say male economic dependents are not entitled? If it was the other way around would you give the same advice? Probably not. If she was the economic dependent she'd get painted as the victim and encouraged to take him to the cleaners.
> 
> For decades feminists have claimed the wage earner, typically the male, has all the money and therefore all the power. Now she gets to exercise that power by giving him spousal support and half the assets. I hope you see that I am only trying to assist women in achieving equality.


Under current family law rules, if it is a traditional marriage, and no prenupt, the other partner will get half of the assets. 
The courts are very fair in these cases. The other partner, if he/she stayed home to raise the kids, thereby being at
a financial disadvantage of NOT going out to earn income, and acquiring a pension or savings, is also entitled to support. 

Child rearing, even if it's your own children, is a full time job, and while unpaid during the course of the marriage, is another economic disadvantage factor to be considered by the court if the couple divorces.
However, spousal support for the ex, has to be weighed and determined by several factors.
Especially, if no agreement has been reached outside of the courts by lawyers ,
or even mutual agreement between the ex spouses.

In that case, spousal support is dependent on many factors:

1. the type of marriage (traditional or common law)

2. the length of the marriage

3. the role of both spouses (ie: one a breadwinner working and the other stay at home, looking after the children)

4. The financial disparity between the two spouses....ie; husband/wife acquires substantial savings, pensions, RRSPs
and the wife/husband looking after the kids..has very little, because he/she was not able to work for 10 years or more
and in the meantime the skills (if any) may not be that useful without further retraining

5. Age and health of the spouses

6. Potential of the disadvantaged spouse to support themselves with the skill set they may still have, their chances of being employed with that skill set (if any), and the time left to make up for any lost time of not earning an income while rearing their children of their marriage.

So, if the husband/wife is "comfortable" with their financial position but the divorced partner is at a financial disadvantage because of the divorce, has no real skills training to earn a lucrative income, and may only be capable of finding part time employment with virtually no dental/medical benefits flipping hamburgers....the courts will examine
their written testimony/factum, in pretty much most cases, spousal support will be set by the courts.

Either for so many years..or in some cases like mine INDEFINITE, (or until there is a "material change in circumstance"as the courts call it..your retirement and reduced income..or some other economic factor beyond your control.

In those cases, you have to go back to the courts to have your "material change of circumstance" evaluated and considered by the courts to determine if a change in spousal support is necessary.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

donald said:


> Nice post Pluto!
> 100% agree-i can't stand feminist logic


TY. They don't have logic, nor any idea of justice.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

GoldStone said:


> Because being a dick is a bad karma. Sooner or later it bites you in the butt real hard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are assuming there re no females who are petty, cynical, disloyal, economic dependents, and get spousal support and a share of family assets. Its not a fair assumption. 
I bet you don't call a woman who chooses to be an economic dependent a bum. You'd call her a wife. Lots of economically dependent wives just goof off, yet interestingly the don't get called bums. And at divorce time, no one blames them for getting spousal support and some of the family assets. 

Too, although you say this woman has the career, the money, and therefore all the power, yet you still, as I said, paint her as the victim. Basically you want it both ways. If she was the economic dependent and goofed off, and ended up in divorce, you'd paint her as the victim in that case as well. 

Apparently we have no fault divorce now. I dare say that legislation was written by feminist minded legislators. So pointing out all his faults is irrelevant.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks everyone for their kind comments. We do have a 4 year old which complicates things, only really in the way that it keeps us connected more than we really want to be. I think it would be much easier on both of us if we could just start fresh. Of course we see each other every couple days to swap kid. The kid seems to love it actually. I think because both of his parent miss him and don't take him for granted as all parents (us included) are prone to do. 

Anyway, I did something pretty smart I think. I'm just finishing my schooling (hopefully this week!) and although we separated 3 months ago I asked until November to split finances (although freeze them as of 3 months ago). This was mainly so that I could secure a job and not separated assets and work out spousal support while she has her full time well paying job and my income being zero. Well good news is that this past Friday I was offered a dream job - local, full time government positions. It's really pretty amazing I was able to secure that job right now. It's almost enough to make me become religious. 

Anyway, I think I'm going to give up a lot in the divorce simply because I don't want to fight. The one sticking point is going to be I walked in with 40K to our relationship and she had zero. That money was inheritance from my father and I don't think that should be in the 50/50 split (and legally it's not either). I doubt my ex will see it that way but I don't have to compromise on everything. I've done enough of that in my life.

Single life is actually pretty fun. Turns out if you're not ugly, and are well educated, reasonably charming and interested in dating age appropriate it's quite easy to meet people. Honestly, it's pretty fun 

Thanks again for all the helpful and positive feedback!


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> Thanks everyone for their kind comments. We do have a 4 year old which complicates things, only really in the way that it keeps us connected more than we really want to be. I think it would be much easier on both of us if we could just start fresh. Of course we see each other every couple days to swap kid. The kid seems to love it actually. I think because both of his parent miss him and don't take him for granted as all parents (us included) are prone to do.
> 
> Anyway, I did something pretty smart I think. I'm just finishing my schooling (hopefully this week!) and although we separated 3 months ago I asked until November to split finances (although freeze them as of 3 months ago). This was mainly so that I could secure a job and not separated assets and work out spousal support while she has her full time well paying job and my income being zero. Well good news is that this past Friday I was offered a dream job - local, full time government positions. It's really pretty amazing I was able to secure that job right now. It's almost enough to make me become religious.
> 
> ...


That 40,000 should be your money, period. If she doesn't see it that way, its a clue to why you may be getting divorced. Generally, its 50/50 of assets accumulated during the marriage, not before. So the inheritance should not be included. Also, I'm aware of a divorce where the wife got an inheritance during the marriage, and the judge said it was her money and he had no claim to it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Pluto said:


> That 40,000 should be your money, period. If she doesn't see it that way, its a clue to why you may be getting divorced. Generally, its 50/50 of assets accumulated during the marriage, not before. So the inheritance should not be included. Also, I'm aware of a divorce where the wife got an inheritance during the marriage, and the judge said it was her money and he had no claim to it.


That typically is the case in every situation I am somewhat familiar with (was the case in my own divorce). If the other party wants to fight that, then the beneficiary of the inheritance might have to provide paperwork to prove it.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

none.- good on you for the job with government, At least now you will not have to split the future pension if that is any consolation. It sounds like you are going in with an attitude that you are not trying to stick it to her. Though you don't want to fight, be fair to yourself and what you live with and what you deserve. If you go in with the attitude that this person is the mother of your child, and you love your child, things will work out.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Y
> 
> Apparently we have no fault divorce now. I dare say that legislation was written by feminist minded legislators. So pointing out all his faults is irrelevant.


That is true. Either spouse can run around and have affairs and one or the other can sue for divorce. In my case, my
ex, her boyfriend (husband now) were in court with her lawyer, talking to each other on the next strategy question for her lawyer to ask me while I was on the witness stand. Lots of interesting questions were directed on me..especially money related..
and after her first day on the witness stand and my next day, the feminist judge admitted in court, that her testimony was "more believable than his" and she was going to toss out a lot that I told the court under oath...basically calling me a liar and her..testimony "more believable", even though she lied and inflated her financial records several times,
as she was already living with her boyfriend in his home he had bought and waiting for the court to pass judgement
on me and I found out that she gloated to some of our former neighbours that "she stuck it to me"!

My lawyer on the first day, saw the feminist judge, and whispered to me.."I know that judge.,..I think we are in for some trouble" and so I was...other than the basic division of assets, the judge pretty much agreed to what her lawyer presented to the her, including asking for her legal fees to be paid by me...at least 3 of the issues in contention were stupid things..that could have been settled out of court..but she won on 3 of the 5 issues we went to court and her lawyer presented the judge with a $25,000 legal bill. The judge decided to split it 60/40 and assigned me to pay $15,000 of her legal bill.

On top of that, because of the long delay between the time the marital home was sold and the court case..dragged out for 3 years by the lawyers, the equalization payment that I owed her, carried an interest penalty of 5% at the time and that amounted to another $8300 in PREJUDGEMENT INTEREST then any moneys that I owed her after that (RRSP/etc)was subject to 6% POST JUDGEMENT interest until paid off., that interest accumulated to over $600. Nobody advised me it would be that much, although my first lawyer mentioned it to me in the
first half hour of my appointment.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> That typically is the case in every situation I am somewhat familiar with (was the case in my own divorce). If the other party wants to fight that,* then the beneficiary of the inheritance might have to provide paperwork to prove it*.


That is correct. If it is an inheritance (ie gift) it depends on how the inheritance /gift was made. If the gift was made to the couple while married and before date of separation, some paperwork (copy of will) may have to be submitted as an exhibit for evidence for the judge to consider.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> That 40,000 should be your money, period. If she doesn't see it that way, its a clue to why you may be getting divorced. Generally, its 50/50 of assets accumulated during the marriage, not before. So the inheritance should not be included. Also, I'm aware of a divorce where the wife got an inheritance during the marriage, and the judge said it was her money and he had no claim to it.


Well based on my divorce..IF that money was put against a mortgage and the marital homes sells..it is split 50-50. 

If the money is put into savings OR investments..ALL financial records will be required to be presented to the other spouse's lawyer ahead of time and the court as an UNDERTAKING. In some cases one of the lawyers will force
you into FINANCIAL DISCOVERY (a day in a room somewhere where the lawyers pour over financial records
and ask specific questions that you have to answer to..yes or no. All your responses are RECORDED and
the deposition of the recordings available to judge. 

If any money held by one or the other party is withheld in an effort to hide the fact, that spouse will face the wrath of the court for not disclosing the fact and more than likely, it will be difficult to avoid some kind harsh treatment in the judgement.

All financial holdings have to be disclosed for both parties in the last SWORN and NOTORIZED financial disclosure 7 days before the day of court. If something is withheld and the other parties lawyer can prove it to the judge sitting, the person with the omission will be given 24hrs (or less) to produce the missing information.



> In Canada or the United States, a deposition is the out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes. *It is commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada, where it is called examination for discovery, and is almost always conducted outside of court by the lawyers themselves* (that is, the judge is not present to supervise the examination).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

carverman said:


> Well based on my divorce..IF that money was put against a mortgage and the marital homes sells..it is split 50-50.


Yes, because the inheritance was spent and regardless of who contributed what, the marital home in a 'joint tenants' title is always split 50-50.



> If the money is put into savings OR investments..ALL financial records will be required to be presented to the other spouse's lawyer ahead of time and the court as an UNDERTAKING.


It is ideal to keep inheritance investments and income generated from the inheritance separate from any other funds so that it is easier to wade through the financials to understand the tracking of the money rather than having to engage a foresenic accountant to sort it out. IOW, don't commingle inheritance funds with anything else OR risk these monies being part of marital assets.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

The correct answer to the inheritance seems to be "It depends". Maybe this is the opportunity for OP to say: Honey, we seem to be agreed on most points, but we obviously disagree on whether or not my 40K inheritance has become "community property". I suggest we get an outside opinion, such as from a mediator.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Have you checked Collaborative Divorce? It is gentler than a mediated divorce and cheaper. That's all I know about it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

steve41 said:


> Have you checked Collaborative Divorce? It is gentler than a mediated divorce and cheaper. That's all I know about it.


That only works if both parties want to be fair. My ex and I went our separate ways by collaborative divorce.

Added: In my case, it was at the start of retirement, so the things to be considered were less contentious.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Reading this thread kinda makes me want to be extra nice to my wife tonight. *Scrambles away to make a nice dinner*

In all seriousness (I was sort of half serious actually), I wouldn't wish this on anyone. Such a thing happening in my own life would be a finishing blow to a lot of carefully laid out and well executed (thus far) plans.

Good luck, None.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks for the kind words Jon. In my case things have been going absolutely gang busters great since my separation. Finish my PhD, starting my dream job one week after I'm done. Really, it's almost enough for me to believe in a higher power, it's pretty crazy. I'm much happier now than I was 6 months ago. Life is really good actually. I have regret of course, but generally I'm very happy. Having a kid makes it much easier in some ways because there is the thought that I would do it all again just to have my special little guy. No worries.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> It is ideal to keep inheritance investments and income generated from the inheritance separate from any other funds so that it is easier to wade through the financials to understand the tracking of the money rather than having to engage a foresenic accountant to sort it out. IOW, don't commingle inheritance funds with anything else OR risk these monies being part of marital assets.


Is the increase in value of excluded property (inheritance, gifts, property brought into the marriage, etc) still split 50/50? That was my understanding. In that case, the income generated from the inheritance / gift pool could be used to fund family purchases, added to a joint account, etc. without creating any real accounting nightmares, no?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I believe so and if so, stripping off the gains/income for joint purposes would be appropriate. 

That said, dividing the gains may be dependent on the circumstances, such as other assets of both parties, ages and stage of life of the parties, length of time since the inheritance, existence and terms of a pre-nuptial/co-habitation agreement, etc. The courts have some discretion in these matters.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

The only time an inheritance would come into play is if it were used to benefit the family as a whole. 

Men can almost always forget about spousal support, I spent 10 years reading family law decisions between 1992-2002 in BC .

I have no reason to think much has changed.
You can look up case law in BC on line. 

Your best bet is try and work things out with a mediator .
Courts are obligated to consider the best interests of the child but this is very vague and not what the average person may think.
It still is very much the best interest of the mother, a happy mother is in the best interests of the child.

Having said the above its also true that most separations/ divorces are settled out of court without the drama.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

none: I'm glad to hear about the positives, that's really great. Stay positive and best of luck to you!

There's a delicate balance on the "fighting" issue. On one hand, you want to stick up for justice and what's right. On the other hand, _fights that become personal and emotional_ become very draining, and can be harmful to your health. You want to preserve your rights, but you also don't want to get very hurt while fighting.

Unfortunately in our world, some people take great advantage of the pain caused by fighting, to choke others into conceding things that they should not rightfully concede. For instance a business person or lawyer who is particularly detached from emotion has a huge advantage in a fight; they don't feel the pain of fighting and they probably take pleasure in the fighting process.

As you defend your right to the 40K, which you are totally justified in doing of course, I encourage you to seek ways to insulate yourself from the emotion. Try to make it as emotion-less as possible.

A study has shown that psychopaths (people who lack emotion/empathy and enjoy manipulating others) tend to become CEOs and lawyers. These people gain the upper hand without the handicap of standard human emotion. So although parties fighting legal battles are not themselves psychopaths, their lawyers -- hired psychopaths -- are a different matter.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> A study has shown that psychopaths (people who lack emotion/empathy and enjoy manipulating others) tend to become CEOs and lawyers[/URL]. These people gain the upper hand without the handicap of standard human emotion. So although parties fighting legal battles are not themselves psychopaths, their lawyers -- hired psychopaths -- are a different matter.


Well not all lawyers are pychopaths..they are just in there for the M-O-N-EY, and if the divorce petitioner and respondent are not enemies at the start, the* lawyers MAKE SURE that they will be by the time it is over.*

That is the way it winds up, if it goes the adversarial method, where neither party see eye to eye at the beginning, and emotions and mistrust come into play.

It is best not let it that way, but it all depends on the circumstances. 
If both parties can negotiate with a single lawyer to provide legal counsel and witness any signing of documents, that is the best way to do it...but it doesn't always work out that way.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Y
> 
> It is ideal to keep inheritance investments and income generated from the inheritance separate from any other funds so that it is easier to wade through the financials to understand the tracking of the money rather than having to engage a foresenic accountant to sort it out. IOW, don't commingle inheritance funds with anything else OR risk these monies being part of marital assets.


Unless the inheritance is "arms length" from the recipient it will be difficult under the rules of civil procedure to withhold any financial information about an inheritance , especially if the inheritance is known at the start by the other party (not a kept secret).

That is the kind of fodder that the opposing sides lawyers love..because they can rack up large legal bills to each party arguing about any entitlement and split of the proceeds.

The courts or the financial discovery session can uncover any funds (inherited or not), with the forensic accountant hired by the other parties lawyer. 

The recipient of the inheritance/trust fund, then could be liable for forensic accountant fees in the final settlement by the court.

Besides the actual judgement on assets and support, there is a separate consideration by the judges to determine how much of the legal fees (if any ), should be assigned to each party. 

Both lawyers present the legal fees to the judge that sat on the case to make a decision ..and that decision is based on the conduct of each party in court, and whether any important information (such as monetary accounts) that was not disclosed *could* sway the ruling in the other parties favour on who should pay the legal fees...50-50 split on the
fees or one party carrying the entire burden or portion.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Think you misunderstood. I was simply suggesting that inheritances be kept totally separate to make it easier for all involved to see the funds flow and not have to use a forensic accountant to wade through all the records to track inheritances and the income/growth obtained therefrom. I was not suggesting hiding anything..... That is a huge no-no.


----------



## techcrium (Mar 8, 2013)

I can't help but wonder, what happens if that money was given to a close relative e.g. sister/brother or put in a trust prior to marriage?


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

techcrium said:


> I can't help but wonder, what happens if that money was given to a close relative e.g. sister/brother or put in a trust prior to marriage?


Then it would be a non issue.


----------



## kevinkrlw (Jan 9, 2017)

none said:


> So my partner and I have decided to call it quits.
> 
> Anyone want to throw in some advice on how to handle the financial? Should I try personally or just go mediator right off (I'm in BC). Things aren't full on hate on but it's not like we're the best of friends anymore.
> 
> ...


I think selecting a mediator is the best choice. The many ins and outs feature you may not know. The mediator works for the benefit of both. The outcome surely satisfies the both.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

We ended up doing it solo actually. Only had quite liquid investments and me being fairly objective (I sold the car to her for what it was worth) made it easy. Funny to read this thread and see how far I've come in such a short time. Life's a rockin'


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is great, none! I'm so glad to hear it.

Now that some time has passed, could you post any tips or words of wisdom? I think many people will be interested to read what you have to say.


----------



## tombiosis (Dec 18, 2010)

For anyone with divorce issues or questions, google up "ottawa divorce forum" or something like that...its a hugely useful web forum (like this one ;-) ) that I used back in the day when I went through it.
In my case it was a break down of a common law relationship.
Looking back I was really lucky to have a lawyer friend who I played hockey with that specialized in family law. I remember calling him freaking out with the "she did this" and "what about my son" blah blah blah super emotional at the time (caught her having an affair) and my lawyer friend stopped me in my tracks, told me to shut the f&*# up, and listen to him. He said I needed to work out all details on our own, then he would do something up on legal letterhead... I did exactly that, negotiating back and forth for a week or two...a hand written sep agreement fashioned after examples online done by me with her signing or ammending things here and there and voila!
In the end it cost me 750 dollars and my ex paid half! I took a 25-30k hit on the house by letting her have it in exchange for the visitation sched I needed in order to keep my weird hour job. I agreed to pay for anything my son needed, all hockey, school stuff, clothes etc but did not have to pay her support...10 years later, she is un-happily married to affair guy, but we are really good friends, and she is a great mom to my boy... 
The most important thing I read that really stuck with me when I went through it was this:
*If you make all your decisions based on the children's best interest, you will never go wrong.
*
and one more thing I learned... no matter how much you think you "hate" the other person at the time, they remain your offspring's parent, and they NEED to be in your child's life. Don't do or say anything to discredit the person in the child's eyes or you will deeply regret it down the road.


----------



## Annaang (Sep 2, 2020)

Hi,

I am Canadian and married to my husband like two years ago. After we got married, I helped him get the permanent resident in Canada. But, after he replied he went back to India and work not even stay with, however, now he wants to divorce with me (after he got his PR). It actually really sad, I feel like he takes advantage of me by taking his permanent resident in Canada. And I saw the article saying that If you want to get divorced, "You need to prove that you and your spouse have been living in BC for at least a year." Is it true?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Annaang said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am Canadian and married to my husband like two years ago. After we got married, I helped him get the permanent resident in Canada. But, after he replied he went back to India and work not even stay with, however, now he wants to divorce with me (after he got his PR). It actually really sad, I feel like he takes advantage of me by taking his permanent resident in Canada. And I saw the article saying that If you want to get divorced, "You need to prove that you and your spouse have been living in BC for at least a year." Is it true?


 You might want to mention your situation to the immigration authorities as a possible case of immigration fraud, if indeed you were used simply as a way to get PR status.

Not required that you BOTH reside in BC (or any other province...divorce is a federal matter, not provincial). The law is this:

*Divorce Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)

Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings*

3 (1) A court in a province has jurisdiction to hear and determine a divorce proceeding if either spouse has been ordinarily resident in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding.


----------



## Annaang (Sep 2, 2020)

Thank you *Mukhang pera *for the information.

Then I will find a lawyer first, cuz he is still in India but he might come back in Canada.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Annaang said:


> Thank you *Mukhang pera *for the information.
> 
> Then I will find a lawyer first, cuz he is still in India but he might come back in Canada.


I am guessing you married in India, and you did an "outland" and not an "inland" sponsorship and PR application, so he had to wait in India pending receipt of PR status. Am I right? If so, consider bringing divorce proceedings in India (not that I know anything about the law there, but the Indian courts should have territorial competence). It might be more cost effective. Retaining a lawyer in Canada will likely cost more.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Wow "Karen" and "Daniel A." got banned at some point in the past? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

A lot of people got 'banned' as part of the migration to the new forum software, yours truly included. I had to request my un-banning.


----------



## Annaang (Sep 2, 2020)

Mukhang pera said:


> I am guessing you married in India, and you did an "outland" and not an "inland" sponsorship and PR application, so he had to wait in India pending receipt of PR status. Am I right? If so, consider bringing divorce proceedings in India (not that I know anything about the law there, but the Indian courts should have territorial competence). It might be more cost effective. Retaining a lawyer in Canada will likely cost more.


No, actually inland. He worked in Canada before for three months and went back. Thank you Mukhang. I have contacted the lawyer and consult with one of the immigration company in Vancouver. (if anyone knows the good immigration company, please let me know) I wanna know if the government is going to cancel his permanent resident.


----------

