Why would my H want a clause like this in our division of matrimonial property? (Remember, this is Divorce law in Alberta, Canada - we have to file two documents when divorcing, the "Division of Matrimonial Property" and the documents that represent the dissolution of marriage).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I want a clause that states that if the said couple reconcile the division of matrimonial property is in effect until H and Jennifer XXX sign an agreement, in front of a lawyer, at which time the division of matrimonial property agreement shall be null and void. Until this is signed
The division of Matrimonial property remains in effect. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I got it in an e-mail from him as he has been trying to conact my lawyer with no response from her. (I will have to light a fire under her tomorrow apparently.) I have my guesses as to why he may want that clause, but I'll hold my tongue until I get some unbiased opinions.

Curious Jen

Well,

From reading it...it sounds like he wants the division of property to take effect now. However, if there is a reconciliation, it seems like he wants the division of property to hold until you sign an agreement that nullifies this.

To me, it seems as though he would be open to reconciling, but this is a way of protecting himself in case things don't work out. Is there a reason why he would benefit if the property was not recombined?

If the property is not recombined, he will be the sole owner of a (our) house, which is continuously increasing in value. All I get is a payout.

Keep in mind that I have been pressing for him to settle the division of matrimonial property, because I want a divorce (since he's not willing to make a commitment to me).

Jen

I agree, it sounds like he might be thinking about reconciling, however, he doesn't have complete faith that it will work out and doesn't want to have to 'redo' the division. It is also a way to protect himself.

Jen, if you want to reconcile, then the value of the house is meaningless. Yes, you might not get a bit of increase in value... however, you might have the opportunity to build a wonderful marriage once again.

Truthfully, if (and I am not looking for it or even thinking about in all actuality) but if my ex ever came out of the fog and we tried reconciliation, I would require the most stringent prenuptual agreement that could ever be written. NOT because I was planning on screwing her over, but because I would be protecting myself and my boys from her. So perhaps, he wants to try, but he doesn't want to just want to throw away what he has learned about you. Jen, I believe you, but you have to realize that as the directly affected BS, he has seen the person he loved betray him in the most blatant way possible. For him to just ignore that would not be healthy. Forgiving is one thing, forgetting is another.

Just my opinion, but regardless, you would be getting nothing LESS than you get right now if the divorce goes through.

I agree with what the others have posted. It appears he is trying to protect himself, as any BS would, in the event of reconciliation. In itself, it doesn't "say" anything...but he's just covering his bases.

The statement on it's own shouldn't give you any problems. But what do YOU think it means? And how does it make YOU feel?

Thanks for your take on this folks.

You see, I never doubted that the division of matrimonial property would not be legally binding, I am the one whose lawyer is pushing this ahead. I want our assets to be permanently divided with no ability to come back and ask one another for anything more, so that it's done and over with, and quite frankly, my H is a financial schemer who I don't trust at this point. I want to be protected because I don't trust him.

I just find it very odd that he thinks putting in a clause like that can make such a legal document null and void (if we both sign a legal document of some kind after the fact). To say that it would become null and void would be to say all that we once owned 50/50 but had completely divided up would suddenly revert to being owned 50/50. How the heck do you do that once you've signed over the land title of the house already, and been living apart for a long time, and he's paid me out for my part of the house equity? The only way I see us doing that is if we CHOOSE in good faith, because we've reconciled, on our own to do that, there should be no need for some signing of a legal document in front of a lawyer to resume treating each other like financial partners (presumably in addition to emotional partners again).

Am I understanding correctly what some of you are trying to get at - that my H, if we reconcile, wants a document similar to a prenup agreement signed, because he may be fearful of me "financially raping him" as he's said he thought I might?

I don't see why that clause is at all useful. The division of matrimonial property is legally binding and permanent without him adding that clause.

I am more taken aback by his need to put something in there about reconciliation, and wonder if he doesn't see that once this division of matrimonial property becomes enacted that divorce will follow within less than 2 months (if the courts aren't backed up). Why would a man who isn't willing to treat me well, and isn't willing to commit to me now want a clause about reconcilliation?

Oh well, we'll see what my lawyer thinks his (and his lawyer's) possible motivations are later today.

Jen

<small>[ November 14, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Jen Brown ]</small>

Jen-

This sounds a little like a pre-nup agreement. My take is that he is a little afraid of the future. Heck, the same reason he is uncertain about committing to a future with you.

Isn't it interesting how lawyers can help us come up with really good plans when we are divorcing but yet we have difficulty coming up with plan to commit to working towards a happy and healthy marriage?

HoFS

Alas...tis me....the one from Alberta and in court many....ok too many times to count.

Check out the Matrimonial law in Alberta. A clause like that would most likely wouldn't make it into any order regardless if you and he agree to it.

If you want the divorce, split the property and end of story. If the two of you want to reconcile at a later date (which sounds like he does, but you don't) -- then draw up a prenup agreement.

If he's wanting you to add a clause like that, how much trust is there in the first place?

JMHO

I agree Elan, I can't see how a clause like that would successfully make it into a legal document. I will hopefully finally get to speak with my lawyer tomorrow and hear her take on things of course.

I talked to my H tonight (lately he calls on Sunday nights after 9 like clockwork!), and talked about this legal stuff a bit. He's contacted a lawyer, but not actually met with her yet, that clause is made up entirely by him. I told him that clause sounded like he wanted a prenuptial agreement if we ever got back together, and he said that isn't what he was thinking at all. He is all focused on having the division of matrimonial property drawn up almost like a separation agreement that can't be gone back on, even if he were to have me come home and stay for more than 90 days (the point at which official separation becomes null and void, and we'd have to start at square one and spend another year apart to get a divorce).

I said that my plans were to file the division of matrimonial property and then file for divorce, to which he sounded shocked. I said that's the way things will go unless he tells me he wants otherwise. I asked him what he wants and got roars of silence, and then "You do whatever you want." It would seem that he still doesn't want a divorce, but still isn't willing to wholeheartedly work on our relationship by doing anything other than having me over for sleepovers. He acts like there's all the time in the world for him to come around and feel comfortable spending time with me other than for sleepovers, but he's wrong. I'm nearly 31, I want to have kids, and my ovaries aren't getting any younger.

Quite frankly, I'm afraid to reconcile now when I think about that 90 day rule....although I could always move back out on day 89 for a few days, and then back in, several times over I suppose (I did have one lawyer tell me this). Wait, he isn't even willing to spend time with me outside of the house and bedroom....I think he just brings that stuff up to sound like he may want to try, hoping it lures me over and into his bedroom again. I am so glad I can actually see his scheming now, and don't fall for it like a fool.

The other sick thing he said tonight, that doesn't really relate to the topic of this thread, but strikes me nonetheless.....is that he drinks a lot, and of the time that he drinks, he drinks 75% of the time when he's alone, and says he does so b/c that's when he finds that he actually wants to be with me. How unhealthy a statment is that? He has to be drunk to want to be with me? Then why be with me??

Oh well, let me know folks if you have any further thoughts on my ramblings.

Jen

<small>[ November 16, 2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Jen Brown ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I'm afraid to reconcile now when I think about that 90 day rule....although I could always move back out on day 89 for a few days, and then back in, several times over I suppose (I did have one lawyer tell me this). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">-- the courts will look at *intent*, I doubt highly you could do that. Besides....why would you want to?