Divorced couples fight over shrinking assets

[Liberal_in_LA]

Source: TheStar.com

Divorce lawyers and the courts are seeing a surge – expected to become a "flood" – of requests from men seeking to slash their support payments to their ex-wives and children, citing job losses or drastic drops in bonuses, salaries and stocks.

At the same time, many couples who had hoped to move on with their lives are finding themselves in a hellish kind of legal and emotional limbo – unable to sell their homes and cash out.

-------------------

Especially devastated have been men who separated last summer and are now finding themselves essentially forced, by law, to hand over a share of assets to their ex-wives wildly out of whack with their current value, leaving some of them virtually bankrupt.

Just this week, family law lawyer Martha McCarthy finalized a settlement for a couple in which the husband, a high-paid executive, had opted last August to hang on to $1 million in stocks and options. This week he should have, under law, written a $500,000 cheque to his ex-wife – half their value as required under Ontario's Family Law Act – but, since they've now plummeted to just $300,000 she agreed to be "generous" and accept less.

Many ex-wives haven't.



Read more: http://www.thestar.com/living/article/568604

[liberalhistorian]

1. What a sexist biased article.

How about the fact that many women and children may be dependent on receiving such income for such trivial purposes as food, rent, clothing and keeping from freezing? Do they think their children just automatically feed and clothe themselves? For every story of the stereotypical "greedy" ex-wife out to "get" whatever she can, there are ten more of women and their children who are royally screwed financially by their husbands, some of whom run off with other women and leave their families high and dry. And no one seems to give a damn about that.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. and if the income simply doesn't exist?

Courts putting men in blood from a stone situations really doesn't help anybody. Expecting a man to continue the level of support they could at $75,000 when their making $25,000 or nothing at all is just cruel. And the system punishes them further, incarceration and a prison record isn’t going to help him in paying his support obligations.

Divorce is mutually assured financial suicide, neither stereotype is all that accurate. But this is America - where your wife not giving you head or your husband being fat and boring is seen as grounds for divorce. Both husband and wife wind up broke and usually discover their not quite as hot as they thought they were while children just get stuck in the game.

[Demobrat]

3. They give a damn when it's time to blame single mothers

for all the ills of the world. Absent fathers, not so much.

[sandspur]

4. So it is ok to punish some men unfaily because of the actions of other men?

There needs to be a better remedy. Basing on a percentage would be one way, and one that would benefit women with children if the ex husband gets a better job or a promotion, since they would not have to go to court again. You really need to take things on a case by case basis, and not just punish one party or the other. indiscriminately.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I'm a single father. no one cried about my kids when their mom took up with an abusive

alcoholic with three kids of his own from his divorce. So I wouldn't expect moms would get much sympathy either.

Absent parents come in both sexes.
Many states have laws that favor the mother as custodial parent over the father. That's wrong and it's irresponsible for the state to make assumptions based on sex alone.

Yes, I know more mothers end up with the kids, per capita, than do fathers. but i don't see how irresponsibility has a sex.

Single parents have it tough, period, even when both parents are acting responsibly. It's a tough job raising kids.

[BR_Parkway]

7. About as much as they ever give a damn about all the deadbeat moms

out there who walk out and never do one thing to to support their kids. 10 out of the 10 single dads I've known have never gotten a dime's worth of assistance from the mothers, but it still seems to be one of those things that only gets talked about when it's the male who's the deadbeat parent.

[marshall]

12. It also assumes the men are always the primary bread winners

There are lots of Guy Ritchies and Kevin Federlines out there who are expecting a sizable portion of their wife's earnings as well as child support payments.

[truthisfreedom]

5. Oh for fuck's sake. It's time for the Federal government to step in and re-time divorces.

Whoever is responsible should pay based on what's happening at the moment, in an economy where everything is changing all the time.

Jesus H Christ. Whatever happened to being normal?

[BR_Parkway]

8. Actually, they've been so active in "protecting marriage", maybe they should

just ban divorces all together.

[liberalhistorian]

11. Well, that would certainly reduce the divorce

rate, of course, but then the murder rate would definitely spike!! :evilgrin:

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I was thinking the same thing.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Surprise!!! Surprised!!! FYI - Divorced couples will fight over any damned thing imaginable.

So color me "surprised" that they may "fight over shrinking assets"

[liberalhistorian]

10. LOL, no kidding!

All it takes is five minutes in the legal field (and I've been in it a lot longer) to recognize that.

[whoopingcrone]

9. sexist and not necessarily applicable

This article is about what's happening in Canada.
In Canada, there's one law that applies to the entire country.
In the US each state has its own set of rules and requirements.
Under Canadian law, assets are valued as of the date the couple separates.
In much of the United States, the value is determined on the date of the divorce.