[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well according to the article, they've been divorced almost six years (sometime in 2007) - that's a bit longer than a few years. Still, I understand that he has an obligation as part of the marriage contract and even more, to support his children. As far as Hollywood divorce settlements go, $900k annually is peanuts, Fraser got off lucky if you ask me.

I'm wondering if there's confusion in the article between "alimony (spousal support)" and "child support". If she's still getting spousal support 6 years after, then fuck her; she's had plenty of time to get on with life. But if that money is child support, he's obligated to pay that until the children are adults.

[Brenda]

I thought the legal amount of years was 12, depending on how long they were together, which was 15 (of which almost 10 married).

[raydan]

So I guess we should let the judge do his job.

[Brenda]

raydan raydan:

So I guess we should let the judge do his job.

Yep.

[commanderkai]

How much of the $900,000 is alimony, and how much of it is child support?

[BartSimpson]

Mrs. Bart once asked me about how I'd deal with a divorce and I told her she could have everything but my future income. I'd let her have it all but not one f*cking penny of my income after a divorce or I'd make sure she had nothing at all. That said, I appreciate Brendan Fraser's comments.

The ironic thing of the question is that she knows that if she left me I'd be out of my current job in a cocaine heartbeat and off into something far more lucrative. I do this because she likes me being home at night and not in some godforsaken 3rd world sh*thole for months on end.

Hate to say, but a 3rd world sh*thole looks pretty damned attractive after far too many years in a freaking cubicle.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mrs. Bart once asked me about how I'd deal with a divorce and I told her she could have everything but my future income. I'd let her have it all.

I thought they'd have to pry your guns from your cold, dead hand.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mrs. Bart once asked me about how I'd deal with a divorce and I told her she could have everything but my future income. I'd let her have it all.

I thought they'd have to pry your guns from your cold, dead hand.

She can have those, too. She knows damn well I'll have better ones soon enough.

Frankly, were I single I doubt I'd care about any restrictions and would just get what I want. I keep it legal at home just to keep the excitement level down. If all I had to worry about was myself then I'd definitely invest in my wish list.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Marriage is a contract. Part of that contract is agreeing to support your spouse if the relationship ends. If you don't like that prospect, don't get married.

I don't think it matters that much if you get married or not. As far as the law is concerend, there's no difference between a solemn marriage and a common law marriage.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think it matters that much if you get married or not. As far as the law is concerend, there's no difference between a solemn marriage and a common law marriage.

Sure there is. Courts do not award spousal support nor do they entertain property division disputes when couples aren't legally wed. Solemnity isn't what matters; the existence of the (marriage) contract is. It's a myth that commonlaw "marriages" magically become legal marriages after some period of cohabitation.

[saturn_656]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think it matters that much if you get married or not. As far as the law is concerend, there's no difference between a solemn marriage and a common law marriage.

Sure there is. Courts do not award spousal support nor do they entertain property division disputes when couples aren't legally wed. Solemnity isn't what matters; the existence of the (marriage) contract is. It's a myth that commonlaw "marriages" magically become legal marriages after some period of cohabitation.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/123.aspx

$1:

Who can claim spousal support?
Everyone who qualifies as a “spouse” can claim spousal support after separation. Spouses are people who are legally married as well as people who aren’t married as long as:

the couple have lived together in a “marriage-like relationship” for at least two years, and
the claim for spousal support is made within one year of separation (although the one-year period can sometimes be extended if the other spouse provided financial support after separation).

Whether a spouse is entitled to spousal support, and if so in what amount, depends on the specific circumstances of each couple.

This is BC, but I imagine the rules are similar in other provinces as well.

[Lemmy]

I stand corrected. That's something that must have changed since the 2010 book I have right in front of me (All About Law: Exploring the Canadian Legal System, 6th edition, Murray, Elliot, Mete & Glass).

[saturn_656]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I stand corrected. That's something that must have changed since the 2010 book I have right in front of me (All About Law: Exploring the Canadian Legal System, 6th edition, Murray, Elliot, Mete & Glass).

I'm fairly certain common law spouses could sue for support before 2010, not sure why the book says what it does.

Marriage started becoming too onerous for some folk and many began living in common law situations. Now the courts want to bring "common law" status up to the same legal standard that "marriage" sits at.

Might as well marry her/him, the courts figure you did even if you never "walked down the aisle" or signed on the dotted line.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I stand corrected. That's something that must have changed since the 2010 book I have right in front of me (All About Law: Exploring the Canadian Legal System, 6th edition, Murray, Elliot, Mete & Glass).

Anymore what is written down as law is irrelevant to activist judges who fart new (case) laws out their butts all the time.