dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to NCRGuy

Re: [Excessive/unfair] lawyer [fees].........unreal.

said by NCRGuy:

Ian, I don't believe you are correct. There is Lo automatic division of property on the end of a common law marriage. And there can be no matrimonial home without matrimony (ie. an actual marriage, not a common law one).

Correct - in Ontario, there is no such thing as common law; you are married, or you are not, there's nothing in-between. Joint bills, joint assets, etc are divided based on contribution; but there's no matrimonial attachment. Trust me, took mucho $$$ to sort that out with my ex...

As for the OP's post - it's criminal what lawyers can do in the name of the law... 18% interest? Forcing her to give him a mortgage against the property before he'd proceed... It may be within the letter of the law, but I hope it's not within the spirit of it... :S

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 edit
said by LazMan:

Correct - in Ontario, there is no such thing as common law; you are married, or you are not, there's nothing in-between. Joint bills, joint assets, etc are divided based on contribution; but there's no matrimonial attachment. Trust me, took mucho $$$ to sort that out with my ex...

...unless there's kids involved. Once common laws have a kid, they might as well be married in Ontario.

The article also describes the ex as "common law ex-husband". I don't know if it's a typo or if they got back together as common law after the divorce but that may muddle the waters quite a bit.

I've long believed legal protection should be a service provided by the Government, like health care. Unfortunately since a lot of court cases feature a level of Government on at least one of the side it's very unlikely they'll ever move to give people more access to protect themselves properly.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Forcing her to give him a mortgage against the property before he'd proceed...

I didn't read it as having forced her.

quote:
As it advanced, her lawyer said he wouldn't continue unless she allowed him to secure a $100,000 mortgage against her property, at 18 per cent interest per year.
For one thing, we have her side, and only her side of the story here. I suspect that lawyer wouldn't continue unless she paid him for the work he did. Hardly unreasonable on his part. And could well be that the lawyer made the pretty good "guess" that expecting that he'd ever get paid from a judgment against her ex as being pretty damned remote.

Having asked her to pay, her likely response was "I have no money. All I have is my house." I don't know about you, but I don't work for free against some faint hope of ever seeing a dime.

If she had a modest amount of intelligence, she should have talked to her bank and borrowed against that equity, and paid her lawyer. If and when she got any money out of her ex, she could have paid that loan back. It would have been smart to borrow just enough to cover her expected legal fees and interest on that new loan for a decent length of time.

But she wasn't very smart, and her lawyer screwed her with an unnecessary 18% mortgage.

So long story short, dumb person got screwed by a lawyer. Yes, this is a repeat of 10,000 stories like it every year since the dawn of the written language and advent of lawyers.

And as with all such things, there will be the usual howls for the law society to get involved or for there to be some sort of legislation to "protect" her from her own stupidity. I'm not opposed to all such things, but realistically? There's only so much you can do.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

technocar2

join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON
kudos:2
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

said by LazMan:

Correct - in Ontario, there is no such thing as common law; you are married, or you are not, there's nothing in-between. Joint bills, joint assets, etc are divided based on contribution; but there's no matrimonial attachment. Trust me, took mucho $$$ to sort that out with my ex...

...unless there's kids involved. Once common laws have a kid, they might as well be married in Ontario.

The article also describes the ex as "common law ex-husband". I don't know if it's a typo or if they got back together as common law after the divorce but that may muddle the waters quite a bit.

I've long believed legal protection should be a service provided by the Government, like health care. Unfortunately since a lot of court cases feature a level of Government on at least one of the side it's very unlikely they'll ever move to give people more access to protect themselves properly.

That's why I think there should be a insurance policy for legal expenses (LEI). Pay a monthly insurance fees and be protected against these kinds of legal shenanigans.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by technocar2:

That's why I think there should be a insurance policy for legal expenses (LEI). Pay a monthly insurance fees and be protected against these kinds of legal shenanigans.

So the business that's as much as, or even more of, a gouging racket than the legal business should protect us from the latter?

Auto insurance company - Pay us $2000 a year and we'll cover your losses in case of an accident. Plus we leveraged our influence to make it against the law not to buy our product. And you can't get it cheaper, because we've all agreed it's in our best interest to screw you.

You - ummm....ok..here ya go.

You 20 years later....Ummm I totaled my car.

Company - Here's a cheque.... By the way, now your premiums are $4600 a year since you had a claim.

You - Umm....Shouldn't the $40,000 I've already given you for that have covered it?

Company - We spent it on executive bonuses. PS - Fuck you.



To the extent that you can, self-insure. Put $50 or $100 a month into a legal account earning interest. Never need it? You keep the money, AND the interest.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

technocar2

join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON
kudos:2
said by Ian:

To the extent that you can, self-insure. Put $50 or $100 a month into a legal account earning interest. Never need it? You keep the money, AND the interest.

That would only work in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec where cheap public insurance covers personal injuries, while your savings account can cover damage to property as per your example.

Also you conveniently ignore the fact that LEI is very successful in other countries because of government regulation. Our governments are too weak when it comes to regulation, except in the above mentioned provinces.

From what I gather LEI would be about $500/year for $100,000 coverage even if you lose a case, this is what one company is proposing.

Anyway, I will always be pro insurance when proper government regulations are in place that insures mutual benefit to the insurer and the insured.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
said by technocar2:

Anyway, I will always be pro insurance when proper government regulations are in place that insures mutual benefit to the insurer and the insured.

Which we don't have because it's rigged to ALWAYS be in favour of the insurance companies.

First thing the insurance company is going to do when you lose your case is look for a loop-hole (in the reams of fine print) to avoid paying it. Failing that, they'll claim they don't owe it to you anyway and let you fight with them for a year or two, perhaps finally, grudgingly, paying the claim.

And so $500 a year for lawsuit insurance up to $100,000?

What do you suppose the odds would be that any given person will lose a $100,000 judgment in their lifetime? 2%? 5%?

Put $500 a year into an investment at 6% a year? You get $45,000 in the account by year 30. And likely 95% yours to keep. $15,000 to an insurance company? 95% likely to kiss it goodbye forever.

I'm aware that peace of mind comes at a price, but guess what would increase the odds of you ever getting sued? Them knowing you have insurance.....
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to technocar2
said by technocar2:

said by Ian:

To the extent that you can, self-insure. Put $50 or $100 a month into a legal account earning interest. Never need it? You keep the money, AND the interest.

That would only work in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec where cheap public insurance covers personal injuries, while your savings account can cover damage to property as per your example.

Actually it wouldn't work in Québec as you must provide proof of at least $2 million dollars in available assets (IIRC) in order to be able to self-insure.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
You can do the same thing in Ontario.