Lottery home win the focus of messy divorce

Started by outdoors, Jul 19, 2011, 03:33 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

outdoors

Lottery home win the focus of messy divorce
CBC News Posted: Jul 19, 2011 3:57 PM CST Last Updated: Jul 19, 2011 3:57 PM CST

Winning a dream home in a lottery was not enough to rescue a tumultuous marriage and instead the fancy digs became the focus of a messy divorce case.

In a decision published this week to an online legal database, a Saskatoon judge has determined how the home, valued at $710,000, should be divided.

Justice Geoffrey Dufour said the husband will get to buy-out the wife's interest in the home, move her out and move himself and their sons in.

The judge noted the couple had been married for 19 years but "it was stormy and punctuated by not infrequent periods of separation."

'Rhonda chose to live in luxury while Michael lived in cramped quarters.'
--Justice Geoffrey Dufour's decision in divorce caseDuring one separation period the husband, Michael, bought a lottery ticket and won a fully furnished dream home.

The couple tried getting back together in the new place, but that did not last more than a few months.

Justice Dufour noted that the wife, Rhonda, wound up living in the 2,500 square-foot home by herself.

"Michael testified that he was forced out of the family home without warning and in a startling fashion," Dufour wrote. According to the decision, Rhonda made a complaint to police that she had been physically assaulted. That led to charges against Michael and an interim order that he stay 200 metres away from Rhonda.

When that case went to trial, Michael was acquitted.

"I can only conclude that Rhonda gave a false statement to the police," Dufour said in his decision on the divorce. "This was a very effective way to have the family home all to herself: make a false allegation of assault and have Michael charged with a criminal offence so that he would have to stay away. Neat trick. A model of efficiency."

The judge noted that while Rhonda enjoyed living in the large home, Michael and the sons slept, for a time, in sleeping bags on the family room floor at his mother's house.

"Rhonda chose to live in luxury while Michael lived in cramped quarters with two and sometimes three of their sons," the judge said.

Husband gets the house
Based on that, and Michael's offer to buy-out Rhonda, the judge said Michael should get the house and Rhonda would have pay "occupation rent" and vacate by the end of September.

In order to equalize the division, the judgment said Michael should pay Rhonda $247,370. He is also obligated to pay monthly spousal support.

The judge said the equalization amount takes into account a number of other debts, assets and personal property the couple had.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/07/19/sk-dream-home-110719.html



MacKenzie

So.... Did he actually win?  :dontknow:
FEMINISM IS A CULT THAT TRIES TO MAKE BOTH SEXES EQUAL BY FOCUSING SOLELY ON ONE OF THEM

outdoors


So.... Did he actually win?  :dontknow:


I don't really see how-he bought the ticket when he was single-now he has to buy her out and pay her support-even though my impression from the story is that he has the kids.
She did get caught lieing and using the abuse excuse to have him removed-but i doubt she was charged for it.

MacKenzie

^That's what I thought too.

Still, I shall pray for the miracle that she be required to pay child suppport.
FEMINISM IS A CULT THAT TRIES TO MAKE BOTH SEXES EQUAL BY FOCUSING SOLELY ON ONE OF THEM

K9

"He is also obligated to pay monthly spousal support."

Another woman gets to profit from her crime of false accusation.  :angryfire:
Explaining misandry to a feminist is like explaining "wet" to a fish.

The Biscuit Queen

I don't understand how any men dare get married these days. She should get nothing, which is exactly what she deserves.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

neoteny


She should get nothing, which is exactly what she deserves.


It's the 19 years she was raising the sons. I don't mean to imply that the father haven't put as much or even more effort into them but the court isn't interested in who did what (that would at least triple the already huge amount of litigation going on in divorces) so they say that she can't be kicked to the curb with empty pockets.

The spousal support -- a continuous material and emotional drain on the father & sons -- is a yucky form of support; if I were in a similar situation and had the money I would rather pay a (larger) lump sum payment and have her off my back. But that would be only shooting myself in the foot; she could always become a public charge and then the govt. would be knocking on my door to cough up the dough for her as it is against public policy to have the taxpayer to fund a woman when a hapless male can be roped into the task. This is the only type of case which comes to my mind where the govt. truly tries to save on public monies.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Go Up