|
Eric Clapton
Anon
2010-May-19 5:08 pm
The fight for billionsIts baaack Lawyer Goldwater ready to go to Supreme Court in common-law couples row » www.montrealgazette.com/ ··· ory.htmlAfter seven years under the same roof, the couple split. The man pays close to $35,000 a month in child support, covers school fees, and provides two nannies and a cook. The woman lives in a $2.5-million home in Outremont, which is in the mans name.Older topics from the past: » Quebec billionaire fights alimony for ex-loverand » Lola appeals alimony case against Quebec billionaire |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
|
|
|
leanto
Anon
2010-May-19 8:05 pm
I didn't get a chance to see the vid you pasted yet, but I have to admit it should be more like other married couples in Quebec.
We file taxes as married couples, get & pay insurance as married couples etc etc the government considers common-law legally married, except when it comes to the break-up. Why is that?
I can see that being unjust.
Laws are a bit different in Quebec compared to Ontario.
I'm leaning more on the woman's side of the fence, though that is an unpopular side when looking at the two other topics on this. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
said by leanto :
I'm leaning more on the woman's side of the fence, though that is an unpopular side when looking at the two other topics on this. it is probably "unpopular" due to the number of men screwed over by women just like this one...watch the video, and listen to the words carefully...and don't worry, its relatively clean (the original isn't as clean). |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to Eric Clapton
My understanding of Quebec Society in general is that the financial "common-law" idea is not, and never has been, a popular idea there.
I really don't see what this lawyer's basis for continuing this long costly battle. Even if she manages to get the law changed, can they really get away with applying a new law retroactively?
Suppose for the sake of argument, common-law status in Ontario were to change from three years to one. Should the girlfriend I lived with for 13 months a few years ago NOW be able to go after half my stuff? Yet that is what this woman is trying to do to. No, I suspect that his not marrying her was a very conscious decision. He's being more than generous to her under Quebec law at it existed during their relationship. As an ex girlfriend and mother of a few of his kids a mansion, 5 figure monthly child support with 2 nannies, a cook, and chauffeur is a pretty sweet deal. If he had thought he would be losing a considerable amount of his fortune to her, he may well have left her on the beach in Brazil. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
not only that, but he could file for custody and she can pay him support...silly behaviour like this only gets women killed. |
|
1 recommendation |
knuckle drag
Anon
2010-May-19 10:46 pm
said by dirtyjeffer0:...silly behaviour like this only gets women killed. Oh I see any women who asserts her rights deserves violence. I think some countries have systems like that. Taliban comes to mind. Gotta love guys who bail on their wives and girlfriends and leave them to rot on welfare for a decade while they live a comfortable life. Doesn't matter whether he is a billionaire or makes $20,000.00 a years his kids come first. |
|
Rifleman Premium Member join:2004-02-09 p1a |
Rifleman
Premium Member
2010-May-19 11:09 pm
They can't have it both ways. Barefoot and pregnant or get out and work. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to knuckle drag
said by knuckle drag :
Gotta love guys who bail on their wives and girlfriends and leave them to rot on welfare for a decade while they live a comfortable life. Doesn't matter whether he is a billionaire or makes $20,000.00 a years his kids come first. I think it has been clearly established that; a) You do have to pay child support in Quebec by law, and; b) That this Billionaire founder of a circus is taking care of his ex and kids quite well. |
|
TLS2000 Premium Member join:2004-02-24 Elmsdale, NS Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Ubiquiti U6-LR Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD
1 recommendation |
TLS2000
Premium Member
2010-May-19 11:19 pm
I dunno. If she stayed home barefoot and pregnant and did not do anything to better herself because he didn't want her working, I believe that she should be entitled to get what a married person would have received in the divorce.
There are a lot of qualifiers to my above statement though. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2010-May-19 11:23 pm
said by TLS2000:I dunno. If she stayed home barefoot and pregnant and did not do anything to better herself because he didn't want her working, I believe that she should be entitled to get what a married person would have received in the divorce. I believe she had a brief modeling career. But the case yo me isn't about thinking that she should get more of his money, it's over Quebec law. And the current law says she's entitled to child support only. Quebecois are perfectly welcome to change the law. I still don't see how a law can be applied retroactively though. |
|
TLS2000 Premium Member join:2004-02-24 Elmsdale, NS Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Ubiquiti U6-LR Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD
|
TLS2000
Premium Member
2010-May-19 11:37 pm
I'm not going to debate whether it's retroactive or not because I have no knowledge of what Quebec's laws for divorce are, but I believe that common-law couples should have the same rights as married couples. That point was made especially true when they weren't allowign gay marriages in this country and gay people could only be what would be considered common-law.
If they're allowed the same rights as married people, than certainly heterosexual people should be allowed the same rights that gay people are allowed, no? |
|
Its a SecretPlease speak into the microphone Premium Member join:2008-02-23 Da wet coast |
to knuckle drag
said by knuckle drag :
Gotta love guys who bail on their wives and girlfriends and leave them to rot on welfare for a decade while they live a comfortable life. Doesn't matter whether he is a billionaire or makes $20,000.00 a years his kids come first. How did you get that? quote: After seven years under the same roof, the couple split. The man pays close to $35,000 a month in child support, covers school fees, and provides two nannies and a cook. The woman lives in a $2.5-million home in Outremont, which is in the mans name.
I don't see her suffering at all. WTH... |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:If they're allowed the same rights as married people, than certainly heterosexual people should be allowed the same rights that gay people are allowed, no? I understand the argument, but Quebec's people have wanted to maintain the right to NOT be considered married too. The only thing that was stopping this guy back then (we all know who this is, right?) from marrying her (she wanted to) was that he didn't want to. I actually think common law "marriage" should be a choice one makes, not merely a cohabitation for an arbitrary length of time as we have it in Ontario. Had he been operating under Ontario's laws, there's every reason to believe that he might have just rented her an apartment, or as I said, left her in the beach in Brazil. |
|
|
|
knuckle drag to Ian1
Anon
2010-May-20 12:12 am
to Ian1
said by Ian1: b) That this Billionaire founder of a circus is taking care of his ex and kids quite well. To the same standard if they had stayed together. I think not. These kids won in the lottery of life and just because like most men he tires of his trophy wife it doesn't mean they should get any less. Hmmm, maybe he can't afford to. Maybe jetting off in space is more important than his kids. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2010-May-20 12:35 am
said by knuckle drag :
Maybe jetting off in space is more important than his kids. Actually, he is apparently quite concerned that if his ex-girlfriend did get a large lump sum that she would take the kids to Brazil and that he might not ever see his kids again. Their current joint custody agreement requires that he can see his kids. Di you have any evidence that his kids are left wanting for anything? |
|
|
knuckle drag
Anon
2010-May-20 7:16 am
said by Ian1: Di you have any evidence that his kids are left wanting for anything? Do you have any evidence that if he was to support his kids in a manner consistent with what they would of had if he didn't bail on them that it would be detrimental to his lifestyle? |
|
1 edit |
to Eric Clapton
Considering the amount of money that Laliberte is paying in child support alone, I'd go for full custody and leave her with nothing. Moreira is actually like nothing more than a gold digger.
Especially since probably using her children's support money to pay for the law suit. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to knuckle drag
said by knuckle drag :said by Ian1: Di you have any evidence that his kids are left wanting for anything? Do you have any evidence that if he was to support his kids in a manner consistent with what they would of had if he didn't bail on them that it would be detrimental to his lifestyle? I have no idea what the couple's philosophy is on child rearing. But when you provide a home, education tuition, 3 servants, and $35,000 a month tax free in child support I simply can't imagine what these kids could possibly be lacking unless the ex GF is squandering it on gambling and coke. You can only realistically use so many computers, toys, XBOX360s, horse-riding lessons, ski trips or what-not. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they necessarily are inclined to spoil their kids to the point of ridiculousness. |
|
|
to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:I'm not going to debate whether it's retroactive or not because I have no knowledge of what Quebec's laws for divorce are, but I believe that common-law couples should have the same rights as married couples. That point was made especially true when they weren't allowign gay marriages in this country and gay people could only be what would be considered common-law. If they're allowed the same rights as married people, than certainly heterosexual people should be allowed the same rights that gay people are allowed, no? If everyone legally suffers the same rights and obligations through living together as they would if they were married, then being married has no meaning in law. I do believe kids should be protected either way as they have no say in whether their parents are married or not but to equate living together with being married is ludicrous. THAT would erode the meaning of marriage more than any homosexual couple who get married ever could. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
to knuckle drag
said by knuckle drag : Oh I see any women who asserts her rights deserves violence.
i didn't say they deserved it...i said it happens...and this woman isn't "asserting her rights", she is doing what many women do, take their man to the cleaners...quite often, in a divorce, men simply want to move on...woman often seem intent on burying the men and ruining the rest of their lives...that is why i said "silly behaviour like this only gets women killed". quote: Gotta love guys who bail on their wives and girlfriends and leave them to rot on welfare for a decade while they live a comfortable life. Doesn't matter whether he is a billionaire or makes $20,000.00 a years his kids come first.
yea, i am sure he is bailing on his kids and she is rotting on welfare...get your head out of the sand. |
|
kim MVM, join:2001-03-25 ON |
to Eric Clapton
I think it's important not to let the $$ amount affect peoples opinions. The amount is relative. Just because it's amount more that you make in a year try not be jealous, that's a disgusting trait. The question should be wether it's a reasonable amount based on what he makes and the life they live. For instance if you make $50k/yr and pay out $1500/m in child support and that is deemed fair and equitable then apply those standards to what he makes. I'll guarantee you he also hides his money easier than you do as well so keep that in mind. So would it be fair to give her the equivalent of $150/m? Try to be objective and not just wish you could get $35k/m
Married or not, a walk down the aisle shouldn't change the fact that they had a life together, a relationship are parents and have responsibilities. The law needs to be changed. That is obvious to me. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON
1 recommendation |
Ian1
Premium Member
2010-May-20 2:07 pm
said by kim:Married or not, a walk down the aisle shouldn't change the fact that they had a life together, a relationship are parents and have responsibilities. The law needs to be changed. That is obvious to me. Quebec law doesn't dispute that parents have responsibilities. But the responsibility to the other party varies based on the nature of the couple's relationship. The Quebec courts (and Quebec people apparently) believe that "Married" status is different than that of live-in Girlfriend/Boyfriend when it comes to property disposition. They hold that marriage is a long-term contract with shared financial obligations, whereas a "shacking up" situation is not. Just as distinctions are made in all the other Provinces. If I move in with a chick for week, it doesn't work out, but she's knocked-up, I'm on the hook for child-support. She's not entitled to half my assets, or I half of hers if she happens to be rich. A line is drawn. Quebec may very well change their laws. But this couple was separated based on the existing laws. And I think most would have a problem with retroactive application of a new law. Can you imagine the chaos in Quebec family courts if thousands of former girlfriends/boyfriends sued their exes for half their stuff based on a new law? |
|
kim MVM, join:2001-03-25 ON |
kim
MVM,
2010-May-20 4:38 pm
My stance is that it should be the same as in ON. You live with each other long enough (whatever the length of time is - used to be 1 yr) and you're considered married. Period. It's also why no man will be living in my house for a 1 yr. without his own residence. Otherwise you're putting women in the situation of forcing marriage on men for equality in the relationship. That's screwy and marriage is f*#@'d up and not for many people. That doesn't negate your responsibility to a long term relationship. It's a cop out for men potentially to keep women in line. "be good to me or I'll throw you back into the trailer park you came from. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
somehow, i doubt most of these rich guys go to trailer parks to get "wives". |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1 to kim
Premium Member
2010-May-20 4:51 pm
to kim
said by kim:My stance is that it should be the same as in ON. You live with each other long enough (whatever the length of time is - used to be 1 yr) and you're considered married. Ay. But that's the problem, Quebeckers think otherwise. We can vote in whatever civil policies we like in Ontario, just as they can in Quebec. I know a woman in Quebec that has much more assets to protect than her boyfriend that lives with her does. She wouldn't be happy with losing half of her inherited house and wealth to a boyfriend if they split. It can cut both ways. said by kim:It's a cop out for men potentially to keep women in line. "be good to me or I'll throw you back into the trailer park you came from. It again can cut both ways. Plus women (or men) aren't powerless in this. A beautiful Brazilian model can find another boyfriend if she was unhappy with the status quo. In fact not only could the one in this case do so, she DID. And she did so long before the birth of their first child. Background on the couple and their numerous split ups, weekend long coke parties around the world, suicide attempt and many affairs. » www2.macleans.ca/2009/02 ··· lian-ex/For those that think this was the case of a simple girl from Brazil who cheerfully raised three kids and made a home for them for seven years, that's not the case. This was a tumultuous relationship with the two often split-up and living apart in different spots around the world. |
|
|
QC laws
Anon
2010-May-20 5:44 pm
said by Ian1:She wouldn't be happy with losing half of her inherited house and wealth to a boyfriend if they split. Quebec law, unlike Ontario does not allow ingeritance to be split in a separation or divorse. Stays with the one who inherited it. So she is ill informed and should maybe seek proper advice for the prov she lives in. |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
Ian1
Premium Member
2010-May-20 5:53 pm
said by QC laws :said by Ian1:She wouldn't be happy with losing half of her inherited house and wealth to a boyfriend if they split. Quebec law, unlike Ontario does not allow ingeritance to be split in a separation or divorse. Stays with the one who inherited it. Depends on the regime that they use, when they were married, and if they sign a marriage contract. But in most divorces gains on assets from investment are split in Quebec is how it was explained to me. |
|
kim MVM, join:2001-03-25 ON
1 recommendation |
kim to Ian1
MVM,
2010-May-20 7:33 pm
to Ian1
And so the separation will be no less toxic than the relationship. My first thought was "what the hell did the two of them think was going to happen?
So a rich man enters into a relationship with a Brazillian hottie. He knew going into it what he wanted. There's a price attached to that.
She, a Brazillian model enters into a relationship with a very rich man.... guess what...
They actually sound perfect for each other lol
Waiter, give me a round of drama, psychosis egomania with a side of go f*&@k yourself. The Missus will have the same. |
|
|
to Eric Clapton
My step mother has been working for the Cirque du Soleil for 25 years, and I just landed a job in the sales department for the summer.
Laliberté is a good guy, he took care of her ex wife and his children very well. That bitch is now remarried to some other CEO who is just as rich as Laliberté.
Gold diggers... she should be ashamed of herself, and the lawyers need an ass kicking. I'm sure her children will know their mom was a money seeking whore when they grow up. |
|