[Magdalen] your ongoing prayers, please

[Marion Thompson]

I do agree, Sally, about the ethics and professionalism of this. Geez, I 
was ripe for the picking.  Sadly, he died two years ago, and perhaps 
just as well.    So it's Jim version versus mine.  Jim appears to have a 
photographic memory of events leading up to the actual signing in 
1991!!!!  I must see how good mine is.

Yes, current legal opinion says that you could shoot holes through it, 
that family law has firmed up a lot from the loosey-goosey times of 
1991, that there wasn't proper and full financial disclosure, that I 
signed away rights without any chance of gain --  'a classic gratuitous 
release', and that no lawyer today would allow me to sign without 
independent legal counsel, etc.

Marion, a pilgrim
On 10/10/2014 5:19 PM, Sally Davies wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   .
>>>>>>
> .
>