World

Divorce - North American Style

by Barry Artiste | January 27, 2009 at 06:43 am

359 views | 2 Recommendations | 2 comments

Barry Artiste Op/Ed

We have all read about a Montreal Woman suing her Billionaire Ex Husband for Millions, though she is relatively well off with close to a 100K a year, home and a few million to boot for her and her children. Yet when it comes to Childless couples, many do not see the big picture affecting Joe Six Pack, and Jane Punch Clock.

Here is reality in what many feel Divorce Laws should change and be fair to both parties. Certainly this guy got Blued, Screwed and Tatooed with Alimony for the rest of his life.

I put it this way, no kids, well both parties better get jobs and support themselves. Many use imaginary illnesses to get out of working. To me that doesn't wash, when even the disabled are working and wish to be treated no different than able bodied people, but on the other side of the coin, it is certainly convenient when they wish to monopolize on the fact they are disabled in order to get Cash for Life in the Divorce Lottery.

What ever happened to equality between the sexes? Or is that a convenient ploy that always works for a lawyer and plaintiffs advantage?

If not for this guys aged parents taking care of him, this guy may well have been homeless or damn near close to homelessness and destitution.

What do Now Public Readers think?

Am I out to Lunch in what seems like a "Lottery Cash Grab for Life in the Childless Couple Divorce Lottery"?

You tell me!

(Photo Inset) Wayne Tippett has just two things of any real value left in his life: a 10-year-old car and a granite tombstone.

At 51, Tippett is broken, bankrupt and bunking in the guest room of his parents' Burlington home after a divorce settlement that's left him $75,000 in debt and racking up $1,000 more each month.

Today, he'll appear in court at a default hearing to try to explain why he can't afford to pay his ex-wife (the couple had no children) $3,300 a month, $16,000 in retroactive alimony and $42,000 of her court costs out of a complex case he himself still doesn't understand.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Rob Walker

at 07:24 on January 27th, 2009

I've been following this case, and while I think it's easy to just dismiss her claims because they're already 'rich', it doesn't change the fact that most people in their situation *aren't* rich.

It doesn't surprise me that someone well off is fighting this - they're the only ones that can afford lawyers. It doesn't make their case - that couples living together for over a set period time have the same obligations a married couple does (like every other province), any less valid.