Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CdnShockwave, Dec 4, 2009.
Toronto woman to get $110,000 a month in spousal support - The Globe and Mail
$110 000 a MONTH?!?!
A great deal of spousal support payments are created around the idea that the spouse should be able to live in the "level of comfort that they have become accustomed to". They also stated in the story that this spousal support will likely come instead of a redistribution of the couple's assets upon the finalization of the divorce, so this support level is likely meant to represent her claim on the assets of the marriage during its 33 year term. Also, though her personal income is rather enormous, it is dwarfed by that of her husband, and again, this support is likely meant to reflect that.
damn that is one hefty support check every month *imagines the plastic crack that could buy*
I hate the idea of spousal support.
You work, you should reap your benefits.
Spousal support is like letting the parasite suck your blood on another host.
Right on. It's not like the man got any benfits from being married, right?
Ridiculous. If you don't work I dont see how you're entitled to anything, the kids are grown, you can't tell me that 10 grand a month wouldn't be enough to live on, sheesh.
If I work for 20 years for my employer, I will receive a pension for doing nothing. I will deserve this pension and I will definitely feel entitled to it. It will be based on my final pay grade and it will likely be more than I need to simply live on.
She worked for 20 years. I would think she deserves a pension. Why shouldn't that pension be based on what her husband, who was in some ways similar to her employer*, thought she was worth when she still "worked" for him?
*I'm not making a statement on the nature of marital relationships, just saying that he was the source of income for her, if only as an intermediary.
Wow, struggling by on $88,790.33 per month - how does she cope the poor woman.
In that sense, well she shouldn't be angry if he hired another younger employer who does blow, I mean, odd jobs for him.
It part of the contract that she doesn't moonlight.
Staying at home and taking care of the kids/house is not working? Granted in this case them being that rich they probably have housekeepers/nannies but that's not the case in 99% of homes. On top of that, if the housewife (or househusband) stayed at home for all those years (perhaps because it was agreed upon that someone stays at home) then he/she did not have an opportunity to build any sort of career. How do you expect he/she now to find a job after the divorce? Yes, of course there are cases where the wife/husband were leeches during marriage (because they refused to work out of laziness). But if you married that type of person it's your own fault. There are much more cases where one spouse sacraficed a career to be a stay at home parent/housespouse. So the "working" partner is the only one to reap the benefits while the one who sacraficed a career gets left out in the cold?
Don't forget the Sarcasm tag. Otherwise your statement may confuse someone.
Now where was i? Oh yes, boo hiss, women contribute nothing to society etc.
Well, I understand that too, but like work, is the employee fired or quitting? (I disagree with spousal support in cases of the latter and for the former in case if the employee was moonlighting ) Was the "employer" current assets existed before the marriage.
But many people in the US will simply reply, you should have thought of that before it happened.
Spousal support is BS. I thought the point of divorce was to separate yourself from your partner completely (except when kids are involved). You're getting paid for being alone
My mom and dad separated two months ago (on the basis that my mom considers her life BORING), my mom is seriously contemplating full-out divorce. And I don't think my mom deserves a penny from my dad's paycheck for doing that.
Divorced women, get your own damn jobs.
It's fair, unless she cheated infact. Maybe she deserves more dude does make 3-4 mil a year after all.
Well, on the basis of quitting you have to separate based on reasons for quitting. For example, are you quitting because the other person is abusive or cheated on you? If so, I think that’s a valid reason for quitting and warrant full benefits as would a person who is “fired”. Likewise, if you were “fired” from your marriage because you were abusive then you don’t deserve as much benefits. And this is why you can argue how much spousal support (if any) the other person deserves in court. It’s not an absolute percentage regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.
As for assets prior to marriage, unless you have a pre-nup, it’s difficult to argue what assets you have prior to marriage and what you have accumulated after marriage but you can argue it to determine the spousal support amount.
I have no problem with her receiving spousal support in this case. It was a long marriage, to which she undoubtedly made significant contributions, not the least of which is raising three children. Plus, if she is 'unemployable', it's not like she can just get a job and support herself; she gave up a number of years she could have been working to contribute to the marriage.
I'm not keen on the whole "lifestyle to which [x] has become accustomed" thing, though. She should certainly be given enough money to live on, and live comfortably...but that can be done for far less than $110k a month, so maybe it's time to just get "accustomed" to a less extravagant lifestyle. I'm also not keen on...
...it's supposed to be spousal support, not ex-sister-in-law support. I don't see why she gets to claim supporting her sister as a monthly expense that should be included in determining her spousal support; the ex-husband shouldn't have to indirectly pay to support her family members.
What you're describing sounds more like... a restraining order. Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, nothing more. There is no stipulation that it must be a complete and total separation in every way imaginable.
$110,000 a month certainly seems like a lot, but $4 million+ a year is quite a bit, too.
What I meant was "if you want out - stay out"
Did I miss the portion of the article where it said she was trying to re-marry him, then?
So she gets 1/4 of his paycheck every month? And I agree, he should not have to spend his money on helping her sister.
Separate names with a comma.