MrBrownJay1:


The issue is that during their long r/ship he changed her life and brought her into a certain luxuriuos lifestyle (this man is obviously a millionaire).. now, in the eyes of the law, they were common law husband and wife thus she can now demand to keep living the lifestyle she was made accustomed to by her (common law) husband.

If/when another man comes into her life and can afford to put her in such luxurious lifestyle, then ex can have the spousal support revoked or lowered.

So it is the man's fault that he spent on her during the relationship?

This does not make an iota of sense considering same woman REFUSED to marry him seven times.

People get 'spousal support' on the assumption that they 'supported' the rich spouse by domestic chores, emotional support, childcare, mental support etc.

What support would this woman say she provided? They did not even live together or have a kid together.

This law/ruling is against everything good and decent.

When white men are ready, they will stand up and fight.

Edited:

I responded before you added the Dr. Dre's part.

So these wives and husbands who request for spousal support to live the lives they were accustomed to pre-divorce, do they still intent to provide the 'support' they supposedly provided post-divorce?

Using Dr. Dre as an example, does the wife intend to still care for the house, warm his bed, care for the kids, provide financial advice etc.?

If no, on what basis does she still want to live the life she was accustomed to living while doing the above?

bukatyne:


So it is the man's fault that he spent on her during the relationship?

This does not make an iota of sense considering same woman REFUSED to marry him seven times.

People get 'spousal support' on the assumption that they 'supported' the rich spouse by domestic chores, emotional support, childcare, mental support etc.

What support would this woman say she provided? They did not even live together or have a kid together.

This law/ruling is against everything good and decent.

When white men are ready, they will stand up and fight.

That guy has a weird way of thinking.

I'm going to Canada!!!!!!!!!!

Saintmary:
I'm going to Canada!!!!!!!!!!

bukatyne:
So it is the man's fault that he spent on her during the relationship?

He didn't spend on her, he changed her life entirely, thus because they were common law husband and wife, she can now claim to be accustomed to such lifestyle, and desire to continue living like that. If the man was broke and she was the only one working and taking care of the dude, then the man could sue and ask for the exact same spousal support.

This does not make an iota of sense considering same woman REFUSED to marry him seven times.

The marriage refusal is irrelevant since the man kept being with her this whole time, and whether they are married or not, the law is the same.

People get 'spousal support' on the assumption that they 'supported' the rich spouse by domestic chores, emotional support, childcare, mental support etc.
What support would this woman say she provided? They did not even live together or have a kid together.

Not at all....even if the woman did absolutely NOTHING, she is still entitled to spousal support in order to continue living the lifestyle she has been made accustomed to by this man. You are confusing spousal support with a settlement to get half of what a husband made during marriage. Different ball game. She doesn't want half of what he made during their union, she just wants to be able to continue living the lifestyle she is accustomed to (thanks to this man)

This law/ruling is against everything good and decent.

I think it is fair as everyone knows the law... And any fool who thinks it is ok to have a lazy spouse at home while using money to put them in a certain lifestyle, while that spouse does absolutely nothing, shouldn't/cannot drop them at the snap of their fingers. Stay in your lane instead of trying to change desperate people's lives

When white men are ready, they will stand up and fight.

Simple common sense would fix such issue....have your woman WORK, Have her contribute to whatever lifestyle you guys are into, have her PAY for such lifestyle, if you are rich and bring some poor woman to your life then within 6 months you have to make a life decision: keep her around and possibly have to pay her spousal support OR get rid of her (or have no paper trail that would link your life to hers)

angelfallz:
That guy has a weird way of thinking.

That's because I understand the law while you are using your African mindset to try to judge this issue. The LAW is very simple, whether for men or women. A person can be a fool and ignore the law (because of sweet toto) but when shiit hits the fan, don't blame the law, blame the donkey who ignored the law.

bukatyne:

Reaping where one has not sown ends in curses.

The men better stand up else they will start paying for proven consensual sex.

Anything and everything to break the 21st century male in the West.

Na them sabi, we have our issues here.

Lol, it may never get to that.

The idea of common-law partnerships/marriages would usually make sense when you consider these criteria that should be met:
– Having child(ren) together
– Living together/shared accommodation continuously, not intermittently.
– Shared ownership of property
– Shared bills/addresses on IDs

If the two persons in the OP had all of this, the court judgment would honestly make more sense to anyone considering that they had built a life together but simply did not take marital vows – spousal support here would be very understandable.

But what happened between those two was nothing more than boyfriend and girlfriend matter, none of the usual criteria for CLM were met.
So is that judge not mad like this...

crackhaus:

Lol, it may never get to that.

The idea of common-law partnerships/marriages would usually make sense when you consider these criteria that should be met:
– Having child(ren) together
– Living together/shared accommodation continuously, not intermittently.
– Shared ownership of property
– Shared bills/addresses on IDs

It the two persons in the OP had all of this, the court judgment would make more sense considering they had built a life together but simply did not take marital vows – spousal support here would be more understandable.

But what happened between these two was nothing more than boyfriend and girlfriend matter, none of the usual criteria for CLM were met.
So is that judge not mad like this...

Whether they lived together or not, the law is very simple: if that person is considered your life partner (aka your common law wife) then they are entitled to receive whatever any married person would. The below is where this man failed miserably:
- he paid her a monthly salary
- he paid her mortgage every months
- he showered her with gifts etc
- this dude did the above for 14yrs as a couple and now wanna claim the they were just traveling friends
If the above is not a confirmation to you that they were indeed a couple, then I don't know what would.

The LAW is very straight forward when it come to such issue... The only person to blame here is the donkey.

MrBrownJay1:

- he paid her a monthly salary
- he paid her mortgage every months
- he showered her with gifts etc
- this dude did the above for 14yrs as a couple and now wanna claim the they were just traveling friends

If the above is not a confirmation to you that they were indeed a couple, then I don't know what would.

The list in bold is not confirmation of a common-law partnership/marriage anywhere in the world where it is recognized, not even under Canadian law itself.

Those are simply characteristics of a man who was very generous, unless you're now implying that the only thing you need to do as man to avoid paying spousal support after breaking up with your girlfriend, is to never shower her with gifts, never help her with her mortgage, and don't give her any specific amount of money monthly.

I don't need to go bringing up the actual criteria showing what must be satisfied before a couple can be said to be common-law partners.
I'm sure you can do this on your own, and I know without a doubt you will find none of that nonsense in bold as part of the criteria.

crackhaus:

The list in bold is not confirmation of a common-law partnership/marriage anywhere in the world where it is recognized, not even under Canadian law itself.

Those are simply characteristics of a man who was very generous, unless you're now implying that the only thing you need to do as man to avoid paying spousal support after breaking up with your girlfriend, is to never shower her with gifts, never help her with her mortgage, and don't give her any specific amount of money monthly.

I don't need to go bringing up the actual criteria showing what must be satisfied before a couple can be said to be common-law partners.
I'm sure you can do this on your own, and I know without a doubt you will find none of that nonsense in bold as part of the criteria.

Please don't argue with that guy.

crackhaus:

The list in bold is not confirmation of a common-law partnership/marriage anywhere in the world where it is recognized, not even under Canadian law itself.

Those are simply characteristics of a man who was very generous, unless you're now implying that the only thing you need to do as man to avoid paying spousal support after breaking up with your girlfriend, is to never shower her with gifts, never help her with her mortgage, and don't give her any specific amount of money monthly.

I don't need to go bringing up the actual criteria showing what must be satisfied before a couple can be said to be common-law partners.
I'm sure you can do this on your own, and I know without a doubt you will find none of that nonsense in bold as part of the criteria.

The above is a confirmation that they were In a long lasting r/ship with life commitment between them...unless you believe a man pays strangers mortgage and gives them thousands of dollars monthly in salary for 14yrs, abi?!

There is a huge difference between offering someone a one off gift, and taking over that person life's responsibilities (like a husband would). This man acted as her husband, called himself her husband and thus should be treated as such now.

The criteria of common law spouse is very simple: the minute you guys have made life commitment between one another and live/call each other as husband and wife (for a certain period of time) then you guys are legally considered common law husband and wife.... Unless of course, you believe that, if a married couple doesn't live together, have no kids and don't have property under both their names, then they are not legally husband and wife.

The above I posted shows the long term commitment they both had while this man claiming to just be traveling companion

MrBrownJay1:


Yep it equally happens to rich women who marry "poorer" men...go ask Halle Berry who pays $16K in child support monthly to her ex French husband; go ask Mary j Blige paying her ex husband $30K monthly; ask Madonna who had to pay up to $70M to Guy Ritchie; ask J- lo who gave her ex $14m spousal settlement; ask Mel B who had to give her ex $8M spousal settlement; ask Britney Spears who pays her baby daddy $20K in child support, and the dude now wants more, lol!

it must have been M.I shortlisting regular women i could have list a thousand men without mentioning a celeb ... life they say no just balance.

jornwhite:
it must have been M.I shortlisting regular women i could have list a thousand men without mentioning a celeb ... life they say no just balance.

I could have also mentioned celebrity men who are paying spousal support, but that ain't the point.

MrBrownJay1:


I could have also mentioned celebrity men who are paying spousal support, but that ain't the point.

D point is clear 2 anyone with a brain. D law favours the lesser partner, the richer person partner pays

angelfallz:


Please don't argue with that guy.

Good advice 2 d wrong person. Crackhaus shouldn’t stay in Nigeria & argue with some1 who has lived in many countries

EmperorMaria:
D point is clear 2 anyone with a brain. D law favours the lesser partner, the richer person partner pays

... And a smart person would understand that the above law has absolutely nothing to do with GENDER, as I have stated since the begining of this thread. But helas...

EmperorMaria:
Smart people are in limited supply on NL & Nigeria as a whole

I think it has to do with the fact that most men in Nigeria are paying for everything in marriage (since they see it as "their" manly responsibilities) thus they will never agree with such foreign laws (which is understandable) but the law in these foreign countries is very easy to understand... And if a man does not want to pay spousal support, it is very easy to do so (so long as you act right)

MrBrownJay1:


I could have also mentioned celebrity men who are paying spousal support, but that ain't the point.

The point is there is no room for comparison, cos the margin would be so compendious. why are we even talking celebs, when persons of interest are regulars.

jornwhite:
The point is there is no room for comparison, cos the margin would be so compendious. why are we even talking celebs, when persons of interest are regulars.

How many normal people do you know pay $50k monthly in spousal support...only millionaires/billionaires in Dollars can pay such amount. Your mistake is to believe that the man in question is a nobody. Abeg educate yourself on the Latner family in Canada.

Now the reason why more men pay for spousal support than women is because more men think it's their duty to pay for everything while their wife stays at home doing very little. After children are born, then within 3yrs wifey should be back at work. If you allow your wife to stay home watching telemundo all day, then blame yourself for allowing such lifestyle in your own home.

MrBrownJay1:

The above is a confirmation that they were In a long lasting r/ship with life commitment between them...unless you believe a man pays strangers mortgage and gives them thousands of dollars monthly in salary for 14yrs, abi?!

There is a huge difference between offering someone a one off gift, and taking over that person life's responsibilities (like a husband would). This man acted as her husband, called himself her husband and thus should be treated as such now.

The criteria of common law spouse is very simple: the minute you guys have made life commitment between one another and live/call each other as husband and wife (for a certain period of time) then you guys are legally considered common law husband and wife.... Unless of course, you believe that, if a married couple doesn't live together, have no kids and don't have property under both their names, then they are not legally husband and wife.

The above I posted shows the long term commitment they both had while this man claiming to just be traveling companion

Married people are married under the marriage act, there's a legal contract. Doesn't matter if they live together or don't have kids.
This is a false equivalence...

Anyway, let's not engage in too much back & forth.

Please just provide a list of the criteria to be satisfied before a couple can be said be in a common-law partnership in Canada.

I already have this information considering it's a process I almost got involved in, it's also available on the Canadian Home office/Immigration website.

But perhaps you have some source that lists such things like:
– Buying gifts for your girlfriend/boyfriend
– helping him/her pay mortgage
– helping him/her with some money every month (no one actually calls it salary)

Go ahead please... Lol

crackhaus:

Married people are married under the marriage act, there's a legal contract. Doesn't matter if they live together or don't have kids.
This is a false equivalence...
Anyway, let's not engage in too much back & forth.

Again, a common law couple will have the exact same right as a married couple who signed a marriage contract. It's the damn law!!!

Please just provide a list of the criteria to be satisfied before a couple can be said be in a common-law partnership in Canada.
I already have this information considering it's a process I almost got involved in, it's also available on the Canadian Home office/Immigration website.

But perhaps you have some source that lists such things like:
– Buying gifts for your girlfriend/boyfriend
– helping him/her pay mortgage
– helping him/her with some money every month (no one actually calls it salary)

Go ahead please... Lol

Again, it all has to do with the lifestyle you guys live... So If you live and consider yourselves as a husband and wife, then it doesn't matter whether or not you live together, have kids together or property together, you will stIll be considered common law husband and wife.

The law decided that, since that man took over this woman's life responsibilities (mortgage/ monthly upkeep etc) for 14yrs, LIKE ANY HUSBAND WOULD WITH HIS FAMILY, and rightfully called himself her husband, then under the law they were a couple in a committed r/ship and he is considered her common law spouse (aka husband)

EmperorMaria:


Good advice 2 d wrong person. Crackhaus shouldn’t stay in Nigeria & argue with some1 who has lived in many countries

The issue is not whether the person has lived in many countries or not.

That MrbrownJay has a funny way of thinking. So that's why I asked Crackhaus not to argue with him.

angelfallz:

The issue is not whether the person has lived in many countries or not.

That Mr.brownJay has a funny way of thinking. So that's why I asked Crackhaus not to argue with him.

Lol, you're even responding to that rejected chic who has been reduced to hiding behind alternates like a house rat just to get my attention.

Go through her post history.

crackhaus:

Lol, you're even responding to that rejected chic who has been reduced to hiding behind alternates like a house rat just to get my attention.

Go through her post history.

Lol

MrBrownJay1:

Again, a common law couple will have the exact same right as a married couple who signed a marriage contract. It's the damn law!!!

No they won't, they can't split property when they break up.
So it's not quite exact, is it?

Again, it all has to do with the lifestyle you guys live... So If you live and consider yourselves as a husband and wife, then it doesn't matter whether or not you live together, have kids together or property together, you will stIll be considered common law husband and wife.

Those are some of the specific criteria for qualifying as common-law couples, and here you are claiming it doesn't matter.
You also talked about husband and wife lifestyle, he called himself her husband, etc... Is this some information you're privy to from an insider, because I saw no such thing on this news.

But like I noted earlier, I'm willing to believe you but I can't take your word for it until you provide something from a Canadian website (preferably that of the Home office) that supports your claim about how buying gifts, or helping out with mortgage, makes you a common-law spouse.

But if you can't, then I figure we're done here.

MrBrownJay1:


How many normal people do you know pay $50k monthly in spousal support...only millionaires/billionaires in Dollars can pay such amount. Your mistake is to believe that the man in question is a nobody. Abeg educate yourself on the Latner family in Canada.

Now the reason why more men pay for spousal support than women is because more men think it's their duty to pay for everything while their wife stays at home doing very little. After children are born, then within 3yrs wifey should be back at work. If you allow your wife to stay home watching telemundo all day, then blame yourself for allowing such lifestyle in your own home.

Smart people will understand this, dumb people will say no comparison,,,lazy yoots

crackhaus:

No they won't, they can't split property equally when they break up.
So it's not quite exact, is it?


Those are some of the specific criteria for qualifying as common-law couples and here you are claiming the opposite that it doesn't matter.
You also talked about husband and wife lifestyle, he called himself her husband, etc... Is this information you're privy to from an insider because I saw no such thing on this news.

But like I noted earlier, I'm willing to believe you but I can't take your word for it until you provide something from a Canadian website (preferably that of the Home office) that supports your claim about buying gifts, or helping out with mortgage.

If you can't, then I figure we're done here.

Don’t be done,,,provide it & counter him

angelfallz:

Lol

I need her to die mad from the constant rejection and inability to gain my attention. That particular alternate will be banned soon just like the last one and she'll create another.

Na the work wey I don give her be this.

crackhaus:

I need her to die mad from the constant rejection and inability to gain my attention. That particular alternate will be banned soon just like the last one and she'll create another.

Na the work wey I don give her be this.

You deny attention by reporting?