[Magdalen] your ongoing prayers, please

[Clarissa Canning]

prayer always

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Marion Thompson <marionwhitevale at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, current family law supports all that you have said and all that
> number crunching has been done.  The evil X factor in my situation is the
> agreement that was signed in Nov 1991.  We had been living together 10
> years, we both worked at  U of T (Jim as a full professor) .  Jim thought
> we'd have "a happier healthier life" in the country and we bought this
> house.  He put up the down payment and, as I understood it, I signed this
> agreement that he worked out with our lawyer friend to protect his  stake
> in the house.  Fair enough.  Now, Our lawyer, not My lawyer, was a trusted
> good friend, Colonel of the Regiment and all that, and we were in his
> living room having a scotch while we did this business.  Verbal review of
> the contents.  Sign sign sign Have a drink.  Of course in the cold hard
> light of day farther down in the document what the agreement also says is
> that, should the relationship break down for any reason including death,
> neither party will pay or claim support from the other.
>
> This is the crux of the matter.  They claim this agreement is valid, we
> claim it is not for a whole whack of reasons.  If its validity is held up,
> too bad, so sad.  We have done horse-trading, but always with his position
> moving farther away from acceptable until now this.
>
> As a personal conundrum, to me there was a world of change in state
> between   knocking around and living together (never a pooling of
> resources) for a total of 20 years and moving into marriage.   I meant what
> I vowed.  In the ceremony how we all laughed at 'for richer for poorer' and
> 'with all my wordly goods I thee endow'. Hey-ho!
>
> Two lessons from this:  Take nothing for granted and read the fine print.
> And ALWAYS have your own lawyer to look out for your interests, even if you
> are certain your friends, however close or loved, are trustworthy.
> Maybe three:  Never be reluctant to talk.  Communicate!!! and insist that
> the other talk and communicate truthfully.
>
> Sorry, people,  if this is too much information.  Talk is my therapy.
>  Feel free to delete.
>
> Marion, a pilgrim
>
>
> On 10/8/2014 7:34 PM, Molly Wolf wrote:
>
>> In Ontario. You are entitled to half of the common assets, including half
>> of the value of the matrimonial home, half his pension, and half of
>> anything he's salted away since your marriage.  He is entitled to half of
>> your pension, etc.  Each of you lists what you've got, and then it's horse
>> trading:  you get to keep the house, he gets to keep (some of) his pension,
>> etc., until the property held in common (which means pretty much everything
>> acquired since your marriage) ends up 50-50.  So don't fret.  He may
>> propose an unequal split, but you don't have to accept it.
>>
>> Have you got a separation agreement, or is this what you're negotiating?
>>
>> Molly
>>
>> The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no
>> other way. -- Mark Twain
>>
>>  On Oct 8, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Marion Thompson <marionwhitevale at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Time will tell!  We have maintained a very civil facade, never ever
>>> mentioning the legal stuff, but on Nov. 4 we both have to appear in court
>>> at some information session where we are told how everything works.  I
>>> guess the camel will truly be in the tent after that.
>>>
>>> Marion, a pilgrim
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2014 12:16 PM, Cantor03--- via Magdalen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 10/8/2014 12:02:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>> mcepeda514 at gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> divorce  when it is easy. My prayers......>>>
>>>>   Is it ever easy?
>>>>   I thought mine would be easy since it was simply deciding on
>>>> the details of a 50-50 split.  We were on fairly amicable  speaking
>>>> terms, and I thought we were out of the woods.
>>>>   Then my ex was referred by a mutual "friend" (actually the wife of
>>>> one of my fellow dermatology residents) to a person I later found
>>>> out defined the word,"misandry".  This "advisor" radicalized my
>>>> ex to the point that conversation was impossible, and it was through
>>>> lawyers (at $150 a crack) that even the simplest communication
>>>> occurred.
>>>>   I do hope things are better for you.
>>>>     David Strang - 30 years divorced and counting.
>>>>
>>> .
>>
>>
>