If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV News)   Think your alimony sucks? Try $175,000 PER MONTH   (ctvnews.ca) divider line 165
    More: Fail, spousal support, dental insurance, McCain Foods, child support  
•       •       •

17342 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-13 08:43:45 PM
I've never understood the court's decision to side with the "style that you've grown accustomed" argument.

So? She/He spent that way according to the knowledge of the joint bank account. Once that ends, they should get an equitable split (Which, in this case sounds like she was given $7,000,000 and a few houses.) and then each is responsible for doing their own budget based upon their own assets.

I don't honestly care, but it always smacked me as really f*cked up for the courts to rule like they do. Some of the people they rule against are rich scumbags who we'd all like to see take a hit. Yeah, that's fine. I laugh, you laugh. It just doesn't seem legally right to do.

I'd spend as much as possible if I was allowed and had a wife worth $500,000,000... That doesn't mean I'm legally allowed to do so after we break up. Dunno... YMMV
 
2013-01-13 09:09:39 PM
The price of freedom can be enormous.
 
2013-01-13 09:28:45 PM
She noted he once clandestinely invited mental health professionals to a party so that they could observe his wife, whom he believes suffers from bipolar disorder.

This in turn forced Christine McCain to seek the services of a psychiatrist, who found no evidence to warrant a diagnosis, the judge wrote, adding the experience "must have been very hurtful."


Yo dawg, we heard you like psychiatrists so we brought a psychiatrist to the party so you'll get a psychiatrist.
 
2013-01-13 09:30:44 PM

fusillade762: She noted he once clandestinely invited mental health professionals to a party so that they could observe his wife, whom he believes suffers from bipolar disorder.

This in turn forced Christine McCain to seek the services of a psychiatrist, who found no evidence to warrant a diagnosis, the judge wrote, adding the experience "must have been very hurtful."

Yo dawg, we heard you like psychiatrists so we brought a psychiatrist to the party so you'll get a psychiatrist.


She's not crazy her husband had her tested.
 
2013-01-13 09:44:52 PM
I married the wrong damn men.

I can't even get child support out of the losers, let alone alimony.

/not bitter
//ok, I'm bitter
 
2013-01-13 10:22:39 PM
Hell if I could afford to pay 175k a month I would be a happy man

/did the math, if I sold my house, shop, tools and emptied my bank accounts I could support her for almost 8 months.
//assuming I could get market value for everything.
 
2013-01-13 10:25:39 PM

Pribar: Hell if I could afford to pay 175k a month I would be a happy man

/did the math, if I sold my house, shop, tools and emptied my bank accounts I could support her for almost 8 months.
//assuming I could get market value for everything.


I don't believe you. What's your bank account number?
 
2013-01-13 10:37:18 PM

ArkAngel: Pribar: Hell if I could afford to pay 175k a month I would be a happy man

/did the math, if I sold my house, shop, tools and emptied my bank accounts I could support her for almost 8 months.
//assuming I could get market value for everything.

I don't believe you. What's your bank account number?


Marry me and find out
 
2013-01-13 10:58:02 PM
Out of curiosity. If one party goes belly up, are they still obligated to pay full alimony, despite having a drastic lifestyle change themselves? Because right now it sounds like alimony is a winning lottery ticket for farking the right piece of meat and nothing else.
 
2013-01-13 11:08:39 PM
<I>In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Greer said that while the agreement may have seemed fair to Michael McCain when it was signed in 1997, over time it had become "unconscionable."</i>

Wow, big surprise that a female judge would set aside contract law over something as subjective as conscience.
And even after deciding it's legal, why does alimony have to be based on her previous level of living? She agreed to leave the marriage didn't she?
 
2013-01-13 11:20:11 PM

Gig103: Wow, big surprise that a female judge would set aside contract law


Signing a contract under duress (the elder McCain threatened to disown his children if their spouses did not sign away their rights to spousal support and some business assets in exchange for a cash payout and some properties including the matrimonial home.) makes the contract invalid.
 
2013-01-13 11:29:06 PM

NewportBarGuy: I've never understood the court's decision to side with the "style that you've grown accustomed" argument.


This.

You want someone's money? Don't get divorced.

You want to get divorced, you should get a reasonable amount of assets based on your contribution to joint possessions and your own property. That's it.
 
2013-01-13 11:36:09 PM

ajgeek: Out of curiosity. If one party goes belly up, are they still obligated to pay full alimony, despite having a drastic lifestyle change themselves? Because right now it sounds like alimony is a winning lottery ticket for farking the right piece of meat and nothing else.


You have to go to the court and petition to have it changed. Chances are it will be granted. But a lot of people don't know that, so the poor schlub who loses his $15/hr job is stuck trying to keep up on child support payments of less than $1,000 per month and can't make it.

NewportBarGuy: So? She/He spent that way according to the knowledge of the joint bank account. Once that ends, they should get an equitable split (Which, in this case sounds like she was given $7,000,000 and a few houses.) and then each is responsible for doing their own budget based upon their own assets.


One could argue that it's not fair to allow someone to become accustomed to a given lifestyle and then take away a substantial part of that. Yes, it's epic entitlement and privilege that allows someone to think they're slumming it with $7 million, but I don't think it's up to a court to decide what is and is not too opulent.

Having said that, I prefer that logic to apply to rich parents leaving their kids a lot of money, not to divorcees.
 
2013-01-13 11:37:01 PM
What's more, she said the agreement was achieved under "subtle and psychological" duress because refusing it would have meant significant financial penalties for the couple.

Holy shiat. Significant financial penalties? As in "Not getting daddy's inheritance?" WTF?


By signing the contract, his wife waived her right to spousal support and the equalization of family property, trading them in for a lump sum of $7 million and the title to the family home.

No sympathy for any of the parties involved. None.
 
2013-01-13 11:38:00 PM

SecretAgentWoman: I married the wrong damn men.

I can't even get child support out of the losers, let alone alimony.

/not bitter
//ok, I'm bitter


A double divorced woman is bitter? No way.
 
2013-01-13 11:39:25 PM
Lesson: If you're rich, don't get married.
 
2013-01-13 11:40:53 PM
Use her then dump 'er...

www.hotflick.net
 
2013-01-13 11:43:31 PM
In other news apparently subby has never heard of the 1%
 
2013-01-13 11:45:01 PM
Would've been cheaper just to kill her.
 
2013-01-13 11:46:27 PM

doglover: You want to get divorced, you should get a reasonable amount of assets based on your contribution to joint possessions and your own property. That's it.


It is very common for one partner in a marriage to sacrifice their career so that the other partner is successful in theirs. It could be working instead of going to grad school so the partner can go to medical school. It could be giving up a dream job because it would mean moving. It could be raising the children full time so that the partner can pursue a demanding career without having to worry about child raising.

In all those examples the successful spouse owes a part of their continued success on the other partner's contribution. So, in the divorce the less successful partner is entitled to a part of the rewards of what they worked together towards.

/I know, I'm not going to make bitter divorcees less bitter.
 
2013-01-13 11:47:37 PM

7th Son of a 7th Son: Would've been cheaper just to kill her.


That's the sequel.
 
2013-01-13 11:47:47 PM

SecretAgentWoman: I married the wrong damn men.

I can't even get child support out of the losers, let alone alimony.

/not bitter
//ok, I'm bitter


*clicks profile*

how YOU doin

/ and since im a loser, youd feel totally comfortable with me
 
2013-01-13 11:49:01 PM
Total•Alimony
 
2013-01-13 11:49:28 PM

basemetal: The price of freedom can be enormous.


That's some A-level salad toss.
 
2013-01-13 11:49:53 PM
tell that biatch to call me up

/thats BS
 
2013-01-13 11:50:10 PM
See....here is where I get confused....I agree with the judge that this contract was made under duress and was not valid and so that family can go fark itself...I'm a guy and I find the whole situation unconscionable too so all you hating the woman judge can go fark yourself as well.

but....

I also think that amassing 500 million dollars in wealth is also unconscionable and contrary to sound public policy.


So I think that legally it's the right answer to a situation that shouldn't even be legal in the first place which makes it "legally illegal" and that makes my head spin.
 
2013-01-13 11:53:47 PM
The fact that she asked for child support for children of ages 19-26 makes my level of sympathy for her absolute zero.
 
2013-01-13 11:55:28 PM

SpaceyCat: Gig103: Wow, big surprise that a female judge would set aside contract law

Signing a contract under duress (the elder McCain threatened to disown his children if their spouses did not sign away their rights to spousal support and some business assets in exchange for a cash payout and some properties including the matrimonial home.) makes the contract invalid.


What duress? She didn't have to marry him. She could have decided that she didn't want to be involved in a family that crazy.
 
2013-01-13 11:55:53 PM

Krieghund: In all those examples the successful spouse owes a part of their continued success on the other partner's contribution. So, in the divorce the less successful partner is entitled to a part of the rewards of what they worked together towards.


That's true in many cases. Here however, she could have put herself through medical school on one month worth of the alimony she's now collecting. She obviously didn't sacrifice her career on his behalf taking care of children, maintaining a home, etc. They made more than enough to pay for child support while she was doing whatever. She was probably content to sit around and enjoy the lifestyle that his career bought, and now wants to keep it up.
 
2013-01-13 11:56:09 PM
the republicans are right the rich have it rough suck it up libs
 
2013-01-13 11:56:51 PM

poison_amy: The fact that she asked for child support for children of ages 19-26 makes my level of sympathy for her absolute zero.


All the haters in this thread should scroll through Rich Kids of Instagram for a few minutes.
 
2013-01-13 11:56:56 PM
er, child care.
 
2013-01-13 11:56:59 PM

Krieghund: /I know, I'm not going to make bitter divorcees less bitter.


Or stupid laws less stupid. Yes there exists a possibility that one spouse assists the other in making a good household.

Back in reality, protecting them is as important as protecting other people from gold diggers.
 
2013-01-13 11:57:41 PM

poison_amy: The fact that she asked for child support for children of ages 19-26 makes my level of sympathy for her absolute zero.


it's canadien money
 
2013-01-13 11:58:05 PM

AxemRed: Lesson: If you're rich, don't get married.


Lesson: If you're rich If you're a man, don't get married.

/ftfy
 
2013-01-13 11:58:07 PM

AxemRed: Lesson: If you're rich, don't get married.


Or at the very least not without a prenup
 
2013-01-13 11:58:29 PM
And lets not forget that the agreement gave her 7 million and a house in the event of a divorce. It wasn't like she was being handed a change of clothes and a bus ticket.
 
2013-01-13 11:58:54 PM
McCain family fortune was made by the family patriarch. Please explain how the wife of one of the sons contributed to the making of this fortune such that she should be entitled to such a HUGE monthly alimony payment?

Oh...female judge. Nevermind.
 
2013-01-14 12:01:19 AM

SecretAgentWoman: I married the wrong damn men.

I can't even get child support out of the losers, let alone alimony.

/not bitter
//ok, I'm bitter


You're hot.
/hot
 
2013-01-14 12:01:45 AM

FishyFred: ajgeek: Out of curiosity. If one party goes belly up, are they still obligated to pay full alimony, despite having a drastic lifestyle change themselves? Because right now it sounds like alimony is a winning lottery ticket for farking the right piece of meat and nothing else.

You have to go to the court and petition to have it changed. Chances are it will be granted. But a lot of people don't know that, so the poor schlub who loses his $15/hr job is stuck trying to keep up on child support payments of less than $1,000 per month and can't make it.


Realize, also, that it can easily take months in some jurisdictions to get a court date and several court dates to get the change enacted.
 
2013-01-14 12:01:52 AM

ongbok: And lets not forget that the agreement gave her 7 million and a house in the event of a divorce. It wasn't like she was being handed a change of clothes and a bus ticket.


fark the biatches and ho's.

any one wonder why us smart ones stay single.
 
2013-01-14 12:02:23 AM
This is what happens when east-coast oligarchs meet Ontario judges. You're in Upper Canada now biatches.
 
2013-01-14 12:02:28 AM
I'm fairly sure one month's alimony could hire a pretty professional hitman that would make it so future payments will not have to be made to the ex wife. Of course, that same amount of cash could hire a competent enough hitman so that she can cash in as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
 
2013-01-14 12:03:38 AM
She gets a monthly payout that is greater than about 90-95% of American households' YEARLY income for simply not farking some guy anymore?

Seems legit.
 
2013-01-14 12:08:12 AM
I wish I had the money to give $175,000 per month...

I wish I had the money to give $175,000 per decade.
 
2013-01-14 12:08:26 AM

SpaceyCat: Gig103: Wow, big surprise that a female judge would set aside contract law

Signing a contract under duress (the elder McCain threatened to disown his children if their spouses did not sign away their rights to spousal support and some business assets in exchange for a cash payout and some properties including the matrimonial home.) makes the contract invalid.


That's not duress.
 
2013-01-14 12:08:44 AM

What_Would_Jimi_Do: any one wonder why us smart ones stay single.


RhetButlerorical question, My friend.
 
2013-01-14 12:09:10 AM

Occam's Disposable Razor: She gets a monthly payout that is greater than about 90-95% of American households' YEARLY income for simply not farking some guy anymore?

Seems legit.


she deserved it, not really
 
2013-01-14 12:11:13 AM

basemetal: The price of freedom can be enormous.


This is what they mean by "freedom isn't free".
 
2013-01-14 12:11:56 AM
Q: You know why divorce is so expensive?

A: Because they are worth it.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report