'Till Income Do Us Part With
This must rate as breaking new ground in income support for common-law partners. Without the bond of a marriage contract, a less-than seven-year alliance with no children involved, and the B.C. Supreme Court saw Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie declare for the plaintiff. Despite a reasonable doubt relating to the "most conflicting" affidavit evidence relating to the contribution to the relationship of Marianna Goriuk, she has been granted an interim payment of $25,000 monthly.
Ms. Goriuk seems to believe her handful of years' commitment to a partnership with Nickelback's Chad Kroeger has a redeemable value of $95,000 a month. After all, her former partner earns a hefty $9.7-million annually, while her income was a mere $12,000 a year. Which would certainly not permit her the luxury of living in the manner to which she became accustomed while the common-law partnership was in full flow.
For his part, Chad Kroeger contends that his former common-law partner did not share his intense relationship with music, made insignificant contributions to his business endeavours and viewed his professional touring as a negative, bringing a sense of resentment to the relationship. Which would auger ill for any relationship. And is strange, given that it is precisely those elements that are required to realize success in the field of popular entertainment.
His investment was clear: a love of music and of making music and of entertaining. A commitment to travelling with his group for the singular purpose of exposing their talents to as wide an appreciative audience as possible. A willingness to make sacrifices to attain the hoped-for end, a public popularity that would result in a solid income as recompense for their talented expression and public availability.
Mr. Kroeger of his own volition, when the relationship failed, did the honourable thing, and provided Ms. Goriuk with a generous $10,000 monthly stipend. While she felt this was insufficient to enable her to continue the "lavish lifestyle" she had shared with him. Her 'budget' was in the neighbourhood of $25,000 monthly and this was the least she could expect. And the judge agreed with her. Although she had aimed with great ambition for $95,000.
Ordering Mr. Kroeger to commence paying Ms. Goriuk $25,000 monthly and to be prepared to continue doing just that until the issue is finally resolved at a trial, to follow, the judge is doubtless pleased with her wisdom. Ms. Goriuk has expenses, after all; a 2.4-hectare hobby farm with two horses which must be maintained, costing her $5,100 monthly for that purpose. And oh yes, a $3,400 monthly mortgage for her retired parents.
Which goes to show what a tangled web is woven when those with money become involved with those who appreciate that they have money, and feel entitled on the basis of their generosity in sharing a lifestyle, to a hefty chunk of income in perpetuity - for self and dependents. Not everyone has children, but everyone has parents.
It's the details that kill you.
Ms. Goriuk seems to believe her handful of years' commitment to a partnership with Nickelback's Chad Kroeger has a redeemable value of $95,000 a month. After all, her former partner earns a hefty $9.7-million annually, while her income was a mere $12,000 a year. Which would certainly not permit her the luxury of living in the manner to which she became accustomed while the common-law partnership was in full flow.
For his part, Chad Kroeger contends that his former common-law partner did not share his intense relationship with music, made insignificant contributions to his business endeavours and viewed his professional touring as a negative, bringing a sense of resentment to the relationship. Which would auger ill for any relationship. And is strange, given that it is precisely those elements that are required to realize success in the field of popular entertainment.
His investment was clear: a love of music and of making music and of entertaining. A commitment to travelling with his group for the singular purpose of exposing their talents to as wide an appreciative audience as possible. A willingness to make sacrifices to attain the hoped-for end, a public popularity that would result in a solid income as recompense for their talented expression and public availability.
Mr. Kroeger of his own volition, when the relationship failed, did the honourable thing, and provided Ms. Goriuk with a generous $10,000 monthly stipend. While she felt this was insufficient to enable her to continue the "lavish lifestyle" she had shared with him. Her 'budget' was in the neighbourhood of $25,000 monthly and this was the least she could expect. And the judge agreed with her. Although she had aimed with great ambition for $95,000.
Ordering Mr. Kroeger to commence paying Ms. Goriuk $25,000 monthly and to be prepared to continue doing just that until the issue is finally resolved at a trial, to follow, the judge is doubtless pleased with her wisdom. Ms. Goriuk has expenses, after all; a 2.4-hectare hobby farm with two horses which must be maintained, costing her $5,100 monthly for that purpose. And oh yes, a $3,400 monthly mortgage for her retired parents.
Which goes to show what a tangled web is woven when those with money become involved with those who appreciate that they have money, and feel entitled on the basis of their generosity in sharing a lifestyle, to a hefty chunk of income in perpetuity - for self and dependents. Not everyone has children, but everyone has parents.
It's the details that kill you.
Labels: Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home