How many houses have you lost?

[Thinktank]

I flushed $10,000 down the drain because I trusted church people.

Does that count?

[Even Steven]

I've never lost anything because of family law system whatever that means.

[MAPearce]

I've never lost anything because of family law system whatever that means.

Divorce ....

I've never lost a house or any thing big but I've paid my fair share of child support ...

But I've not been married ...... yet ....

[Bsuds]

Didn't own a house at the time but split possessions and I paid child support for a long time.

[LANDM]

Zero.

[MAPearce]

Were they your kids? If so...did you get to see them?

Yeah .. one kid . And not as much as I should have .

The "Out laws " made it nearly impossible.

[MAPearce]

But I've not been married ...... yet ....

Me neither. Assets were acquired during the time of the relationship. Ex g- friend spent 18 months on my 100 year generational
family farm.[/quote]

Hmmmm .... Lots of good hiding spo..................

Never mind .

[MAPearce]

So many men could share a story or two in that department.

Yeah ... sigh ...

Family law has a LONG way to go before it's beneficial to ALL of the members of the family ...

[MAPearce]

There will NEVER be equality ...

White men are bad , Mkay ...

Every "peoplekind" other than that will be more equal .

[Temet Nosce]

There should be no family law. A person should be only able to take what they brought in.
This thread is really not about how many houses a person (men) have lost, it's actually a shadow of the other topics being discussed. Feminist movement, #metoo and the others. It's about equality,inequality and a certain gender being omnipotent in a family law arena. People jawjack about being equal. There is no equality.

Didn't lose the house...but does having to pay out a very large sum of money to keep a house that I solely owned and paid PRIOR to a few year relationship count?
You are very naive if you think only men unfairly lose assests in relationships....

[lesliepaul]

If you were fairly young, say in your 30's, heck, make that your 50's, married and it all went south for you and that relationship I would seriously consider NEVER cohabitating with any woman ever again. I knew a lot of co-workers that got taken to the cleaners (no kids involved) and what did they do........got married again and guess what.........lost most of the property a second time. Now they are fighting for their company pension 20 years later. the courts in this country!

One friends buddy was very wealthy (multi, multi millions), married with two kids, gets divorced in his 40's. Paid his wife millions and looked after the kids.....no problem. From then on several girl friends and finally one that was around for years. The rules he set for her were she had to have her own place (house or apartment) in her name and that was where EVERY piece of her mail had to be delivered. He let her use his vehicles, he paid for the vacations, he let her stay at his place quite often but could not leave ANY clothing there and bought plenty of gifts and dinners.........pretty good deal for her BUT she understood they were ONLY casual friends . There was never any connection she could use if the friendship went south to extort any money. He died several years ago and the millions that was left ALL went to his children. The girlfriend had a great time for close to 10 years.

Just remember that scene in "Something About Mary"..........."never leave the house with a loaded gun"...........truer words have never be spoken. "Put it on hand throw" and when your done pull out your wallet and have a look.........ITS ALL THERE! Then carry on with your day.

Don't think it is written anywhere that says a man was put on this earth to ensure a woman could sit on her a$$ all day then decide to move on to the next guy but only after eviscerating the first guy financially.

Do not get me wrong here, a strong, happy and loving relationship is everyone's goal and there are many of those. One is enough for a lifetime though. I will also add that some of the guys I knew were complete a$$ when they were married and I was cheering for their wives at divorce time.

[Temet Nosce]

How the heck does that go down? You owned the asset and it was aquired before the co-habitating relationship? How recent?
Sounds fubar to me.Totally wrong.
Ya your right men are not the only victims of the family law system(ever noticed that the words 'system' and 'Canada' equals a fail?). For the most part though 'Temet' ,you have to admit that the majority of the victims of the family law system(s)(across Canada and provincially) are men.

I don't have much time to post so quick comment... I do agree there are historical bias in the legal system favoring women and have personally seen some shocking unfair cases for men--absolutely. I think there has been some change but we have a ways to go--especially with regard to child custody/access and child support--IMO laws should default 50/50 unless there legitimate concerns for best interest of the child etc. Having said that, you can believe my story or not, but yes I owned outright before cohabitating (and before the family law changes) and was basically extorted to settle or pay half the 'inflated' value of property (and incur further legal fees) which would have only cost more. Live and learn..

[MAPearce]

'MAPearce'...did you have to pay support for any that were not yours? That happens a lot. Also multiple support payments from multiple payers going to one person.

Yes and no .... I'm paying to help support kids that I'm a step dad too. Glad to do it also !!

Nothing better in life than to have a "baby girl" to drive you NUTS with all the "girly" things while I try to make sense of it all .. The other is a boy but I'm well versed in raising those.

The money I spend is well worth the life lessons I'm getting AND I won't go grey. I'll go bald first...

I can't see this relationship going south , ever , but if it does I'll be there for these two till I'm dust..

It's what I do .

[Tack]

I will retract my statement on 'there should be no family law', and replace with how I think things should go down.

1.No alimony for anyone .Ever.
2.Assets divided per individual contribution.
3.Child support based on how much it costs to raise a child in a particular area of Canada per month-divided by 2,regardless of income.
Unless adopted, support for bio children only.

I don't believe #2 is right. So your wife has to stop working to take care of your children as many woman still do. Suddenly she is not contributing a dollar value, but isn't her time with the children worth something? Now you get to keep the house and all the cash because she didn't contribute any money to it? Or is there a value you place on her time as an "individual contribution" and does that match your hourly wage? Many woman spend much of their peak working years raising children setting them back a huge chunk and possibly never recovering to where they could have been without children. The male gets to work and get promoted and is making all the money. Somehow the woman should have to go to a minimum wage job and live in an apartment with roommates?

Think of it from both points of view, it may seem unfair to "lose half your stuff" but in reality you made the choice to build that life together. Get a separation agreement done next time before you decide the other person who didn't make as much money doesn't deserve to be compensated.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that there aren't woman who take advantage of the situation, but they can't be generalized as a whole.

[dirtybiker]

I somewhat willingly gave up my house and property to my kidlet
and her Mom.
No restrictions, no lawyers, no battles.

Their welfare/well being is still my responsibility, always will be.


I have met a few gals that have two, three, and four houses and property.
They also have two, three, and four ex's....Connection ?