|
Author
|
Topic: Court reverses order, says millionaire doesn't have to pay support
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 01 May 2005 09:46 AM
Victoria's Robert Wright won't have to pony up $1 million for his ex-lover quote:
Victoria's $60-million man -- Robert Wright, owner of the Oak Bay Marina Group of resorts and hotels in B.C. and the Bahamas -- won't have to pay his ex-lover $1 million and can stop paying her a $3,000 monthly stipend.In a decision that is a warning to anyone signing a pre-live-in agreement, the B.C. Court of Appeal says people are accountable for the deals they strike and upheld Wright's cohabitation pact with Susan Margaret Johnstone. The panel -- Judges Mary Southin, Catherine Ryan and Ian Donald -- said although she lived with Wright for six-and-a-half years, Johnstone did not deserve 30 per cent of what a lower court deemed family assets, or on-going support payments. It said their deal was valid and fair, which means she leaves the relationship with only the assets she took into it, or any gifts or benefits he expressly said she could have.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 May 2005 06:09 PM
What concerns me about this decision is its further variance from basic principle, and the possibility that it may be used as a precedent in a case of serious injustice (high, since there are many many more poor people than rich). It was a long and difficult struggle to establish the principle that a financially dependent partner in a marriage (official or common law) was still a partner. Prior to that struggle, women especially were commonly impoverished, often completely dispossessed at the end of marriages. A marriage is not just a business partnership, and this woman should certainly have heeded what sound like the wise warnings of her lawyer at the very beginning, that she should not willingly agree to such a reductive equation. But in my view, the courts should still be rescuing the principle. We may have to fight this battle all over again, if common attitudes on babble are any indication.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 May 2005 07:45 PM
Well, you're assuming that he isn't weak and needy, but the only reason you assume that is that he happens to be sitting on the pile of gold. In my experience, the second is not necessarily connected to the first. In fact, more often than not, quite the opposite. But we can't know. That's why I think that their psychic states are irrelevant. We examine hers closely, however, and in public, because, well, that's what we do to women.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 01 May 2005 07:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, you're assuming that he isn't weak and needy, but the only reason you assume that is that he happens to be sitting on the pile of gold.
Where could you infer that from my posts? The rest of your post I failed to understand, sorry. But I'm still waiting to hear how I'm a thief.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
