[Magdalen] your ongoing prayers, please

[Sally Davies]

Oh, Marion, how frightful.  It sounds as though "our" lawyer might deserve
reporting to professional standards (here it would be the Law Society).
What he did there was unethical and unprofessional!!

Prayers that justice will prevail.

 I really don't think an agreement like that - at least here in South
Africa - would be allowed by a court to supersede the normal protections of
a marriage, be that an ante-nuptial contract or just the usual default
which for us is accrual. Each party keeps the assets he or she brought into
the marriage but value accrued thereafter is fairly divided as the parties
agree.

Mediation is a much, much better way to go but good faith is necessary for
it to succeed.

Sally D

On Friday, 10 October 2014, Marion Thompson <marionwhitevale at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Much will also depend on the judge or whomever we present all this to.
>
> I've got my balance back and thank everyone for listening.  You have no
> idea how helpful it has been to verbalize the mess.
>
> All will be well and all manner of thing will be well.    Back to writing
> my sermon on thanksgiving!
>
> Marion, a pilgrim    ... today my sail I lift ....
>
> On 10/10/2014 1:17 PM, Heather Angus wrote:
>
>> Oh, Marion, this is even worse. I hope you have a good lawyer and a mean
>> one!
>>
>> Heather
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Clarissa Canning <canplum at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>