Can someone help me understand why Russell Williams' wife is being sued jointly with his for $4 million by one of the victims families? I understand suing him. Absolutely. But if she was not involved and had no knowledge of the crimes committed, why should she be held responsible for what happened? Especially financially?
27 Jan 2012 1:49 PM
11 Nov 2008
Ottawa
tweet
Addict
4,254
Because as soon as this happened she sold their house valued at $700k and most of the financials went into her name.
Suing just him would be suing a broke man, whereas the victims are suing her too because that's where all of his money is.
27 Jan 2012 1:51 PM
14 Mar 2009
T&C
Duchess of the Forum
20,838
I think the lawsuit stemmed from him 'hiding' assets in his wife's name once he had been arrested.
My understanding is they transfered some property and possibly other assets over to her name. I feel awful for the poor woman, she really is a victim in all of this, too.
But aren't there lots of people who own businesses who have everything in their spouse's names so in court they aren't able to touch those things?
Let's say my husband owns a finance company. To protect our family, he transfers everything to my name since the business is a high-risk one. After a while, he committs fraud and steal from his clients. I had no idea. Why should I lose everything because he's a d-bag???
I feel awful for her. She will be left penniless because her husband murdered people. Way to make she pay for his crimes.
27 Jan 2012 2:10 PM
13 Aug 2002
Toronto
FriendsFirst
Queen of the Forum
28,628
I imagine the whole "how could you not have any suspicion that your husband was breaking into houses in the neighbourhood and stealing women's and children's undergarments, wearing them, taking pictures of himself in them, holding people hostage for hours on end, and killing multiple times" thing might also play into it. There are a lot of people who don't believe she was as in-the-dark with regard to his behaviour as the rest of the community.
But then again, if she's not up on any criminal charges and the legal eagles aren't investigating any accessory charges against her, I'm not sure how a civil suit would go about proving culpability to justify including her in the suit?
But I don't think she's profiting is she? She sold their house. So the profit is hers.
I would think maybe his pension / RRSP's / savings accounts would be up for debate but only if they're in his name only. But his pension and RRSP's would be. You can't transfer those unless one person is dead.
Sorry, in the situation I mentioned above, I meant RIGHT after the business opened. Not during the course of the business.
No, what I meant is as soon as he set-up the business the assets are transfered. Before the fraud. Anything that was gained from the fraud would be up for grabs.
27 Jan 2012 2:21 PM
11 Apr 2009
Edmonton AB
caserulzall
Fan
846
She never profit from his crimes, he still was a major military man with a nice pay. He did technicallly work thoughout the whole thing so the funds are legit earned. His crimes were nothing money related so she shouldn't be sued. She was a stay at home wife who worked for a charity group, she should still be entitled for 50% of the funds.
As for his wife not knowing of his crimes, he was my mom's boss (her fav boss) and nobody at his work knew either, me and my DH have met him before and you would never have guessed. This case hits close to home for my family
27 Jan 2012 2:42 PM
8 Jul 2006
Ottawa
Polyanna
Fan
528
I would hope that 50% of the profit from the sale of the house should be up for grabs to his victims/victims families.
The house was a marital asset - therefore he and his wife should have had a 50/50 split on it.
By selling the house (after his crimes came to light)... for his wife to take 100% of the proceeds is not right at all!
So these victims would have no choice but to sue his wife - since these assets have been tranferred to her.
27 Jan 2012 2:53 PM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
I don't know that much about the case but imagine it hasn't been a great week for this woman, especially with the recent decision on the publication ban regarding the divorce (that just came out, right? feel like I just read something on it).
As far as why she's being sued, well, the plaintiffs are probably in a situation where they don't really know who knew what and which assets are in whose hands for what reason. Rather than NOT sue someone and risk a limitations period running out on you, safer course is to sue anyone who you have an arguable claim against, so long as it is not frivolous.
27 Jan 2012 2:58 PM
11 Apr 2009
Edmonton AB
caserulzall
Fan
846
Yeah but if I found out my DH was a socialpath and my life turned upside down over night, I would try to get all the money I could so I could re start my life. Could you imagine if you had kids on top of everything. She is just as innocent in all of this, I know I would sell the house and try to restart somewhere else were nobody knew who I was. It would be different if they were both guilty.
27 Jan 2012 3:09 PM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
Absolutely. I'm not saying I'd personally judge her for trying to just that, if that's the intent. But not sure I could judge the victims' families for the civil suit, either. Glad I don't have to figure all that out...
27 Jan 2012 3:10 PM
13 Aug 2002
Toronto
FriendsFirst
Queen of the Forum
28,628
That makes sense... thanks MmeBruni! (a lawyerly POV is always helpful for those of us without the know-how
)
And yeah... bad week for her with the publication ban being overturned wrt the divorce.
Were they not living apart? I remember hearing that he was living in Trenton and she was living at their cottage or something?
If that was the case then she absolutely could have been in the dark about what was going on.
29 Jan 2012 12:43 PM
3 Jan 2009
zoobaby
Postaholic
6,506
I don't understand the "how could she not have known?' argument.
First: they were both very busy professionals who travelled frequently. So it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for him to be away from home, "working long hours", and she also may have been away herself.
Second: how many of us have DHs who putter around the house, and we really have no clue what they're up to? My DH has tons of projects on the go that I'm not a part of. It would be SO easy for him to tell me XYZ was in boxes in the top of our garage when it could theoretically be something shady. I'd believe him and I'd NEVER think to check what on earth was inside them.
Third: if she ever worried that something was off, most women would immediately wonder about an affair. This situation is SO crazy and he obviously hid it so well from the world that I don't see how his wife could have ever in a million years considered this as a possibility. An affair? Sure, happens every day.
I think it's really kind of crass to speculate that she had any idea that this was happening when there is absolutely no evidence to support this.
29 Jan 2012 2:21 PM
31 Jul 2010
omaki
Devotee
1,941
And before the suspicious nellies come out to ask why they weren't living together, it's not uncommon in the military for the member to go on imposed restriction - the member is posted to another base but because his/her family is well-established in schools, careers, etc, the member accepts the posting but does not move his/her family. The member will go home during their days off.
I'm not a member so I don't know the exact details of how it works, but it's common enough that there is nothing suspicious about a member being posted to somewhere as isolated as Trenton (
I know of what I speak, trust me) and their spouse staying behind.
I can't imagine the horror of finding out what terrible things your husband has done and then through no fault of your own having people decide unilaterally that you MUST have known about it. Her life will never be the same. I agree with MH - of course it's different than the victims themselves and their families, but she is a victim too.
29 Jan 2012 6:31 PM
6 Mar 2010
CheeseHound
Devotee
1,330
Williams' wife and Williams himself are each being sued for transferring and/or disposing of assets illegally, the lawsuit claims.
So when she did it, it wasn't on the up-and-up.
29 Jan 2012 7:39 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
I agree with you OP, his wife should not be sued and hopefully the courts will not make her liable for crimes she did not commit. I also think it's very unfair of people to suggest she must have known without any ounce of proof. There are many cases where serial killers commit crimes without their families knowing. This man was smart and adept at covering up his tracks. And I'm not sure how profiting from your family member's death makes anything better anyways. Your family member is not coming back ever.
29 Jan 2012 7:56 PM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
It's not profiting. It is compensation for your losses, some of which are out of pocket. Imagine your child is murdered and the amount of time you'd need off from work to cope with such devastation. Imagine your husband is killed and you have to deal with the financial repercussions of that, especially if he was the breadwinner. I realize that plaintiff bashing is good times for some people but it really bothers me when people suggest it's futile to bring an action because it doesn't bring the loved one back. Um, obviously, but that's not the point.
29 Jan 2012 8:52 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
Were any of the victims married? If so I can see a legitimate complaint from loss of wages. But isn't that what life insurance is for? And while I think it's sad that these family members suffered tremendous devastation and probably had to miss work, it's the same for all victims of crime. I believe in Canada there is victim's compensation funds you can apply for. But could you imagine if all victims of crimes started suing and going after the family member of the perpetrators just because the convicted person didn't have enough money for them? It wouldn't be a good thing at all.
I'm not really bashing the plaintiffs at all, I just don't understand the desire for a civil suit especially suing a women that is a victim herself. She didn't commit the crimes and is already suffering having been married to this psycho. I'd probably respect the situation more if the wife was left out of it. It's really not something I'd do and so I question the motivation behind it. That being said, they clearly have the right to sue but I hope his wife doesn't have to be further victimized to satisfy other victims.
29 Jan 2012 9:18 PM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
She not being sued as an independent actor. She is being sued for whatever may be in her hands as a result of improper transfers. The courts follow the law, obviously, so no one is going to get some kind of inappropriate windfall. And no, life insurance doesn't always compensate adequately for the victim and their families' losses, nor would it compensate for lost time from work or the need for counselling or whatever. One's marital status is hardly relevant; a parent could sue for the death of a child, for example. The law isn't a total [censored] in this respect. There is nothing so far suggesting that these suits are an abuse of process.
30 Jan 2012 3:30 AM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
You can obviously have an opinion but you said she shouldn't be sued. Nothing about how the courts will figure it out, just a bald statement about what victims of crime should and should not do and subsequently you threw some things out there about marital status and life insurance. Your opinion also appears based on an incorrect understanding of what she is being sued for, which, again, is for receiving funds improperly. If it helps, a good comparison can found in the insolvency context where courts unwind transfers all the time. Think Madoff.
Eta I would be happy to give more info on ON law but don't get the question. Certain assets are considered net family property subject to equitable division on divorce but that does not mean a married person is untouchable in the case of a lawsuit. Obviously you'd otherwise never be able to bring a claim against a married person as none of their assets could be reached by judgment credits including plaintiffs, tax authorities, etc. I don't think WA law would be set up that way either.
30 Jan 2012 7:54 AM
30 Sep 2006
LF4e
Devotee
2,482
They didn't sell their house. Their $700,000+ home in Ottawa was transferred to her name after he was charged, along with several other assets. Also, she was not a "stay at home wife" as someone mentioned above....she is an Executive Director of a major charity group - in a paid position.
She is named in (at least) 4 different lawsuits: Laurie Massicotte (break in/sexual assault victim in Tweed), "Jane Doe" (1st break in/sexual assault victim in Tweed), Larry and Bonnie Jones (neighbours in Tweed who believe he "set them up") and most recently, Roxanne and Andy Lloyd (mother and brother of 2nd murder victim). It is my understanding that Roxanne and Andy have sued for $4 million and MEH (Williams' wife) is only named on a portion of that amount.
30 Jan 2012 7:04 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
Honestly, I think you are being a tad argumentative in this instance MmeBruni. Of course the family has a legal right to sue but I think they shouldn't sue the wife. Just my opinion. The marital status was in response to your post about lost wages, which again in my opinion, is probably the only legitimate reason to claim loss of income due to your loved ones death. The life insurance bit was to show there are other ways to recuperate money due to a loved ones death. Loss of wages due to emotional trauma can be recuperated through the victim funds that are available to Canadians who are victims of crimes. I'm not a fan of suing generally but I'll never tell people they can't, just that I wish they wouldn't in situations like this. I've never claimed I'm right and you are wrong. These thoughts are just my opinion on the matter. I truly feel it's in poor taste for the family to sue the wife despite their right to do so. I hope they are not successful because I think it will further victimize the wife and it won't bring back their loved one. Surely I am allowed to comment on this news piece sharing my viewpoints without solely stating facts? I also didn't ask a question about ON law but I do think who the assets belong to is relevant and I'm sure that will be examined in court. I don't think its fair that a spouse should suffer because their spouse committed a crime and I don't think its fair that an innocent person can be sued. Those are my viewpoints and I'm ok with them.
31 Jan 2012 12:49 AM
11 Apr 2009
Edmonton AB
caserulzall
Fan
846
Agree with Siiera
31 Oct 2012 11:59 PM
30 Apr 2012
buzzle.ca
buzzle
New Member
0
For more discussion like this or to reconnect with weddingbells.ca forum members, check out the forums at buzzle.ca!
31 Jan 2012 3:16 AM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
If she received an improper transfer she would not be "innocent." Again, not because she knew or participated in his actions but because she is holding assets that should be reachable by plaintiffs. You are obviously entitled to opinions but if your opinions are based on misguided understandings of the facts or relevant legal considerations then, yeah, I will have something to say about that.
31 Jan 2012 2:59 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
I clearly stated that this is something the court system will decide on. I don't know 100% for sure that she received an improper transfer or is withholding assets but then again neither do you. And that's part of the reason I was wondering about ON law, because I know in WA state regardless of whose name assets are under, they belong to both people in the marriage. If that's the case in Ontario, the assets were hers from the start and since she did not commit any crimes she shouldn't be sued.
Despite all of this, it still doesn't change my opinion that's its pretty low of them to sue his wife.
Speaking about suing offenders in general, most of them are broke. So if this practice becomes more common, it will result in only 'rich' or well off offenders being sued whereas the majority of offenders would escape this added consequence. The victims of their crimes would have to turn to victim compensation funds whereas the victims of offenders who have money 'lucked' out because now they can benefit financially from being a victim. It just doesn't sit well with me. They too should turn to victim compensation funds.
31 Jan 2012 6:23 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
I'm not sure what you are confused about? The first part you bolded has to do with WA law as conveyed to me by a lawyer, the second part was questioning whether or not the law is similar in Ontario?
So, if the law is the same in both WA and ON then its moot point when he transferred the assets because the assets belong equally to both spouses regardless of whose name its in. Essentially, it prevents a spouse planning a divorce from putting all their marital assets in his/her name to avoid splitting them 50-50. I'm not sure though what the law is in ON but the courts will adhere to it in the civil trial.
I also never said she cannot be sued. Not once. I've stated time and time again that it is just my opinion that suing her is in bad taste since she is a victim. And I think it's unfair that she should have to pay for his crimes. He's in prison now and so she should get all the assets, just as if she would if he died (given there was a proper will in place). But again, just my opinion and it is up to the courts to decide.
31 Jan 2012 11:29 PM
5 Jun 2005
Vancouver, BC
sparklish
Postaholic
8,663
They are suing his wife because they allege that the transfer of all his assets to her was done suspiciously.
There are laws that protect people from putting all their assets into another person's name and doing off with them. If that were permitted, everyone would just transfer money to shell corporations or to their spouses and say "Whoops! No money! Can't sue me! Sorry!" If part of those assets were genuinely hers, that's fine - a court will determine that. But if they don't name the wife, they have no chance of recovering from someone who is in jail and who will be FOREVER, and as such has no hope of ever earning anything.
So to people who are saying that if your husband was convicted of some horrific offence, you'd take all your collective money and run, you can't do that. If you ever needed to sue someone, you would understand why.
Usually when people transfer assets like a home, they do so through a lawyer, and if so she hopefully she got some advice which said "Hey, this could be a bad idea if your husband ever gets sued." So I doubt this suit came as a total surprise to her.
Whether the loss of a daughter and child can ever be quantified through money is another question.
1 Feb 2012 4:05 AM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
Funny that tweet's two line answer above actually answered (or should have answered) the question (even if sparklish's and mine didn't!).
1 Feb 2012 5:56 AM
5 Feb 2006
ottawa
chip22
Devotee
1,477
As for her knowing. She lived in Ottawa while he lived a good part of his time in Trenton (as someone else said I believe he came back to Ottawa on days off). That's a 3 hour drive. While in Trenton I believe he lived at their cottage. It would be VERY easy for her to not suspect a thing.
1 Feb 2012 10:00 AM
11 Nov 2008
Ottawa
tweet
Addict
4,254
Sure he could be entitled all he wants, it doesn't mean they're still in his name and that he didn't sign them over. Hence the need to sue the wife to ensure any assets he did have which were wrongfully given to her are received.
1 Feb 2012 10:09 AM
13 Jun 2005
Toronto, ON
aw2006
Addict
3,822
I don't think the wife knew anything of his crimes.
I do think that the transfer of title etc were not on the up and up and for that she may not be squeaky clean.
They were not divorced (that I am aware of) at the time of the transfer of assets.
I think that the victims should be able to go after the assets that the wife holds if it can be proved that the transfers were not legal. The wife should have been informed or asked questions to ensure that the assets would actually be untouchable at the time that the transfer took place. If she didn't do that or was informed and did it anyway, then she is culpable.
1 Feb 2012 11:07 AM
30 Sep 2006
LF4e
Devotee
2,482
They are not yet divorced. They are in the process of divorcing.
As for his being broke as someone mentioned, he is still getting his pension.
The property transfer took place in March 2010, after he was charged, but before he was convicted.
1 Feb 2012 1:23 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
MmeBruni, I get the sense you are trying to one up me for some strange reason when I'm just having a conversation but I could be wrong. At first I wasn't asking about ON but as the discussion continued I did especially after tweet was confused about what I said about WA. Not sure what's wrong with that? From what I've read of your posts it wasn't clear to me that you previously explained things otherwise I wouldn't have directly asked.
From what was explained to me by an estate lawyer, a spouse in WA state cannot wrongfully transfer 50% of their share of the marital estate to the other spouse because it doesn't matter whose name the assets are under. Even if my DH tried to give me all of our assets and put them in my name, they are still his assets and he's entitled to 50%. Sounds like that's the case in Ontario from what has been posted.
So if that is the case in Ontario, why are the families suing the wife solely? Shouldn't they be suing him considering the assets would still equally be his regardless of whether they are in her name solely.
Now for the actual case, does anyone know the following facts:
Who transfered the funds, the wife or him? I've read two different claims in the same thread. BabyOne2010 claims 'she just ran off with all his assets', which legally I don't think can happen correct?
Does anyone know when the funds were transfered?
Can it be proven they were transfered maliciously to avoid being sued? Could they predict he would have been convicted and ultimately sued?
Are they currently divorced? If that's the case, then it makes me even more adament that the assets are solely hers now and that suing her is low. Presumably at the time of divorce, the assets were distributed legaly to both parties and any debt would have been taken care of. If he doesn't have anymore assets then so be it and the victims families are out of luck since he's broke. That's the case for the majority of victims since offenders are usually poor. Suing her is just wrong imo. If people need money for counseling, lost wages ect. they can turn to victim compesensation funds available to them.
1 Feb 2012 2:19 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
BabyOne2010, she wouldn't be eligible for victim compensation funds because she wasn't a victim of a crime despite being a victim of the situation nonetheless.
If they are being jointly sued then they didn't get to decide everything is now hers correct, especially since the law ensures that regardless of whose name the assets are under, both spouses are entitled to 50% equally.
It is a different story if the family is suing him for access to the 50% of assets that he's entitled to. It was my understanding they were suing her solely because he was broke. That is what was claimed by several different people in this thread. However, they should only be able to sue for his portion of the assets and not hers. And he does still have income through his pension.
What I would like to know is why it actually matters that the assets were transfered in March 2010 if it doesn't matter whose name they are under? Like I said, if this couple lived in WA and did the same thing it would be irrelevant that they transfered funds after the husband was charged because he could still be sued.
1 Feb 2012 4:29 PM
11 Feb 2007
MmeBruni
Addict
3,947
"One up" you? I guess if that's how you would characterize me plus four people (including two others lawyers) repeatedly answering the questions you keep asking? *confused* As far as I can see, your question has been answered several times over. There's certainly nothing more I can contribute on this point, so no danger of your being upped.
1 Feb 2012 5:13 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
My bad, I guess I misinterpreted the tone of your post (not four other people's) questioning why I wanted clarification on the Ontario law as if that's somehow a bad thing. I didn't think it was necessary or relevant to the conversation to point out that I was now asking for clarification. I didn't think your previous posts were clear on that despite the fact you think they were. I don't ask questions when I know the answer. Also, I'm not sure about you but I don't keep track of everyone's careers. How am I supposed to know several lawyers responded to my questions??? What posters are lawyers?
1 Feb 2012 6:16 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
Despite the assets not being under his name right now, they are still his. Transfering them doesn't change that. Divorce would though depending on what was agreed upon by both parties.
As for the rest, I don't know what else to say to you. I shared my views with you on how I feel about suing the wife. It's how I feel and it's not changing. It doesn't mean I don't sympathise with his victims, it's just that I don't think further victimizing her would make a difference. And I don't think they should get to recoup money from the wife who did nothing.
If that happened to you, would you be happy to be sued and to part with half of what you thought was rightfully your money and what you counted on to retire with, what you counted on to give your kids? You can't honestly say you would be ok with that. Remember she wasn't planning on a divorce because she didn't know what she was married to. And lets be honest, no one perceives the funds they have in their marriage as 50-50. You see it as a shared pot and it is and so that is what I mean by it was her money (legalities aside).
I'm also quite sure her thoughts are with the victims and their families but that wouldn't negate her thinking about her own future and putting her life back together. Should she not seek happyness now? Should all the dreams she had be taken from her? You can dislike that I say you can't replace a human life but that fact plays a big role in my views on things. I don't think taking the wife to the cleaners and victimizing her will right the wrongs that are done. I see her as a victim too and I don't think one person's suffering takes priority over another or that one person is a more deserving victim. This line of reasoning also helps explain why I'm morally opposed to the death penalty. You can't seek justice for murder by committing murder.
This is really an issue where we won't agree because we see things differently and I also don't think there is a right and wrong way to view the situation.
So with that, I agree to disagree with you.
1 Feb 2012 10:15 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
Tweet, that's not what I'm agreeing to disagree with. Again you are confusing what I'm saying. I'm agreeing to disagree with the moral issues of suing a victim LEGALITIES ASIDE. I've made that pretty clear. The legal aspect is up to the courts. I've never said that she isn't being sued legally. Not all lawsuits are allowed and many are denied as frivolous so obviously if that were the case there wouldn't be a lawsuit. I just don't think its right to sue her and there is certainly no factual answer to this since it is my opinion which everyone is entitled to have on public matters like this.
And nope not everyone has been saying what you quoted of BabyOne2010. This is the first time the idea that civil court does not view marital assets the same as family law has come up and it was posted after my last post. And I'm not sure if that's correct? Somehow the laws that govern marital assets are moot because it is a civil process?
BabyOne2010, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. I'm not changing my view on whether she should be sued and the fact I think its in poor taste. Those are my views and I'm good with them. So you can continue to tear apart and question my posts after I go out of my way to try and answer your question why I feel that way but it won't get you anywhere. For instance, the death penalty thing was an analogy, to explain the notion that further victimizing one person (suing the wife) doesn't fix the initial wrong. I'm sorry you don't understand that. I didn't claim my analogy had anything to do with your views on the death penalty. Where you got that is beyond me??
These two points though I feel the need to comment on because I think they are factually wrong.
2 Feb 2012 2:29 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
BabyOne2010, I think you are speculating what the motives are behind the lawsuit. You don't truly know, none of us do. As bad as it would to think and I'm not saying it is the case, they could be opportunitistic and motivated by greed. We simply don't know why they are suing.
Also, do you know if she transfered the assets solely in her name on her own? I wasn't aware that this was legaly possible. I'm sure he had to sign off on it as well. You say you wouldn't do that but I think unless you are in her position you don't know. I think it is only natural and rational for people to want to protect their earnings and assets from being sued and I certainly don't fault someone for doing so.
2 Feb 2012 3:18 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
ayz75, I agree with you. I was just speculating that we don't know always know the motives of why people sue as BabyOne2010 seemed to imply she knew. Heck, they could be suing because they have a grudge against the wife believing she should have knew.
BabyOne, of course they would say they were suing for emotional suffering. As if they would say, 'hey I'm just greedy or I hate the wife'. What they claim and what they feel could be completely different.
2 Feb 2012 3:42 PM
13 Aug 2002
Toronto
FriendsFirst
Queen of the Forum
28,628
Totally non-contributory post...
2 Feb 2012 4:30 PM
13 May 2006
Vancouver
vanskier
Devotee
2,064
I think this is the statute everyone's looking for:
Fraudulent Conveyance Act (Ontario) Both parties to the alleged fraudulent conveyance have to be named as parties to the action.
The end.
2 Feb 2012 4:31 PM
13 May 2006
Vancouver
vanskier
Devotee
2,064
P.S. I luv French cakes.
2 Feb 2012 9:30 PM
8 Jun 2009
Siiera
Postaholic
7,579
Why bother coming back and reading then if you are done with it?
For the record, I'm not against all lawsuits. Never said that, so enjoy the ridicule at my expense. It gets a little ridiculous when posters can't accept that others have differing opinions and so dissect a person's post for the fun of it. Or wait, was I doing that?
BabyOne, we disagree on this particular case and that's fine by me. You can have the last word, I didn't bother reading your last post.
31 Oct 2012 11:59 PM
30 Apr 2012
buzzle.ca
buzzle
New Member
0
For more discussion like this or to reconnect with weddingbells.ca forum members, check out the forums at buzzle.ca!