Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Divorce Agreements
In a 7-2 ruling the Canadian Supreme Court reversed several lower court rulings in saying that divorce agreements should be respected unless truly unforeseen circumstances occur that require revisiting them.
The case before the Court involved Linda Miglin who succeeded in having lower courts revise a divorce agreement she had reached with her husband in 1994. The Miglins owned a successful lodge in which they had capital of about $250,000. The divorce agreement called for Eric Miglin to pay his wife $60,000/year in child support, employ her for 5 years at $15,000/year as a consultant for the lodge, and swap her interest in the lodge for the family home (which was worth roughly $250,000).
Eric Miglin fulfilled his obligations under the divorce agreement, but years later, apparently having difficulty finding a job, Linda Miglin asked a court to grant her $4,400 a month in spousal support even though the divorce agreement between the couple specifically ruled out any future spousal support.
Linda Miglin argued that she didn’t realize what she was signing away with the divorce agreement, a contention that the Supreme Court didn’t lend credence given that both parties were represented by lawyers whose job it was to defend their interests.
Lower courts ruled that since Linda Miglin’s circumstances had materially changed, that she was entitled to seek a change in the divorce agreement. The majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court disagreed with this, noting that it was inevitable that some unforeseeable material changes would inevitably take place after any divorce agreement,
Some degree of change in the circumstances of the parties is always foreseeable, as agreements are prospective of in nature. Parties are presumed to be aware that health, job markets, parental responsibilities, housing markets and values of assets are all subject to change.
The Supreme Court ruling essentially restored the older standard that the material change in question must have been unforseen but materially connected with the marriage.
Source:
Top court toughens divorce deal rules. Kirk Makin, Global and Mail, April 17, 2003.
Till Death Do Us Part: The Miglin Decision. Spring 2001.
Hey guys, let death do you part. Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, May 3, 2001.
A contract is a contract — even in family law. Judith C. Sidlofsky Stoffman, GuelphMercury.Com, April 28, 2003.
The Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Divorce Agreements by Brian Carnell, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Tags: Canada
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.