Who is the deadbeat here?

[bara]

A lot of the people I know who got married before they should have did so BECAUSE they couldn't afford to live by themselves.

The majority of them don't realize it at the time though and only later after everything falls to crap realize that their own insecurities is one of the things that lead them to get married.

I agree that people should not get married before they can make it on their own.

[Peppergirl]

A lot of the people I know who got married before they should have did so BECAUSE they couldn't afford to live by themselves.

The majority of them don't realize it at the time though and only later after everything falls to crap realize that their own insecurities is one of the things that lead them to get married.

I agree that people should not get married before they can make it on their own.

I'm a sad cautionary tale of this very same thing. I stayed in a miserable 15 year marriage because I was afraid I couldn't make it. Turns out I could, and DID.

I'd rather live dead-assed broke than to be in a miserable marriage. Sadly, there's many people who will put up with a lot of BS for financial security.

[Silverharp]

So, the mother was making $81000 a year, plus a house free and clear, PLUS she got a $1.2 MILLION down payment?
The only deadbeat here is the mother. If I were the father, I would do the same and find a way to funnel money directly to the kids.
Actually, no...I would have appealed the decision as being unjust and impossible to maintain while demanding a retrial with a new, less obviously biased judge.

[HYHYBT]

The house wasn't "free and clear." There was a mortgage, unless I've read this totally wrong.

Of course, the thing to do would have been to use the 1.2 million to pay it off at the beginning.

[draco664]

So, the mother was making $81000 a year, plus a house free and clear, PLUS she got a $1.2 MILLION down payment?

No, she got the $1.2mil house, but it was half in hock to the bank. She had to pay the father 170-odd thousand to buy him out (which he had to take her to court 3 times to get her to actually pay - which in the article she spun around as him being mean), but the rest of the house was in return for her waiving her rights to spousal support. But she was getting 2K a month rent, 2.3K child support, and 2.5K government support. So, probably in the region of 70-75K a year, of which less than 24K was taxable.

The only deadbeat here is the mother. If I were the father, I would do the same and find a way to funnel money directly to the kids.

If the dad's not doing something like this, then he's a dead beat too. Even a token amount would be better than cutting the kids off all together.

Actually, no...I would have appealed the decision as being unjust and impossible to maintain while demanding a retrial with a new, less obviously biased judge.

Your faith in the Canadian Family Court system is amusing. Misplaced, but amusing.

The judge basically threw out a mutually beneficial, legally drawn up contract because the mother decided she wanted more. Originally, it was all but 170K of his part of the house in return for no spousal support. Now, it's the house, plus backdated spousal support and pay for both your lawyer, and the lawyer who just buggered you up the arse with the legal stick.

Do you honestly think that anyone could get justice in such an environment?

[Skelly]

So, what the hell is the point of having contracts at all if they can be torn up on the whim of a judge just like that?

[Silverharp]

So, what the hell is the point of having contracts at all if they can be torn up on the whim of a judge just like that?

Exactly, how can the judge just decide "Oh, this legally binding contract that was agreed on by nother parties as fair and equitable? I've decided that it's no longer in effect"
If he has that little respect for the law then he needs to be disbarred

[Rapscallion]

Um, as the presiding judge he's trained and expected to examine the situation and give his verdict accordingly. He was actually empowered to change the contract, I would assume, else he wouldn't have done that. Granted, from what's been said he made a particularly boneheaded move, but that's how he can decide. He'd been asked by the wife to decide if she could survive on what was being given to her at the time.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Right... but *how* does a judge come to the conclusion that $7000/month isn't enough? What was there to this that convinced him NOT to say "if you can't live on that, it's your fault and nobody else's"?

[Rapscallion]

That I don't know, but he definitely had the legal authority to change the contract.

Rapscallion

[draco664]

Right... but *how* does a judge come to the conclusion that $7000/month isn't enough? What was there to this that convinced him NOT to say "if you can't live on that, it's your fault and nobody else's"?

Probably the fact that there was an ex-husband in the picture, who still had some available money. As cynical as that is, it seems to be the default position for a Family Court judge in Canada.

That I don't know, but he definitely had the legal authority to change the contract.

He did, that's why there was a trial. But a change of legal contract by a court normally only has legal force when both parties are benefited by the change. Not so in the Family Court. In this case, the ex-husband signed away the house in lieu of spousal support. Now, he still doesn't have the house, but he has to back pay spousal support.

[Canarr]

But a change of legal contract by a court normally only has legal force when both parties are benefited by the change.

Really? So, if there truly *were* a case of a grossly unfair contract being signed by two parties - say, because one had a really shitty lawyer, or was under duress - then no judge could change it, because the change would be to the detriment of the originally (unfairly) benefited party? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[draco664]

Really? So, if there truly *were* a case of a grossly unfair contract being signed by two parties - say, because one had a really shitty lawyer, or was under duress - then no judge could change it, because the change would be to the detriment of the originally (unfairly) benefited party? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Pretty much, yeah. Why doesn't that make sense? A valid contract must have these things

1. Intention to create legal relationship.
2. Lawful object
3. Agreement not expressly declared void
4. Proper offer and it s acceptance
5. Free Consent
6. Capacity of parties to contract
7. Certainty of meaning.
8. Possibility of performance.
9. Lawful consideration
10. Legal formalities

So duress is an auto disqualifier under 5.

The idea behind a contract is that it's an agreement between two or more parties that has legal force. Signing one that gives you a bum deal doesn't mean that you can immediately take it to court to get it changed if you freely agreed to it in the first place. The other parties need to benefit from the change somehow too. Contracts can always be changed by mutual agreement in any case.

[Canarr]

Contracts can always be changed by mutual agreement in any case.

Well, yeah. But you don't need a judge for that; if there's a change that both parties agree on, you just draw up an addendum and both parties sign it. End of story. There's no point in even involving a judge into a discussion about an existing contract, unless there is something about it that one party wants changed, but the other party wants retained.

Or, do you mean that the judge is required to provide some sort of recompense to the party that the change is detrimental to? In that case, I can follow.

For instance, under German law, if a judge came to the same conclusion as that family court judge apparently did, that the contract was not valid for some reason, they'd absolutely have the authority (provided it's within their jurisdiction, of course) to declare a contract null and void. In that case, however, the contract would be treated as though it were never closed in the first place. Any and all transfers of money or property would have to be returned immediately - the husband would have to pay back whatever the wife paid him for the house, but he'd retain the share of the house he originally had. Same goes for anything else that was transferred.

Unless, of course, he just voids one or more single clauses of a contract - that's normally done to clauses that break any existing laws. Say, you rent a house from someone and sign a contract stating that the landlord may freely enter your home at any point, without announcement, and you're never allowed to change the locks. That clause would certainly be declared void in court, but the remainder of the contract wouldn't be affected by it.

[tropicsgoddess]

I think it was a dick move that the judge forced the ex-husband to pay more even after he fulfilled his end of the bargain. I can't say I don't blame the ex-husband for fleeing to the Philippines to avoid getting nicked and dimed by the ex-wife.