The gloves have come off in the legal battle over Canada's biggest-ever individual lottery jackpot.
In a new court filing, Nynna Ionson, the ex-wife of $30 million lottery winner Ray Sobeski, makes it clear that she considers him a calculating liar who would go to almost any lengths to keep his new-found wealth out of her hands. ". . .after winning the $30,000,000, the Husband had told reporters that he did not have anyone special in his life," Ms. Ionson says in her 54-page affidavit. "He did not even acknowledge his own two children."
Ms. Ionson's tough approach comes in response to a new document filed by Mr. Sobeski, who savages his former wife as an abusive opportunist.
"Nynna has a terrible temper, and often acts out physically," Mr. Sobeski said. "I have the scar to prove it."
Mr. Sobeski's court document describes his relationship with his ex-wife as a "purely sexual arrangement," and says the marriage ended long before he bought his winning ticket in April of 2003. The nature and chronology of their relationship is the key factor in the court dispute between Ms. Ionson and Mr. Sobeski.
Ms. Ionson says she's entitled to half of Mr. Sobeski's win, and is now asking for interim support of $9,000 a month, along with $262,000 to fund her court case. Ms. Ionson says she waited to file her legal action because she hoped that Mr. Sobeski would return.
"The Wife waited from April 2004 to October of this year for reconciliation. She did not want the legal proceedings to be an impediment to her reconciliation with the Husband and instructed her lawyer not to bring a motion for support notwithstanding her obvious need.
"The Husband has $30,000,000. The Wife needs money to level the playing field and enable her lawyers to prepare the case for trial. The Husband has chosen to take the position that they separated in December of 1998. The Wife now has to prove her relationship as husband and wife from December 1998 to April 2004."
In her affidavit, Ms. Ionson says her lawyers have already spent more than $23,000 on private investigators to gather evidence for the case, and that the costs of bringing the matter to court will be many times that amount: "Because the Husband has made this case factually and legally complicated, it is estimated that the legal fees and disbursements to bring this case to trial will be between $260,000 and $500,000."
Ms. Ionson presents a long list of evidence to support her claim that she and Mr. Sobeski enjoyed a romantic, conjugal relationship that continued until the day he collected his big win at the Ontario Lottery Corporation offices in Toronto.
Among the items cited in Ms. Ionson's new affidavit are the food bill from the evening of April 1, 2004, just hours after Mr. Sobeski picked up his record jackpot.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
In her court file, she says that Mr. Sobeski left the next morning, telling her that he was going to Calgary to use up a ski pass before it expired.
Mr. Sobeski's behavior after his winning ticket was drawn has raised pointed questions about his motives. He waited nearly a year to collect his winnings, saying that he needed time to organize his affairs. Others believe he used the time to try to figure out how to keep the money away from his ex-wife.
In his latest court filings, Mr. Sobeski says he was tricked into his 1998 marriage to Ms. Ionson, and that the marriage lasted only two days.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
If he has 2 children he should support them but otherwise UNLESS he WAS still playing house ..he should be okay. You can't divorce and continue sleeping together ..that means that there is still a relationship.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber. Maybe they're both telling the truth.
If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.
The kiddos are probably already getting some child support. A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.
But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.
Evidently she has the goods on him, in terms of the hotel receipts etc. If you read the story and you understand the legal ramifications (I have experienced divorce and remarriage) he is going to have to share 50% + legal fees. Someone said, he let his little brain get his big brain in trouble.
After you factor in the 2 kids he may come away with one third of his lump sum payment. Let this be a lesson to all in tangled relationships, money brings the beast out of everyone.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
Sounds like it time for this guy to find a new country to live in and take his money with him. Every women he has ever smiled at probably thinks she deserve something from him now (and maybe some guys too).
She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber. Maybe they're both telling the truth.
If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.
The kiddos are probably already getting some child support. A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.
But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.
Jack
I agree with everything you posted, particularly the 'they're both right' in regards to him being scum and she also being scum.
booty calls do not a long standing relationship prove. they're just booty calls. easy sex. no big deal. what i don't get is that the article claims they were only married for 2 days. there's so much wrong with this picture.
at this point, regarding the children, i'd ask for a paternity test.
She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.
ex's aren't responsible for debts accrued after the divorce, though, right? beyond that, i agree with what you have stated, as well.
Something isn't right. If they were married for only two days then there will be divorced papers. (proof) If they were legally married there would be papers. (proof) If they were common law married, they would have proof. With no proof, how on God's green Earth are you going to prove anything?
"But but but he slept with me!"
(I wouldn't admit that)
"We made love in our favorite hotel room"
(freakin' tramp! You had a favorite room?")
"We have kids together!"
(and he still didn't marry you, but you stuck around. Idiot)
I'm not a lawyer....but if it's going to cost $500K to prove you were married, then....uhm...YOU WERENT MARRIED!!
A man had sex with a woman. Why? uhm...maybe because SHE PUT OUT!?
Don't mean to get all worked up...but COME ON! She's a greedy b!tch and she'll probably sue him for making her look like one, next!
Regarding a Blind Trust, I can't say anything about Canadian law, but most states here (except Delaware I think) will not allow the winner to remain anonymous. Even the Trusts and LLCs that are formed will always list each member for the record. I'm not saying I agree at all with that, since I'd want to be completely anonymous. However, there are a lot of greedy creeps who would let their children go hungry. I read recently that a lot of unpaid child support has been collected from lottery winnings.
I also wonder why this ex-wife is being so harshly judged by this board. If the children were fathered by this man they were together for more than 2 days, legally or not. If he waited a year to make his claim (losing a lot of interest) because he wanted to hide his wealth, he obviously knew he'd be in for a fight. By the way, having sex with your ex isn't that uncommon.
The problem with stories like this one is we weren't there, we don't know these people, so we only know what the media reports and from my experience, it's not always the whole story. Anyway, if they're legally divorced she probably won't win, although if he won $30M it might be worth settling this mess.
i trust the wife. take all that time to claim the ticket and then put the money off shore. hell he knew he had a ticket and he was still married. i hope they take half of his money.
There is so much wrong with this whole picture but any time I hear an EX is going for anything I cringe. That to me is the purest form of greed. My EX won over 1million in a lawsuit and I don't even collect Child Support while I have custody. I don't want it and I have no complaints. I'm happy for her but it's not my money. Why would I go after her? What is an EX? Why do people think EX's owe them something? This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either. I think it's wrong. No offense to anyone collecting it as I do not know every one's individual cases. Unless a person is INCAPABLE of working then why should they benefit from another's prosperity, ANY PERSON, when there is no relationship? To me it's a prolonged punishment, a form of EX welfare that no one should have to endure. In fact I am willing to BET everything that I have that at least 30-50% collecting Alimony are doing better than the person paying the alimony. Yup, so in this case someone wins the Lotto and basically now they want some form of alimony. They don't want to work for it. Alimony should be done away with just like welfare has been downsized in many states, Alimony should also suffer the same fate. Regarding kids, men and women should alway pay child support if required to do so but again sometimes this abused as well. If my opinion 9k a month is abuse and wrong, NO CHILD needs that much. Even if it were a family of 4, do they need 9k a month? That is so wrong it's not even funny, again that is greed and does not serve the best interest of the children. I read somewhere that P Diddy pays something like 35k a month. I don't care how much his daddy makes, this is support for the child not support his EX's lifestyle. Tell me one child that needs that amount. I'm not a P Diddy fan but that is wrong for anyone. I know I'm opening a can of worms but this is all tied together. This women's request of 9k a month is beyond shamefull. It's adult support past a certain amount regardless of the parent's income and no matter how you try to justify I can prove otherwise. When people get greedy everyone loses, especially the kids, well almost everyone loses; the lawyers children will go to better schools after they collect their fees from this mess.
NOTE: I don't know the particulars about this story. My comment is more generic but it may very well fit as I have read many stories like this on this board and it appears to have similiar characteristics.
I see two points wrong in this whole concept: (1) To his favor, he played the lottery game and bought the ticket with (what appears to be) no fraud intended and (2) To his stupidity, he slept with her after he knew he won the money. Both are losers and deserve whatever the courts punishment turns out to be.
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
In divorce cases, where the marriage has already been dissolved, but the court still retains jurisdiction over spousal and/or child support, any party, whether she is a spouse or a child may petition the court to modify the support order when there is a change in personal and/or financial circumstance.
The amount of support generally depends on the capacity of the person giving the support and the needs of the person being supported. The lifestyle petitioner got accustomed to during the marriage is an important consideration.
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS....12/24/05..."MY"
LOLOLOLO.......isn't so.....and while we're on the subject, he should have known better. He should have aquired a "Mediator" to help settle some of the sticky issues that arise in Lieu of going to the Divorce Court, established a Trust Fund for his children, and severed all ties w/her, to avoid this unnecessary ugly Court Battle....He's stupid....Now, she'll fight to "ring him like a wet cloth" thru her Attorneys and it serves him right.........LOLOLOLOLO
oh well.....and so this is christmas and what have we done.......for the near & the dear ones........
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
It's free, mylollipop, unless a man pays for it. In which case it isn't free, but there's a name for the kind of woman who sells it.
Whether a man wins a lottery or not, he ought to make sure his kids are warm in the winter, have clothes on their backs, full bellies, and a father to the extent that's possible. Winning the lottery doesn't change that. Making sure they have more than that isn't even doing them a favor.
As for a woman he's divorced from, he owes her civility and the courtesy of not bad-mouthing her to the kids, which is the same as she owes him. If she went to bed with him after they were divorced it just means they had a one night stand. Same as she's probably had with other men and he's probably had with other women. No hits, no runs, no errors. You just try to get out after the morning coffee, but before things get complicated. Or in the middle of the night, if they do.
Him winning the lottery doesn't change any of this. He doesn't owe her, nor the kids, anything more than that simply because he won the lottery.
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
It's free, mylollipop, unless a man pays for it. In which case it isn't free, but there's a name for the kind of woman who sells it.
Whether a man wins a lottery or not, he ought to make sure his kids are warm in the winter, have clothes on their backs, full bellies, and a father to the extent that's possible. Winning the lottery doesn't change that. Making sure they have more than that isn't even doing them a favor.
As for a woman he's divorced from, he owes her civility and the courtesy of not bad-mouthing her to the kids, which is the same as she owes him. If she went to bed with him after they were divorced it just means they had a one night stand. Same as she's probably had with other men and he's probably had with other women. No hits, no runs, no errors. You just try to get out after the morning coffee, but before things get complicated. Or in the middle of the night, if they do.
Him winning the lottery doesn't change any of this. He doesn't owe her, nor the kids, anything more than that simply because he won the lottery.
> This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either.
This is not lottery related but is a humorous-but-true aside on alimony. Years ago, a radio/TV personality named Henry Morgan (was a regular on the old "What's My Line" show) was shocked when his wife was awarded a substantial alimony award ... part of which was to pay for the rent on a Manhattan apartment they both used to live in prior to their split. Morgan's approach was interesting. He didn't challenge the alimony award at all. Instead, one morning a few months later, his EX realized the alimony check was late. She attempted to call him at his apartment but the phone had been disconnected. She attempted to call him at his network but they said he'd just stopped showing up for work and no one knew where he was. Then the next week, he finally surfaced as a personality on CBC radio. He got much less than he made in the US ... but it was all his. And the Canadian courts would not honor the New York state alimony order.
It makes me wonder whether a Canadian bank might be a safe haven for lottery winners with greedy EXs.
> This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either.
This is not lottery related but is a humorous-but-true aside on alimony. Years ago, a radio/TV personality named Henry Morgan (was a regular on the old "What's My Line" show) was shocked when his wife was awarded a substantial alimony award ... part of which was to pay for the rent on a Manhattan apartment they both used to live in prior to their split. Morgan's approach was interesting. He didn't challenge the alimony award at all. Instead, one morning a few months later, his EX realized the alimony check was late. She attempted to call him at his apartment but the phone had been disconnected. She attempted to call him at his network but they said he'd just stopped showing up for work and no one knew where he was. Then the next week, he finally surfaced as a personality on CBC radio. He got much less than he made in the US ... but it was all his. And the Canadian courts would not honor the New York state alimony order.
It makes me wonder whether a Canadian bank might be a safe haven for lottery winners with greedy EXs.
Any court ordered alimony is not enforceable! Most states can't put you in jail for not paying alimony to the EX! But they can for child support and they should for that! It's just most men are afraid of the thought of that possibility of maybe going to jail for not paying the court ordered alimony, so they pay-up until they get wise or a better lawyer....lol
Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!
If he has 2 children he should support them but otherwise UNLESS he WAS still playing house ..he should be okay. You can't divorce and continue sleeping together ..that means that there is still a relationship.
looks like the little brain got his big brain in trouble.
..
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber. Maybe they're both telling the truth.
If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.
The kiddos are probably already getting some child support. A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.
But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.
Jack
Evidently she has the goods on him, in terms of the hotel receipts etc. If you read the story and you understand the legal ramifications (I have experienced divorce and remarriage) he is going to have to share 50% + legal fees. Someone said, he let his little brain get his big brain in trouble.
After you factor in the 2 kids he may come away with one third of his lump sum payment. Let this be a lesson to all in tangled relationships, money brings the beast out of everyone.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
seems both their pants were on fire
Sounds like it time for this guy to find a new country to live in and take his money with him. Every women he has ever smiled at probably thinks she deserve something from him now (and maybe some guys too).
She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.
"As The Lotto Turns"...is this a soap opera script?
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
Ms. Ionson's new documents paint a far different picture: "Ray and I had a very passionate and loving relationship," she says. ". . . it is obvious from the events of April 2, 2004, when upon picking up a check for $30 million he called me and arranged to see me and spend the night with me rather than anyone else, that we were together in a close marital relationship at the time."
Liar Liar Pants on fire! When in doubt, never believe the one who is obsessed with the grabbing.
seems both their pants were on fire
lol
Win the Lotto; make sure get a Blind Trust!
Why a Blind Trust? Please explain.
Ms. Ionson says that Mr. Sobeski took her to the Woodstock Quality Inn for a night of lovemaking in their favorite room, "which included a whirlpool and a fireplace," yet failed to mention that he had just won $30 million.
She says he's a lowlife, he says she's a moneygrubber. Maybe they're both telling the truth.
If they're not married she's just a one-night stand he had the night after he won the lottery, and he was a one-night stand for her, giving her no more claim to his winnings than any other one night stand would have.
The kiddos are probably already getting some child support. A judge will probably peruse that amount and see whether it should be adjusted.
But it's going to be a cat fight this ex probably won't win, seems to me.
Jack
I agree with everything you posted, particularly the 'they're both right' in regards to him being scum and she also being scum.
booty calls do not a long standing relationship prove. they're just booty calls. easy sex. no big deal. what i don't get is that the article claims they were only married for 2 days. there's so much wrong with this picture.
at this point, regarding the children, i'd ask for a paternity test.
She is the "ex-wife", thus exonerating her to any claims or debts he has. Where is the problem in this case? Seems very clear. They are no longer married, nor is she entitled to his winfall. If he was 50,000 $ in debt I can guarantee you she wouldnt be court ordered to share his debt, instead she'd dodge him like the plague.....Vice Versa scenarios have a way of placing things in a different light I say.
ex's aren't responsible for debts accrued after the divorce, though, right? beyond that, i agree with what you have stated, as well.
Something isn't right. If they were married for only two days then there will be divorced papers. (proof) If they were legally married there would be papers. (proof) If they were common law married, they would have proof. With no proof, how on God's green Earth are you going to prove anything?
"But but but he slept with me!"
(I wouldn't admit that)
"We made love in our favorite hotel room"
(freakin' tramp! You had a favorite room?")
"We have kids together!"
(and he still didn't marry you, but you stuck around. Idiot)
I'm not a lawyer....but if it's going to cost $500K to prove you were married, then....uhm...YOU WERENT MARRIED!!
A man had sex with a woman. Why? uhm...maybe because SHE PUT OUT!?
Don't mean to get all worked up...but COME ON! She's a greedy b!tch and she'll probably sue him for making her look like one, next!
(I hate people like this)
Regarding a Blind Trust, I can't say anything about Canadian law, but most states here (except Delaware I think) will not allow the winner to remain anonymous. Even the Trusts and LLCs that are formed will always list each member for the record. I'm not saying I agree at all with that, since I'd want to be completely anonymous. However, there are a lot of greedy creeps who would let their children go hungry. I read recently that a lot of unpaid child support has been collected from lottery winnings.
I also wonder why this ex-wife is being so harshly judged by this board. If the children were fathered by this man they were together for more than 2 days, legally or not. If he waited a year to make his claim (losing a lot of interest) because he wanted to hide his wealth, he obviously knew he'd be in for a fight. By the way, having sex with your ex isn't that uncommon.
The problem with stories like this one is we weren't there, we don't know these people, so we only know what the media reports and from my experience, it's not always the whole story. Anyway, if they're legally divorced she probably won't win, although if he won $30M it might be worth settling this mess.
Oh my God...this is the same lottery draw I almost won..I can't believe that guy won it and does those things.
i trust the wife. take all that time to claim the ticket and then put the money off shore. hell he knew he had a ticket and he was still married. i hope they take half of his money.
There is so much wrong with this whole picture but any time I hear an EX is going for anything I cringe. That to me is the purest form of greed. My EX won over 1million in a lawsuit and I don't even collect Child Support while I have custody. I don't want it and I have no complaints. I'm happy for her but it's not my money. Why would I go after her? What is an EX? Why do people think EX's owe them something? This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either. I think it's wrong. No offense to anyone collecting it as I do not know every one's individual cases. Unless a person is INCAPABLE of working then why should they benefit from another's prosperity, ANY PERSON, when there is no relationship? To me it's a prolonged punishment, a form of EX welfare that no one should have to endure. In fact I am willing to BET everything that I have that at least 30-50% collecting Alimony are doing better than the person paying the alimony. Yup, so in this case someone wins the Lotto and basically now they want some form of alimony. They don't want to work for it. Alimony should be done away with just like welfare has been downsized in many states, Alimony should also suffer the same fate. Regarding kids, men and women should alway pay child support if required to do so but again sometimes this abused as well. If my opinion 9k a month is abuse and wrong, NO CHILD needs that much. Even if it were a family of 4, do they need 9k a month? That is so wrong it's not even funny, again that is greed and does not serve the best interest of the children. I read somewhere that P Diddy pays something like 35k a month. I don't care how much his daddy makes, this is support for the child not support his EX's lifestyle. Tell me one child that needs that amount. I'm not a P Diddy fan but that is wrong for anyone. I know I'm opening a can of worms but this is all tied together. This women's request of 9k a month is beyond shamefull. It's adult support past a certain amount regardless of the parent's income and no matter how you try to justify I can prove otherwise. When people get greedy everyone loses, especially the kids, well almost everyone loses; the lawyers children will go to better schools after they collect their fees from this mess.
NOTE: I don't know the particulars about this story. My comment is more generic but it may very well fit as I have read many stories like this on this board and it appears to have similiar characteristics.
I see two points wrong in this whole concept: (1) To his favor, he played the lottery game and bought the ticket with (what appears to be) no fraud intended and (2) To his stupidity, he slept with her after he knew he won the money. Both are losers and deserve whatever the courts punishment turns out to be.
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
In divorce cases, where the marriage has already been dissolved, but the court still retains jurisdiction over spousal and/or child support, any party, whether she is a spouse or a child may petition the court to modify the support order when there is a change in personal and/or financial circumstance.
The amount of support generally depends on the capacity of the person giving the support and the needs of the person being supported.
The lifestyle petitioner got accustomed to during the marriage is an important consideration.
looks like the little brain got his big brain in trouble.
..
HAPPY HOLIDAY..."FJA"....12/24/05
I do concurr w/your statement......
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS....12/24/05..."MY"
LOLOLOLO.......isn't so.....and while we're on the subject, he should have known better. He should have aquired a "Mediator" to help settle some of the sticky issues that arise in Lieu of going to the Divorce Court, established a Trust Fund for his children, and severed all ties w/her, to avoid this unnecessary ugly Court Battle....He's stupid....Now, she'll fight to "ring him like a wet cloth" thru her Attorneys and it serves him right.........LOLOLOLOLO
oh well.....and so this is christmas and what have we done.......for the near & the dear ones........
Why is the wife stupid?? She didn't do anything.
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
It's free, mylollipop, unless a man pays for it. In which case it isn't free, but there's a name for the kind of woman who sells it.
Whether a man wins a lottery or not, he ought to make sure his kids are warm in the winter, have clothes on their backs, full bellies, and a father to the extent that's possible. Winning the lottery doesn't change that. Making sure they have more than that isn't even doing them a favor.
As for a woman he's divorced from, he owes her civility and the courtesy of not bad-mouthing her to the kids, which is the same as she owes him. If she went to bed with him after they were divorced it just means they had a one night stand. Same as she's probably had with other men and he's probably had with other women. No hits, no runs, no errors. You just try to get out after the morning coffee, but before things get complicated. Or in the middle of the night, if they do.
Him winning the lottery doesn't change any of this. He doesn't owe her, nor the kids, anything more than that simply because he won the lottery.
Jack
Seems to me that the children should be winners here! Finally some support! Men do have the audacity to come back to their weak, vulnerable exes. If you dance to t he music, you have to pay the piper, baby! Pay up and shut up. Did you think it was free!? Nothing is free. It costs to marry, more to divorce, to have children, get burried...and the list goes on. It costs to play the lottery and it certainly costs to W-I-N!
It's free, mylollipop, unless a man pays for it. In which case it isn't free, but there's a name for the kind of woman who sells it.
Whether a man wins a lottery or not, he ought to make sure his kids are warm in the winter, have clothes on their backs, full bellies, and a father to the extent that's possible. Winning the lottery doesn't change that. Making sure they have more than that isn't even doing them a favor.
As for a woman he's divorced from, he owes her civility and the courtesy of not bad-mouthing her to the kids, which is the same as she owes him. If she went to bed with him after they were divorced it just means they had a one night stand. Same as she's probably had with other men and he's probably had with other women. No hits, no runs, no errors. You just try to get out after the morning coffee, but before things get complicated. Or in the middle of the night, if they do.
Him winning the lottery doesn't change any of this. He doesn't owe her, nor the kids, anything more than that simply because he won the lottery.
Jack
I wish all the exes in Texas a merry Xmas.
Same to all your bath house buddies in New York.
Why is the wife stupid?? She didn't do anything.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS "CATS"......12/27/05
I didn't say that.........I said "he" the former/or ex-husband to be is "stupid"....you should re-read my posting..........loloololololololol
Same to all your bath house buddies in New York.
12/27/05
lolololololol...................
> This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either.
This is not lottery related but is a humorous-but-true aside on alimony. Years ago, a radio/TV personality named Henry Morgan (was a regular on the old "What's My Line" show) was shocked when his wife was awarded a substantial alimony award ... part of which was to pay for the rent on a Manhattan apartment they both used to live in prior to their split. Morgan's approach was interesting. He didn't challenge the alimony award at all. Instead, one morning a few months later, his EX realized the alimony check was late. She attempted to call him at his apartment but the phone had been disconnected. She attempted to call him at his network but they said he'd just stopped showing up for work and no one knew where he was. Then the next week, he finally surfaced as a personality on CBC radio. He got much less than he made in the US ... but it was all his. And the Canadian courts would not honor the New York state alimony order.
It makes me wonder whether a Canadian bank might be a safe haven for lottery winners with greedy EXs.
> This is the same reason I don't believe in Alimony either.
This is not lottery related but is a humorous-but-true aside on alimony. Years ago, a radio/TV personality named Henry Morgan (was a regular on the old "What's My Line" show) was shocked when his wife was awarded a substantial alimony award ... part of which was to pay for the rent on a Manhattan apartment they both used to live in prior to their split. Morgan's approach was interesting. He didn't challenge the alimony award at all. Instead, one morning a few months later, his EX realized the alimony check was late. She attempted to call him at his apartment but the phone had been disconnected. She attempted to call him at his network but they said he'd just stopped showing up for work and no one knew where he was. Then the next week, he finally surfaced as a personality on CBC radio. He got much less than he made in the US ... but it was all his. And the Canadian courts would not honor the New York state alimony order.
It makes me wonder whether a Canadian bank might be a safe haven for lottery winners with greedy EXs.
Take my wife! Please!!
Any court ordered alimony is not enforceable! Most states can't put you in jail for not paying alimony to the EX! But they can for child support and they should for that! It's just most men are afraid of the thought of that possibility of maybe going to jail for not paying the court ordered alimony, so they pay-up until they get wise or a better lawyer....lol
nothing is mentioned about devorce, did they get devorced or what the story dont make sense
What a brilliant forum, it's better than our UK soap opera's.
Keep up the good work, it's really fascinating reading.
Oh, by the way, there is an "I" in Divorce.
Oh, by the way, there is an "I" in Divorce.