Divorce Can Be Profitable
A growing industry is developing in the area of litigation loans. Though not unusual in personal injury cases or residential school litigation, entrepreneurs are beginning to look to the lucrative divorce market to turn a profit.
In high-net worth divorce cases it is typical to hear that only one of the spouses has their hands on the purse-strings of the family wealth, usually the husband, but not always. The economically challenged spouse may reside in a beautiful family home and drive a BMW, but once her savings have been used for her lawyer’s retainer and her credit cards are maxed out, she is playing on a field skewed in favour of her cash-rich spouse.
In British Columbia the Supreme Court may order that family funds be made available to a spouse who has run out of financial options, but only for the purpose of hiring expert witnesses, such as a chartered accountant, business valuator or property appraiser.
The Court will not order one spouse to pay the ongoing legal fees of the other, except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course, the rules on the costs of a court case do allow a court to order the losing spouse to pay the winning spouse, but that comes at the end of the litigation. Also, it is not full reimbursement, but a limited contribution to the victorious spouse’s legal fees.
Business woman and lawyer, Stacey Napp of California, has jumped on the litigation financing bandwagon with her firm, Balance Point Divorce Funding, a company she founded after her own brutal eight-year divorce.
Borrowing from friends and relatives, Ms. Napp settled her divorce case by agreeing to retain the family home and receive $500,000 as her share of her husband’s mobile home parks business. Not a bad deal you say?
It turned out to be a very bad deal, since shortly after the settlement; her husband offered his business for sale for the princely sum of $5.7 million.
Eventually an Arizona judge reopened the fraudulent settlement and awarded her an appropriate share of the actual value of the business. Using the funds from the court judgment Ms. Napp decided to put her money to work, funding divorce cases for others who like her, did not have the financial means to compete with their husbands’ deep pockets.
As a lawyer with a career in finance, Ms. Napp recognized she had all the skills required to run her new business. She knew how to find assets, understood the litigation process and had the money to make loans.
As for her clients, they don’t see it as a loan; rather they view it as an investment in their future financial security.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
Warning to Men: Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse– New Alimony Law
You can’t quarrel with the fact that a stay-at-home mom, who has been married for 20 years, has three kids and has never worked, is a worthy recipient of spousal support. And, believe me…she needs it.
It took some time for Canadian men to accept that if they had income and their ex-wife did not, they were bound to pay some spousal support, even if their spouse left the marriage or worse even took up with another partner. Forty-years ago it was not too big a “hit”, as our Courts favored a “clean break” approach, meaning not much support, for not very long.
A few years later, as lawyers, legislators and judges encouraged and promoted support agreements, supported spouses who entered into separation agreements, but wanted or needed more support, had to prove their increased need was based on a “radical” change in their circumstances, causally related to the marriage. That too posed a challenge for women seeking support and carried on the pattern of low support orders for limited periods of time.
In the 1990’s the law changed rapidly and saw more women getting more support for longer periods of time, until 2006 when the federal government empowered law professors Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson to create “Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines”, which though never passed into law, were quickly adopted by all the Provinces.
This was real change. It became more difficult for a smooth-talking lawyer to convince a judge that the old rules still applied, namely that spousal support should be “short and not sweet”. The Guidelines provided schedules based on the payor’s income that introduced consistency in support awards across Canada and the new theme meant that men had to dig deeper and pay for a much longer period of time, even indefinitely.
Any hope of reprieve for long-time support payors was that when their financial circumstances changed due to illness, retirement or the vicissitudes of life, they could go back to court and apply for a reduction in spousal support, based on a “material change” in circumstances, theirs or their ex-spouse’s.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada gave short shrift to support payors’ “faint-hope”. What the majority of the Court said was because a separation “may result in dramatic life changes and emotional stress…these circumstances give rise to the possibility that the ability of separating spouses to realistically and objectively assess their current and future needs and preferences, can be impaired”.
In other words, don’t count on a separation agreement dealing with spousal support to be upheld in Canada. The Court held that the notion that separation agreements should be accorded “significant weight…is problematic”. Now they tell us?
Lawyers, who have been criticized for years, for “promoting” litigation, have just learned that Canada’s highest court eschews long-held contract principles of finality and certainty, comparing them to the condemned “clean break” approach of the 1970’s.
For what good it does, it must be noted that Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Cromwell took a different view, holding that a support agreement plays a central role in the variation of a support order. They voiced puzzlement at the logic employed by the majority of the court, saying their approach is at odds with the “basic purpose of agreements, namely to apportion the risks of future uncertain events in order to achieve finality and certainty.”
What is certain is that while there is a new wave of American lawmakers restricting long-term alimony, Canada is on the opposite track. If this is the Court’s way of discouraging divorce, they may be on to something.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Divorce Can Be Deadly
Divorce Can Be Deadly
We’ve been told by experts that smoking, overeating and excessive consumption of alcohol can shorten our life span, but now we find out that divorce may be as bad as the above-mentioned vices.
A new study from the University of Arizona reveals that the risk of premature death is 23% higher in divorced people than those whose marital bonds are still intact.
The research involved more than 6.5 million adults in eleven countries, over a time span of 27 years. To ensure accuracy, the research was statistically controlled for age, smoking, weight and medical conditions, allowing only the effects of divorce to be measured. Breaking the data down into gender, divorced men were at a substantially higher risk than divorced women.
Professor David Sbarra, who led the study, left open the issue of cause and effect. Does divorce lead to poor health or does poor health lead to divorce? He noted that further research is required to determine how divorce affects us biologically.
I can hear people saying “If I had stayed with my husband/wife I’d be in the grave by now!”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians
No Spousal Support Reform for Canadians
Yes, it’s true that it hasn’t always been this way. In the early 1980’s a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Messier v. Delage held strong to the philosophy that the obligation of support between ex-spouses “should not continue indefinitely when the marriage bond is dissolved,” and decried the notion that “one spouse could continue to be a drag on the other indefinitely; acquire a lifetime pension as a result of the marriage; or luxuriate in idleness at the expense of the other.”The support noose got even tighter in 1987 after a trio of cases made their way up to Canada’s highest court. In Pelech v. Pelech, Caron v. Caron and Richardson v. Richardson the Court determined that spouses who had signed agreements dealing with spousal support could not easily shake loose of them.
The test to challenge an agreement to obtain support, to increase support, or to extend support required the applicant spouse to show there had been a radical change in circumstances causally linked to the marriage.
The first part of the legal requirement, establishing that a change was radical, was relatively easy. If a wife agreed to take no support and later became fully disabled it was not difficult to characterize the change in her ability to work as radical.
More stringent, however, was the additional requirement that the radical change be attributable to the marriage. So, for example, if a wife signed a separation agreement that gave her no spousal support because she was fully self-supporting, and she later became disabled from an illness that did not manifest itself until after the divorce, her financial need could not be linked to her marriage.
For women who found themselves in this situation, their only hope was family support, welfare, or a second marriage. Meanwhile, the federal government overhauled the Divorce Act 1968 and replaced it with a new Divorce Act in 1985. The new model for support became an analysis of the economic advantages and disadvantages suffered by both spouses from the marriage or from the breakdown of the marriage. The stage was now set for a groundbreaking Supreme Court of Canada decision.
In 1992 the support pendulum swung hard in the opposite direction with a case that involved a spousal support payment of a mere $100.00 per month. In Moge v. Moge the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new way of thinking about spousal support with a support rationale that was based on compensation to a spouse, instead of just a consideration of “means and needs”.
In this ground breaking decision the Court directed judges to explore the economic consequences of divorce with a greater focus on women’s work at home as mothers and wives and the aftermath of staying at home, while their husbands worked.
The Court recognized that women in this position typically had no job skills, limited opportunities for education, and no pensions, savings, or health benefits.
Fast forward to 2006 when the federal government introduced Canada’s Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, a further move to a more generous system of spousal support. The Guidelines provided a scheme to ensure that supported spouses received support that was up to 43% of their partner’s gross income. They also set a formula to determine how long support would be paid.
The upshot was that spouses who were married for 20 years or more typically received indefinite support that could be reviewed or varied if there was a material change in circumstances. Spouses in marriages under 20 years would receive support equivalent to the length of their marriage, also subject to variation if the supporting spouse could show a material change in circumstances.
While this analysis is a simplification of the Guidelines, there could be no doubt that women benefitted and men were burdened with higher support payments paid for a greater length of time.
In recent cases in British Columbia, men seeking to decrease their support have only been mildly successful, while most obtain no relief at all.
Last month the Supreme Court of Canada reinforced their model of generosity in L.M.P.v. L.S. where they decided that spouses receiving support pursuant to an agreement were not necessarily bound by the terms of their agreement because recipient spouses may have been under intense emotional strain at the time they negotiated their agreements.
As a result of this decision husbands in Canada can now wave good-bye to well-established principles of certainty and finality when they settle support issues.
Hearkening back to my original point, the Canadian trend in spousal support in no way resembles the burgeoning alimony reform sweeping through the United States. In fact, Canada continues to move in a direction that will eventually financially cripple husbands, particularly those that pay both child support and spousal support.
Yes, we need alimony reform but we are unlikely to get it anytime soon.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law
Grass Roots Group’s Goal is to Change Family Law
Concerned citizens in Sarnia, Ontario banded together last summer to form “Canadians For Family Law Reform”, after years of frustration with Canada’s family law justice system. Beginning with a core group of nine members, the organization continues to grow as it raises its profile in Sarnia.
The CFLR organized a public rally last month in front of the Sarnia Courthouse where 50 members converged with signs to picket throughout the day. The group also picketed outside the office of one of Sarnia’s family law lawyers, referring to him as a “poster boy for what is wrong in family law”. This unnamed lawyer allegedly has the largest family law case load in the city and it was reported that on one day in court he was counsel in 37 of 39 family law cases being heard.
Some of the reforms sought by CFLR include:
1. Simplification of the court process;
2. More expedient decisions from judges;
3. Deterring lawyers from overbilling;
4. Eliminating conflicts of interest where lawyers and judges are closely connected;
5. Avoiding the tendency to push proceedings into higher courts;
6. Stopping lawyers from creating hostilities where none exist;
7. Addressing the practice of adjourning cases for months or years.
The group will rally again on February 16, 2012 at the Sarnia courthouse and hold a candlelight vigil on February 20, 2010 to commemorate “the tragic death of families due to an antagonistic family legal system”. Check out their Facebook page for other events.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Concerned citizens in Sarnia, Ontario banded together last summer to form “Canadians For Family Law Reform”, after years of frustration with Canada’s family law justice system. Beginning with a core group of nine members, the organization continues to grow as it raises its profile in Sarnia.
The CFLR organized a public rally last month in front of the Sarnia Courthouse where 50 members converged with signs to picket throughout the day. The group also picketed outside the office of one of Sarnia’s family law lawyers, referring to him as a “poster boy for what is wrong in family law”. This unnamed lawyer allegedly has the largest family law case load in the city and it was reported that on one day in court he was counsel in 37 of 39 family law cases being heard.
Some of the reforms sought by CFLR include:
1. Simplification of the court process;
2. More expedient decisions from judges;
3. Deterring lawyers from overbilling;
4. Eliminating conflicts of interest where lawyers and judges are closely connected;
5. Avoiding the tendency to push proceedings into higher courts;
6. Stopping lawyers from creating hostilities where none exist;
7. Addressing the practice of adjourning cases for months or years.
The group will rally again on February 16, 2012 at the Sarnia courthouse and hold a candlelight vigil on February 20, 2010 to commemorate “the tragic death of families due to an antagonistic family legal system”. Check out their Facebook page for other events.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
The Lighter Side of Divorce
The Lighter Side of Divorce
We all need a few laughs once in while, so today’s post is intended to focus on the lighter side of divorce, which, believe me, does not exist when you are in the middle of it. It is always amusing to see what Hollywood has to say about the subject, given their residents are abundant among the divorce statistics.
For those who have survived divorce and those who watch from a distance (and are grateful for that), consider the following sound bites and barbs.
1. “Ah yes divorce, the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.”
ROBIN WILLIAMS, divorced twice
2. “I’m an excellent housekeeper. Every time I divorce, I keep the house.”
ZSA ZSA GABOR, divorced seven times, one anulment
3. “The difference between a legal separation and a divorce is that a legal separation gives the husband a chance to hide his money.” JOHNNY CARSON, divorced three times
4. “Today Pamela and Tommy Lee announced they are getting back together. You know what that means? There’s still hope for Ike and Tina Turner.”JAY LENO, married for 30 years
5. “I’ve given my memoirs more thought than my marriages. You can’t divorce a book.”
GLORIA SWANSON, divorced four times
6. “The secret of a happy marriage remains a secret.”
HENNY YOUNGMAN, married for 60 years
The literary world also has something to say on the topic of divorce:
6. “A divorce is like an amputation, you survive it, but there’s less of you.”
MARGARET ATWOOD, divorced once
7. “The worst reconciliation is better than the best divorce.”
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES, married for 32 years
8. “When two people get a divorce, it isn’t a sign that they “don’t understand” one another,
but a sign that they have at last, begun to.”
HELEN ROWLAND, marital status unknown
As Billy Joel once said “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang, happily married for 23 years!
Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight
Defamed Husband Sets the Record Straight
The rumour mill was running rampant in the village of St. Michaels on the Lancashire coast in England when Gary Dean said “That’s enough.”
Dean, a successful advertising executive and publishing entrepreneur, decided to set the record straight by starting a website at deandivorce.com called “The Truth About Helen Louise Dean v. Gary Dean.”
Dean and his wife separated after nineteen years of marriage and four children. The divorce was finalized in 2007 and all financial issues had been resolved, yet the gossip mill continued to pump out offensive, inflammatory, even defamatory stories about how Dean left his wife and children penniless. He was describe as “greedy, tight, and ruthless.”
The problem was none of it was true, so Mr. Dean posted the settlement pronounced in the local Preston Court on his website. He disclosed that his wife received $5.9 million, including diamonds, other jewelery, watches, a Mercedes and an Audi convertible together with $24,000 per year for each of the four children and payment of the children’s private school fees.
Dean remarked that if he lived in in London, Manchester or a similar city, his divorce would not have attracted any attention, but in his small village, which he likened to “Coronation Street”, he was forced to go public.
At the time of the Dean’s divorce, family law hearings were private and the media had no access to decisions. As of April 2009, the law has changed and divorce and family law cases in England are now in the public arena.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
The rumour mill was running rampant in the village of St. Michaels on the Lancashire coast in England when Gary Dean said “That’s enough.”
Dean, a successful advertising executive and publishing entrepreneur, decided to set the record straight by starting a website at deandivorce.com called “The Truth About Helen Louise Dean v. Gary Dean.”
Dean and his wife separated after nineteen years of marriage and four children. The divorce was finalized in 2007 and all financial issues had been resolved, yet the gossip mill continued to pump out offensive, inflammatory, even defamatory stories about how Dean left his wife and children penniless. He was describe as “greedy, tight, and ruthless.”
The problem was none of it was true, so Mr. Dean posted the settlement pronounced in the local Preston Court on his website. He disclosed that his wife received $5.9 million, including diamonds, other jewelery, watches, a Mercedes and an Audi convertible together with $24,000 per year for each of the four children and payment of the children’s private school fees.
Dean remarked that if he lived in in London, Manchester or a similar city, his divorce would not have attracted any attention, but in his small village, which he likened to “Coronation Street”, he was forced to go public.
At the time of the Dean’s divorce, family law hearings were private and the media had no access to decisions. As of April 2009, the law has changed and divorce and family law cases in England are now in the public arena.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Wives Want Out
Wives Want Out
While statistics are highly manoeuvrable, the consensus among government agencies that track the data is that in Great Britain the divorce rate for first marriages is 40%, while second marriages and third marriages have a 60% and 75% rate of failure.
The United States divorce rates are similar although 50% of first marriages are likely to fail, while 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Canadian statistics fall somewhere between the United Kingdom and the United States.
So, why are the unhappy British wives staying in their marriages? The survey showed the following:
12% stayed to have an “easy life”
30% stayed to avoid a major upheaval in their lives
37% stayed for the children
42% stayed so they would not lose their homes
33% stayed because they feared if they left they would get nothing
25% stayed because of the cost of legal fees in a divorce
Additional data indicated that 30% of men stay in a “loveless” marriage because they fear losing contact with their children. Were the survey participants open to marriage counselling? Yes, 50% would welcome marital therapy while 20% said they wouldn’t bother.
Surprisingly, 60% of the participants were unaware of mediation as an alternative to a court battle to resolve issues arising from marriage breakdown.
I often remind clients who are weighing the pros and cons of divorce to consider that marriage requires hard work and it doesn’t get any easier the second time around. Like author and marriage therapist Lori Gordon PhD says “Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract and relationships are work.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
While statistics are highly manoeuvrable, the consensus among government agencies that track the data is that in Great Britain the divorce rate for first marriages is 40%, while second marriages and third marriages have a 60% and 75% rate of failure.
The United States divorce rates are similar although 50% of first marriages are likely to fail, while 67% of second marriages and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. Canadian statistics fall somewhere between the United Kingdom and the United States.
So, why are the unhappy British wives staying in their marriages? The survey showed the following:
12% stayed to have an “easy life”
30% stayed to avoid a major upheaval in their lives
37% stayed for the children
42% stayed so they would not lose their homes
33% stayed because they feared if they left they would get nothing
25% stayed because of the cost of legal fees in a divorce
Additional data indicated that 30% of men stay in a “loveless” marriage because they fear losing contact with their children. Were the survey participants open to marriage counselling? Yes, 50% would welcome marital therapy while 20% said they wouldn’t bother.
Surprisingly, 60% of the participants were unaware of mediation as an alternative to a court battle to resolve issues arising from marriage breakdown.
I often remind clients who are weighing the pros and cons of divorce to consider that marriage requires hard work and it doesn’t get any easier the second time around. Like author and marriage therapist Lori Gordon PhD says “Love is a feeling, marriage is a contract and relationships are work.”
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case
Lawyer Liable for $950,000 Judgment in Parental Abduction Case
Posted February 16, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Marie Carrascosa, parental abduction, Peter Innes, Spain, Victoria Innes. 4 Comments
A lawyer who mistakenly released a child’s passport to the child’s mother, contrary to a court order, has been ordered to pay $950,000 to the father of a child abducted by her client from New Jersy to Spain.
The parents of Victoria Innes, Peter Innes and Marie Carrascosa, were married in Spain in 1999 but resided in the United States. Their daughter, Victoria, was born in 2000. Their marriage ended in 2004. Victoria had both US and Spanish citizenship.
After an acrimonious dispute Victoria’s parents signed an agreement in 2004 that prohibited both parties from international travel with Victoria without the consent of the other parent. The agreement also provided that Victoria’s passport would be held in trust by Ms. Carrascosa’s lawyer.
When Ms. Carrascosa changed lawyers her file was delivered to the new lawyer, however, her new lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, was not aware that Victoria’s passport was to held by her and not released to her client without Mr. Innes’ consent or a court order.
Ms. Carrascosa, a lawyer in Spain, took advantage of the situation, obtained the passport from her lawyer and promptly fled to Spain where she and her daughter stayed with Victoria’s maternal grandmother. Later Ms. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey but refused to return Victoria, alleging the Spanish court had jurisdiction and would not let Victoria leave the country until she was 18-years-old.
In the meantime, Victoria’s father had obtained an American order for custody of Victoria and attempted to enforce it, to no avail. Ms. Carrascosa was charged with contempt of court and interfering with custody and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, where she has been languishing since 2006, determined not to comply with American justice.
Despite all efforts and the involvement of Spanish/ American judicial mediators at the Hague Court in Holland, Victoria remains in Spain.
Parental abduction is the worst form of child abuse. While the Hackensack court undoubtedly meted out strict punishment, so far it has not motivated Victoria’s mother to relinquish her hold on Victoria.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Posted February 16, 2012 by LawDiva in Divorce, Family Law. Tagged: Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Marie Carrascosa, parental abduction, Peter Innes, Spain, Victoria Innes. 4 Comments
A lawyer who mistakenly released a child’s passport to the child’s mother, contrary to a court order, has been ordered to pay $950,000 to the father of a child abducted by her client from New Jersy to Spain.
The parents of Victoria Innes, Peter Innes and Marie Carrascosa, were married in Spain in 1999 but resided in the United States. Their daughter, Victoria, was born in 2000. Their marriage ended in 2004. Victoria had both US and Spanish citizenship.
After an acrimonious dispute Victoria’s parents signed an agreement in 2004 that prohibited both parties from international travel with Victoria without the consent of the other parent. The agreement also provided that Victoria’s passport would be held in trust by Ms. Carrascosa’s lawyer.
When Ms. Carrascosa changed lawyers her file was delivered to the new lawyer, however, her new lawyer, Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, was not aware that Victoria’s passport was to held by her and not released to her client without Mr. Innes’ consent or a court order.
Ms. Carrascosa, a lawyer in Spain, took advantage of the situation, obtained the passport from her lawyer and promptly fled to Spain where she and her daughter stayed with Victoria’s maternal grandmother. Later Ms. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey but refused to return Victoria, alleging the Spanish court had jurisdiction and would not let Victoria leave the country until she was 18-years-old.
In the meantime, Victoria’s father had obtained an American order for custody of Victoria and attempted to enforce it, to no avail. Ms. Carrascosa was charged with contempt of court and interfering with custody and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, where she has been languishing since 2006, determined not to comply with American justice.
Despite all efforts and the involvement of Spanish/ American judicial mediators at the Hague Court in Holland, Victoria remains in Spain.
Parental abduction is the worst form of child abuse. While the Hackensack court undoubtedly meted out strict punishment, so far it has not motivated Victoria’s mother to relinquish her hold on Victoria.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife
Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month wins reduction of payments to ex-wife
By NEAL HALL | Vancouver Sun – 22 hours ago
VANCOUVER - A Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month recently went to court and succeeded in having his payments reduced to his ex-wife.
The lawyer, identified only as C.D. in a B.C. Supreme Court judgment, had urged the court to reduce his monthly spousal support payments to $8,500 a month this year, to be stepped down over the next three years to $5,000 a month.
Until this month, he was paying $11,500 a month to his ex-wife, A.B., plus another $49,000 a year for the educational expenses of his two children.
Justice Susan Griffin decided a more appropriate payment was $10,000 a month for the next 10 years, when the matter can be reviewed.
The judge noted that the ex-wife, a former flight attendant, did not work during the 15-year marriage and stayed home to look after the couple's two children, allowing the lawyer to work long hours and become very successful.
When the couple married in 1990, the lawyer was making $50,000 a year in Ontario.
The couple decided to move to Vancouver in 1994, where the lawyer's career took off, allowing him to earn up to $800,000 a year.
During the last three years, the lawyer has made on average $684,000, which works out to $57,000 per month.
The husband argued his ex-wife was deliberately underemployed.
The wife took an interior design course and has won awards as a "home stager" - selecting furniture and furnishing to stage homes to make them sell quickly.
She hoped to earn $15,000 to $20,000 this year, the judge pointed out.
"Her actions are inconsistent with the suggestion that she has deliberately been underemployed," the judge observed this week in a written judgment.
The judge found the wife lived a modest lifestyle in a 1919 home in North Vancouver, compared to the lifestyle of the husband, who lives in West Vancouver, has another home in Qualicum Beach, has substantial retirement savings and is earning a large income that will allow him to continue to accumulate assets and savings.
"It is very unlikely she will ever achieve self-sufficiency to a degree that overcomes the economic disadvantages of marriage or approximates the advantages the husband gained from the marriage," the judge concluded.
The judge also noted that while she saw no reason information to justify hiding the litigants' names by reducing them to initials, the husband "strongly opposed" having his name made public.
The full judgment is online at: http://bit.ly/ykLDLR
nhall@vancouversun.com
By NEAL HALL | Vancouver Sun – 22 hours ago
VANCOUVER - A Vancouver lawyer making $57,000 a month recently went to court and succeeded in having his payments reduced to his ex-wife.
The lawyer, identified only as C.D. in a B.C. Supreme Court judgment, had urged the court to reduce his monthly spousal support payments to $8,500 a month this year, to be stepped down over the next three years to $5,000 a month.
Until this month, he was paying $11,500 a month to his ex-wife, A.B., plus another $49,000 a year for the educational expenses of his two children.
Justice Susan Griffin decided a more appropriate payment was $10,000 a month for the next 10 years, when the matter can be reviewed.
The judge noted that the ex-wife, a former flight attendant, did not work during the 15-year marriage and stayed home to look after the couple's two children, allowing the lawyer to work long hours and become very successful.
When the couple married in 1990, the lawyer was making $50,000 a year in Ontario.
The couple decided to move to Vancouver in 1994, where the lawyer's career took off, allowing him to earn up to $800,000 a year.
During the last three years, the lawyer has made on average $684,000, which works out to $57,000 per month.
The husband argued his ex-wife was deliberately underemployed.
The wife took an interior design course and has won awards as a "home stager" - selecting furniture and furnishing to stage homes to make them sell quickly.
She hoped to earn $15,000 to $20,000 this year, the judge pointed out.
"Her actions are inconsistent with the suggestion that she has deliberately been underemployed," the judge observed this week in a written judgment.
The judge found the wife lived a modest lifestyle in a 1919 home in North Vancouver, compared to the lifestyle of the husband, who lives in West Vancouver, has another home in Qualicum Beach, has substantial retirement savings and is earning a large income that will allow him to continue to accumulate assets and savings.
"It is very unlikely she will ever achieve self-sufficiency to a degree that overcomes the economic disadvantages of marriage or approximates the advantages the husband gained from the marriage," the judge concluded.
The judge also noted that while she saw no reason information to justify hiding the litigants' names by reducing them to initials, the husband "strongly opposed" having his name made public.
The full judgment is online at: http://bit.ly/ykLDLR
nhall@vancouversun.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)