Baone , I'll have to make it short I think, because it seems that the original text scuppered Bloguespot !
We started a discussion on another forum for spouses of facts on January 15 last. Basically, I wanted the same thing concerning de facto spouses and their non- rights.
When the "new" this lady claiming 50 million to his ex was released in the JDM, at 98.5, Paul Arcand had interview counsel for the plaintiff .
Here the reaction does my dear Sailor (and mine by extension)
"" This morning on the post 98.5, a Montreal talk radio, there was the interview with the lawyer representing the woman claiming the $ 50 million to his former law partner. In essence, it will try to get the rules governing breach of common law are the same as those applied during a divorce, namely: That the ex-spouses divided 50/50 increasing the family patrimony (increase of the value of goods and furniture and pension funds) and the same provisions to pay alimony to the former (not for children: For example! !). Lady
What is good in this story is that the media coverage of this case will finally let people know the real situation of de facto spouses and eliminate many false beliefs
(false sense of security for a woman who believed herself better protected but who finds himself on the street overnight at break, for example ... but also "fearmongering", such as G. and R. . ... Finally "false" fears for provided that the claimant does not get win, set a precedent and completely changing the future, it gets along .).
In this regard, I agree with Lady. Yes, it is good that everyone knows exactly what it returns in respect of the terms applicable in case of failure, regardless of the type of union in which we find ourselves. Incidentally, this case has proved that Lady and I were actually right: The rupture of a common-law currently does no say in a joint family property of another.
In this regard, Lady says it is good that people conscientisent the importance of protecting themselves by establishing clear contracts to deal with the possibility of a rupture. In that too, I agree. What contributes Lady, I do not want it the lost, although it would be she who decides to leave. So far, no problems ...
Where it hangs it on the Laws of the division of matrimonial property as it applies in Quebec. Did you there is no pre-nuptial agreement or contract, even signed before a notary who can come to change anything with the rules of division of matrimonial property upon divorce? A beautiful woman will be told and signed a document to the effect that "if we separate, I do not touch your pension fund", the document will be considered null and void not by the Court if she changes her mind at the time of rupture. This feature
of the Act has been very clearly explained by the family mediator and also the first lawyer that I consulted. Obviously, if there is any dispute, the Court could apply the terms of the agreement private ... but it is not guaranteed. The Court could well decide that sharing is not enough just to his liking and apply the rules to the letter.
If this woman wins her case, it will be the same little for common-law! And that's just not right for those with a certain family assets before the relationship and whose personal wealth has grown during the relationship without a clear contribution of the spouse (the spouse).
This makes four years since Lady and I are together. Since that time my personal wealth has probably increased by about $ XXK if one considers the increase in market value of my house and my pension fund. If current laws are changing, so I had XXK $ Lady in case of breakage, even if it would be she who is crunching !!??!!
Ben, come on! It just squeal no sense! ""
What is the solution?
A - We keep the Act, but informs more people and gives them access to pre-cohabitation agreements ?
B - is allowed to act like that?
C - We leave this issue as a precedent?
What do you think ?
Lady!
