If a woman is a stay at home mom all the years of her marriage (29.5)and has gained self-taught skills to get her by throughout those years- and her husband during the same period of years of marriage which enables him to earn double of what the wife earns following her having returned to a school environment to obtain a college certificate - have to lower the standard of living for which she had during the years of marriage due to the imbalance of income earning capacity or is it reasonable for her to seek spousal support? Well it seems that Judges can do whatever they choose - even though there are guidelines in place and charts for Judges to reference when they are faced to render a decision.

I am pretty sure that once any couple with both working split up that normally both of them would have to deal with a lower standard of living unless one has a greatly increased income immediately on the split. Same gross income- 2 households- 2 sets of utility bills etc. should result in less total income with my math.

Terry9366 said "I am pretty sure that once any couple with both working split up that normally both of them would have to deal with a lower standard of living unless one has a greatly increased income immediately on the split. Same gross income- 2 households- 2 sets of utility bills etc. should result in less total income with my math. "

Oh excuse me I have the knowledge whereby the man earns almost double the gross salary on T4 and yet the judge tries to tell the woman that she needs to lower her standard of living - it's already less than what she had during the marriage.  
 
Oh and if you doubt what you read on here - just gotta go to the courthouse and read some of the Judgements delivered by Justice Menzies - right here in Brandon - Courthouse on Princess Avenue.

well I wasn't talking t4 amounts I was talking total gross income. Now if he is lying to Revenue Canada and you have proof that is a matter for Revenue Canada and IF/WHEN you get his ass audited with your proof you can go back to court with the revised audited income and possibly go after back pay. Pretty sure the Judge can only go by official documents ie. T4's.

Terry9366 said "well I wasn't talking t4 amounts I was talking total gross income. Now if he is lying to Revenue Canada and you have proof that is a matter for Revenue Canada and IF/WHEN you get his ass audited with your proof you can go back to court with the revised audited income and possibly go after back pay. Pretty sure the Judge can only go by official documents ie. T4's. "

What I was thinking...

Oh and to add a bit more interest to this whole interesting Trial is the fact that it was addressed that there were health issues which could change the woman's ability to work as she did in the past year.  
Remember the difference between these two people salaries was in excess of $28 thousand - and she has not been at work since mid-April and has a tentative return date of in September and for which the court and judge were provided with surgery information - but then in the judgement the judge writes - "No prognosis was presented to the court" All I got to say is Thank God there were people in the stands who witnessed this Trial and then there is the transcript - (the written document of what was said) so worth the $1700.00 I have been charged for the 2.5 days for Trial proceedings.  
 
 
Edited by ShortSweet, 2012-08-07 21:12:02

Remember what? You are adding a bit here and a bit there with each comment, changes the story as it progresses, hard to follow because things will change with the next addition. Prognosis to me means longterm, maybe the person would be fully employable after surgery and lead a normal worklife...

Fair enough - Prognosis - if the surgery is the result of a disease for which the facts are stated in the courts at Trial and the judge says "Why should I care" so not cool - I didn't know that wearing a robe gives the person the right to speak so harshly to people. The information was presented at the time of the explanation of the surgery and yet the judge left the self-represented person totally feeling minimized with his condescending tone of voice - Oh I guess the voice goes with the robe!

Sorry things aren't going your way. It sounds like an unfortunate situation. Judges are not there to be your friends and hold your hand. They evaluate and judge what is in front if them. Maybe you need a better lawyer? Or are you representing yourself?

I'm not really sure what your looking for. Sympathy, support, or just to rant? I'm not even sure qwhat the thread is about other than you want spousal support and didn't get it????

creeping said "I'm not really sure what your looking for. Sympathy, support, or just to rant? I'm not even sure qwhat the thread is about other than you want spousal support and didn't get it???? "

Not rant - but rather to create awareness of how judges can just as they so please decide to lessen spousal support and yet the income variances are even greater now than when it was initially set. How can a person who stayed at home - not have an established career, at 50 plus be told to lessen their standard of living - I thought that the system was to protect that from happening to people. Oh excuse me if I am wrong.  

If she needs surgery it is no longer his job to support her while she recovers. They are no longer married... If the marriage failed it sucks but you are on your own legally and emotionally. It seems from a laymen you are suffering from both fronts  
 
Edited by Crash, 2012-08-07 22:21:22

ShortSweet said "    creeping said "I'm not really sure what your looking for. Sympathy, support, or just to rant? I'm not even sure qwhat the thread is about other than you want spousal support and didn't get it???? " Not rant - but rather to create awareness of how judges can just as they so please decide to lessen spousal support and yet the income variances are even greater now than when it was initially set. How can a person who stayed at home - not have an established career, at 50 plus be told to lessen their standard of living - I thought that the system was to protect that from happening to people. Oh excuse me if I am wrong.   "

....if the woman where to seek and receive spousal support, wouldn't the man's quality of life have to be lowered? Either way someone's quality of life WILL be lowered regardless. You seem to think it is more fair for the man to have a lower quality of life than you. Why should he? (AND, reverse the two roles, and I would state the same thing.  
 
For WAY too many years, it has been the man paying the woman, with the woman automatically get primary care and control of the children (when children are invlved). Now, that the tides have changed the women are starting to complain. Where is this so called "equality" that women fought so hard to attain (and to which I think they deserve by the way) Funny how it goes out the door when the man seems to be a nit ahead.  

50 is pretty young. You can take your learned skills and college certificate and be self supporting. Why would you want to rely on someone else? You are obviously a strong, smart woman if you managed a house and raised kids for all those years. You can make it without him!

to the judge the same way you told it here. no wonder things did not turn out in your favour ..

*~Doodlebug~* said "    Kilroy 4295 dash J said "    ShortSweet said "    creeping said "I'm not really sure what your looking for. Sympathy, support, or just to rant? I'm not even sure qwhat the thread is about other than you want spousal support and didn't get it???? " Not rant - but rather to create awareness of how judges can just as they so please decide to lessen spousal support and yet the income variances are even greater now than when it was initially set. How can a person who stayed at home - not have an established career, at 50 plus be told to lessen their standard of living - I thought that the system was to protect that from happening to people. Oh excuse me if I am wrong.   " ....if the woman where to seek and receive spousal support, wouldn't the man's quality of life have to be lowered? Either way someone's quality of life WILL be lowered regardless. You seem to think it is more fair for the man to have a lower quality of life than you. Why should he? (AND, reverse the two roles, and I would state the same thing.     For WAY too many years, it has been the man paying the woman, with the woman automatically get primary care and control of the children (when children are invlved). Now, that the tides have changed the women are starting to complain. Where is this so called "equality" that women fought so hard to attain (and to which I think they deserve by the way) Funny how it goes out the door when the man seems to be a nit ahead.   " Totally agree with you Kilroy! And I'm a woman "

If the judge would have at least left the amount to what it was set in Dec of 2009 - it would have at least equalized the monthly income for each. And that is taking into consideration that the receiving spouse pays tax on the amount and the paying spouse can claim it as a deduction.  
Even with a one year certificate there is no opportunity for I to earn the income that my ex can earn after having had a career and experience in a trade with a national certification that he obtained during the marriage whereas I opted to be a Mom - and don't get me wrong being a Mom is a career that I would not trade for anything! Love my adult children!!  
 
But the facts are the facts - their are guidelines with respect to the length of marriage - Stay at Home Moms - and how one should not have to lessen their standards of living upon separation.  
 
The judge also choose to ignore the real facts why the wife left in the first place - he did not issue a prevention order against the husband even though the husband admitted on the stand to physically abusing his wife.  
 
Like really why do we even have a so called justice system if those representing this so called justice system can not even have the integrity to do something more than ignore the admittance by the man who physically abused his wife. That is the whole reason why her livelihood changed in the first place - and the relocation - for her safety - EXCUSE ME

should be required to have a prenup before even getting married or living together for the 6 months. Look at the hassels it would have saved in the long term.  
My divorce worked out great. I got the 4 kids and we all got rid of her with no ties of any kind.In the long term this might work out that you did it on your own and that would be a positive in my mind.

harleydavidson said "to the judge the same way you told it here. no wonder things did not turn out in your favour .. "

Yes told it to the judge - but with the filling of exhibits to substantiate through out the trial - oh yes as matter of fact 65 exhibits with respect to what was represented during this trial.  
 

can you not appeal the decision? but if you do please be a little clearer, i know your upset but having clear straight to the point facts would help you immensely  
 
anyway both parties would have to lower their standard of living but imo this type of situation is exactly why spousal support was/is needed. a marriage is an agreement and any assets including potential earnings of one partner due to building of education or experience is just as much part of the negotiations as a bank account. if you supported the household to enable him to give everything to his career and increase his yearly earnings then you are owed a share although you may be better off not bothering to fight for one? its your call but imo his career is part of the estate that should be divided not necessarily in half but equally  
 
possibly part of your settlement is support while you got your certificate? and remember sometimes arrangements are not always staled fairly, its life and although you should fight for whats right you should also not let the fight get in the way of your life

The spouse that stayed home would have the right to half of the pension that was accumulated during that time.  
 
They can then access these funds to help rebuild their life.  
 
Maybe both parties should have worked harder on keeping the marriage a viable option.  
 
29 years as a stay at home spouse would probably mean there were children involved. Are any of them able and willing to help you out or has your attitude chased them away as well?

katwalk1909 said "The spouse that stayed home would have the right to half of the pension that was accumulated during that time.     They can then access these funds to help rebuild their life.     Maybe both parties should have worked harder on keeping the marriage a viable option.     29 years as a stay at home spouse would probably mean there were children involved. Are any of them able and willing to help you out or has your attitude chased them away as well? "

When people are self-employed or operate their own business there is not a huge accumulation of pension - so the idea is good - but not a great option in this situation.  
 
29 years marriage - yes three children - 26, 26, 22 and all on their own -  
 
Living with an abusive man - and the disclosure of such causes the children to feel compelled to lie to protect their father - and the example role model of their father permitted the children to swear at their mother as well. The disclosure of abuse and the separation has been extremely difficult for the children as well - and since separation I have had to hang up on my children as they utilized tactics and behavioral techniques for which I needed to set boundaries for my own recovery of the excessive number of years of tolerating being abused. Financially none of them are in a position to aid their mother. The relationship with the children is not a good one - but I would rather Love them from a distance than be treated with verbal abuse or with the anger that they have grown to posses over the years. I have an elderly father and my mother died in 2009 - and I can honestly say my father would never have tolerated the behaviors for which my ex role modeled and utilized or permitted to be used by the children.  
 
Both parties work harder on keeping the marriage - a viable option - I do not believe you have a great knowledge of living with an abusive husband - or you would not be even thinking this as a viable option. Living with a spouse who abuses you physically leaves the woman feeling it is her fault - but the bottom line she never asked to be hit - and no matter what no man has the right to hit his wife.  
 

I separated 8 Months ago, married for 5 whole months, together for 6 years with 2 kids. She hardly worked a DAY that we were together. I paid for her to go to school, she failed out. I said numerous times to go out and get a job and it would help our tough times. Never had the ambition.....  
 
So all the money that I make now, she is still not working and living off her new boyfriend, your saying I should be paying her spousal support because I make about $55k more than her? For her laziness??? I dont think so, she can get off her ass and be a productive member of society just like the rest of us.  
 
As for your sugery, I dont think that should be an excuse for him to be paying you. You two are no longer together and he is no longer responsible to take care of you.

Curiousbystander said "I separated 8 Months ago, married for 5 whole months, together for 6 years with 2 kids. She hardly worked a DAY that we were together. I paid for her to go to school, she failed out. I said numerous times to go out and get a job and it would help our tough times. Never had the ambition.....     So all the money that I make now, she is still not working and living off her new boyfriend, your saying I should be paying her spousal support because I make about $55k more than her? For her laziness??? I dont think so, she can get off her ass and be a productive member of society just like the rest of us.     As for your sugery, I dont think that should be an excuse for him to be paying you. You two are no longer together and he is no longer responsible to take care of you. "

I realize it is difficult for you to understand how the surgery affects the current or since left the marriage - the condition is a followup of a surgery which transpired in 2007 - while we were still together and the condition or issue at hand does refer to how stress is a symptom which leads to the condition.  
 
Therefore a lengthy marriage - like 29.5 years for which that their was even an incident of violence on the honeymoon - but due to the age of the wife at time of marriage - 17.5 years of age - yes foolish!! - and the wife did not speak up or get out then - that is what I believe permitted this man to believe he could overpower her to do as to what he sought and that she was too much of a coward to speak up.  
 
The condition commenced during the marriage and it is actually a disease which is caused by stress - so in this situation I do believe it has relevance.

junebug said "Sorry things aren't going your way. It sounds like an unfortunate situation. Judges are not there to be your friends and hold your hand. They evaluate and judge what is in front if them. Maybe you need a better lawyer? Or are you representing yourself? "

It is not a matter of bitterness - it is a matter that I firmly believed that lawyers had more ethics than what I have witnessed -  
 
At the commencement of the proceedings in 2009 there was what I am my friends refer to as unethical conduct on behalf of my lawyer - is it reasonable in your opinion to have a lawyer bill a person for 17 adjournments - well that is what transpired in this situation - the lawyer and the courts kept adjourning the item on the docket - (amazing process - worth witnessing how that occurs if you should have time to attend master's court some day) And when a lawyer files documents on your behalf totally the opposite of your desires - then is the lawyer actually working for you or what I now refer to as working the system.  
 
In this case - The lawyer actually filed documents indicating that the funds of an equipment auction sale should not be released - even though there was a signed agreement between the man and wife that the funds were to be released 50/50. But following the sale the ex (man) choose to no longer agree - which this created great financial hardship for the wife - but as the husband had an established career which he had acquired during the marriage - he was financially stable. In December of 2009 the man lied on the stands as to his income and even though anyone in their right mind could calculate the figures and understand he was lying. Now for the Trial it is back infront of the same Judge and yes self-represented - as with the non-release of the funds - auction settlement it was not possible for the lawyer bill to be paid at that time. But there is another part to this auction funds - when people operate a farming operation they normally do some ending of business tax planning - but in this case I would have had to have been an absolute fool with no respect for my life to tell my ex I was going to disclose the abuse I experienced in living with that man. So needless to say - with no tax planning that also meant that their would be huge Revenue Canada tax assessments. Remember the man gained career skills and certification while the wife was a stay at home mom - raising the children and helping on the farm as she could. When the lawyer realized that the auction proceeds would be pretty much all utilized to pay Revenue Canada - that alarmed the lawyer and even though she had carried on over the course of three years - she put forth a motion to be removed as solicitor - Now the woman tried to establish a payment plan with the firm - but to no avail - rather the "Nice man" as the master referred to him as (0wner of the lawyer corporation) decided to put forth a claim and I also was faced with going before a Master of the courts for which at that time was told "I was a waste of tax payers dollars" And the whole hour - as was witnessed by another individual present in that courtroom found to be so unacceptable - Neither my friend or myself ever thought that a Master nor a Judge would speak for and make the lawyers case for them while ignoring documents which supported the information the person being sued presented. The costs - lawyer fees and any court costs had been put forth in the initial motion when the wife left her husband in Feb 2009.  
 
The lawyer and law firm filed and put forth the claim against the wife - once the Trial proceedings had already started. but it was just about 1.5 months prior to the commencement of the Trial when the Judge (not Menzies) permitted the lawyer to terminate representing this client (the wife). So needless to say when the client sought to gain the services of another lawyer in this fine city - it came to the forefront that other lawyers were aware that their was an outstanding bill - so needless to say who is gonna take over a case that has carried on for three years - and just before Trial. So no choice was available but to represent myself - And this was such an insight of how the whole judicial system - lawyers and staff have such a dignified level of ethics.  
 
I did not realize how the justice system is set up in such a way to have it almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to represent themselves. I say almost impossible as each time there needed to be something done - such as completing a subpena for a witness - the judge would clearly indicate to me that I needed to file such with the clerks at the court desk downstairs - but when I would attend the counter and ask the staff for the form or direction in the process or the amount of fees associated with such - they very boldly would say to me - ask your lawyer - now in all due respect they were fully knowledgeable that I did not have a lawyer. It was not as though they were blind when all the documents went across their desk with the motion for the lawyer to terminate her services and how the law firm has decided to sue me for the costs even before the Trial which involved those costs to have a decision reached been completed.  
 
 
Bitter - no I can not be bitter at these people - I have come to the understanding that maybe some of these people have formed attitudes with respect to those who question or challenge their conduct. When I say challenge I mean ask questions or seek information with respect to how to proceed with the expected order of the courts or judicial system. There are so many terrific forms, styles of forms and number of days that need to be acted on that it makes it nearly impossible for a person to self-represent - and with all due respect lawyers go to school for many years to earn their degrees - skills and training - but I do not believe that their needs to be such a monopoly in the judicial system.  
 
Not only has the Trial which included the items of spousal support / a Prevention Order / and the division of assets been given judgement on - but the fact of the costs for which was also part of this Trial - no has been set for yet another process - so I have now learned that I am once again being faced with attending court to deal with the costs of the Trial and the cost of the lawyer which I paid my ex lawyer from proceeds which the judge released after the first 4 days of Trial.  
 
So August 20th, 2012 at 9 am it is I have been told by a clerk at the courthouse - not officially been served yet - but I am sure that will happen soon.  
 
I honestly can say as I lay my head down to sleep at night - I do not have any remorse or guilt for speaking the truth - whether that is with respect to the abuse - which commenced all these court proceedings in the first place as I left the marriage for my safety from an abusive husband. I still wonder if lawyers or those of the judicial system can speak the same with respect to having a good nights sleep with some of the conduct I have witnessed. But that is not for me to form an opinion - they will be some day be before a judge of their own - and for that reason I pray for them.  

Double Post - Remove please  
 
Edited by katwalk1909, 2012-08-08 09:29:48

I am not old - but your calculations are just a tad bit off - actually 50 this year.  
 
Does it seem to make logical sense to you to have to spend every last cent that was to be your share $54 thousand after 29.5 years of marriage on Revenue Canada assessments - lawyer fees, lost wages for attending lawyer appointments, attending court, and moving away for safety reasons, and to have the man who abused you be rewarded! See next post-  
 

Still not sure how this hole that your in was dug, but I do think you did have a spade in your hand while it was dug. Have you tried expanding your search for lawyers in perhaps Winnipeg? I'm sure there are firms that do pro-bono, or at the very least, work on "if you win x amount of received judgement goes to them and you"? Maybe you could counter sue the firm that has sued you if you truly have all this documentation and all said is true.  
During this abuse did you ever file charges on the ex? Not sure what the statue of limitations are but worth looking into.  
I will say I have a sister who was abused for 25 years, and thankfully got out, but honestly, it wasn't until I pushed the issue and called the police myself and reported that he (the ex) had un-registered firearms in their house. Sister was pissed at me, and I know it was because she was scared. At the end of the day though, the firearms were taken, and long story short he left town and has never returned since. And as much as I agree that a woman never chooses to be abused, a woman can make the choice to never let it happen twice. I, myself was "abused" once, and only once. There weren't enough flowers or I'm sorry's in the world to send me back.  
A woman may not always be strong enough to do that, I get it, but by God there are or should be family and or friends that one should grab a hold of to help guide them to a safe place and help support a woman in becoming strong, and self sufficient.  
My Mother supported 4 children on her own without ever going to a food bank, welfare or a strain on the taxpayers of this country. Nor did she even try to get anything out of the sorry drunk ass of a man that help produce 4 kids. And that was in the 60's. Yeah we never got to go to McD's, only had one pair of shoes, and had to have powdered milk, but yay to the woman that say's, I can do it on my own, and I'm going to be damn proud that I can put my own meal on my own table.  
Standard of living IMO is that of pride and accomplishment, not anything more.

I sent you a private message.

Is anyone out there familiar with the term Statue Bar - well I must admit I had not heard such until my lawyer indicated such to me in early 2009.  
 
My ex and I have family loans on both sides of the family. Despite the judges misunderstanding - loans were also obtained from financial institutions for purchases related to the farming venture as well - not like in his judgement document refers to having gotten loans from family for such purchases.  
 
On my side there was basically three loans - one which repayment was never made over the years - and then there were two which were paritially re-paid. Then on my ex's side there was on loan which also never had any repayment made on.  
 
So in this separation process my ex was adamant to proceed to Trial proceedings to gain the judgement before a judge as to who would owe what. Well let's remember these are all family loans - and very aged and for that reason I have learned is why they may be referred to as Statue Bar. All I have ever sought or wanted is that if one side of the families loans would be counted in the family property equation that the ones on the other side of the family be treated the same. But I have since learned upon yesterday obtaining and reading the JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON August 1,2012 by Justice Menzies that I was so mistaken to have thought that way. I would have thought that when dealing with the division of assets that the same sort of items would be considered or decided upon in the same fashion. But no - the decision is that one side of the family the loan is regarded as a debt but the others (3 - two of which were partially repaid) are not considered debt - so therefore I get to have my share of the initial $54 thousand even more reduced by the judge having ordered the release of funds to myself in the lessor amount.  
 
And the man for which I was in a partnership and married to for 29.5 years for which during those years was violent towards me - be rewarded - cause honestly this is my opinion for which I do believe I am entitled to believe. Once again how will this be viewed in the eyes of my children - "Lie - and you shall receive" There was evidence presented with respect to all old family loans but somehow the judge seems to have noted that their wasn't. Not sure why trees would be cut and that ink would be used to produce photocopies of documents in Trial proceedings if somehow they then are not acknowledged. Oh well just another one of those amazing things in life that happens and I do not need to understand - because as I clearly heard by a Judge - "This is my courtroom and I am in charge" And rightfully so that is what the man has been appointed to do is to hear testimony, view exhibits, and render his decision.  
 
And for any of you people who have followed this or the other posting last night - As farmers we did not own any land - we rented one parcel of land for cash rent $20.00 per acre for the 19-20 years and the other unit of land was crop share for which we (my ex and I) were responsible for all associated crop inputs. The crop share agreement supplied those landlords with a great source of income - yet my ex always though it was appropriate to expect the other $20.00 per acre as being a reasonable rate to pay. I guess if you are a gold digger and just continue to live with your spouse and abuse her throughout - in anticipation or hopes/dreams that someday you may be in the receiving end of an inheritance - then I guess it would be appropriate to stay and just keep taking. So as this chapter nears completion - meaning the 29.5 years of living in abuse and then to have a judge render such written judgements and no respect for the admittance of abuse and the fact that this so called or referred to man who filled numerous affidavits in court lying about ever having hit his wife and then to admit on the stand under oath in the courtroom as a man "I found him to be a relatively straight forward witness. He attempted to answer the questions put to him to the best of his ability. He did not deny that he had been violent towards .... nor that they would engage in angry arguments" But only one difference in this whole case is that the wife never caused bodily harm by breaking two of his bones over the course of the marriage.  
 
And let's reflect here for one moment - this is not for any sympathy or otherwise - it is clearly referencing what transpired - The wife who left for her safety from an abusive husband - has now been faced with no choice but to self-represent herself at court - and that involved cross-examining her ex with respect to abuse. No being a lawyer herself was not sure what or how to do this according to the processes of the courts - but despite the emotional impact that was involved - made a consciousness choice to cross-examine her ex with a fairly firm tone of voice as to keep her from being put to tears in this whole process. Well - I guess that consciounsious decision was not a wise one as - in the judgement the Judge presiding wrote "Ms. ..... tone of addressing Mr...... was one of disrespect. In my opinion, Ms. .... tried without success to make Mr. .... angry. Her approach was confrontational and argumentative. If Ms. .... was afraid of Mr. ...., her demeanor and attitude during the cross-examination did little to show it." As a self-represented litigant I am not sure what the judge expected - and maybe his expectations removed him from being able to understand how difficult it is emotionally to be questioning your ex on the stand with respect to him hitting you, verbally abusing you and otherwise. I guess the fact that I chose to try to maintain the ability to proceed with the Trial by what I will refer to as putting emotions to the side in the cross-examination process to the ex - that I was viewed as to what has been written above in quotation marks. The Judge is entitled to his opinion - but seems a little amazing to have been viewed this way as the spectators in the stands did realize how difficult of a process this must have been to go through. No sympathy required - just sharing insight.  
 
You decide for yourself - formulate your own opinion - if this is how you thought a judicial process would occur.  

Nuggets said "I sent you a private message. "

Hey looking for the private message - not here yet! Maybe try resending please.