Podcast: Pre-nuptial Agreements for a Second Marriage

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+1.6kShare on LinkedIn0Email this to someone

In this transcribed interview with Dale Goldhawk of Zoomer Radio AM740 in Toronto, family and divorce lawyer Lorne Fine of Fine & Associates Professional Corporation discusses pre-nuptial agreements for a second marriage. Read the interview below, or listen to the podcast at the bottom of the page.

Goldhawk Fights Back Podcast: Recorded March 18, 2013

Interviewer:  19 minutes after 12:00, Eastern Daylight Time, right? I’m just used to this. I’m coming back in to Eastern Daylight Time. I was a few hours away out of that. Lorne Fine is in the studio. He’s our “Goldhawk Fights Back” family lawyer, very nice to see you again, Lorne.

Lorne: Thank you for having me.

Interviewer: The focus at the beginning of our discussion, anyway, is going to be marriage number two?

Lorne: Number two, number three, and maybe more than two.

Interviewer:  Or just another marriage, right, after the first one?

Lorne: Another marriage or another relationship after the first marriage.

Interviewer:   Well, because even a relationship can have with it, certain legal responsibilities, right?

Lorne: Correct.

Interviewer: But what, in particular, should one be thinking about? I mean, you’re thinking of love the second time around and all that sort of thing? Or third time or whatever. There are legal things that you should be thinking about as well, should you not?

Lorne:  Well, absolutely. Last time I was here, we talked about marriage contracts and cohabitation agreements. So, if I had to say anything to your audience. If you’re thinking about having a second relationship, a second marriage, seriously think about a marriage contract, a cohabitation agreement. You’ve gone through one marriage and I’m sure there was some division of assets, support, whatever. A marriage contract, cohabitation agreement, will greatly assist you in your second relationship in the event of a breakdown of the relationship.

Interviewer:  Whether it’s a marriage or not, is that what you’re saying?

Lorne:  Well, let’s say you live with somebody and it’s for an extended duration. If it’s over three years, then you’re common-law. Then you’re a common-law couple and your common-law spouse has certain rights, as well. So, an agreement will set out what your rights and obligations are during the course of a relationship. And the agreement will also set out what happens in the event of a breakdown of the relationship. So, it’s important, I think, to consider that before you go into a second relationship.

Interviewer: So, do people who are about to get married for a second time or more, do they come to you for advice about that? I guess they do.

Lorne:  They do. Frequently they do.

Interviewer:  Before something goes wrong is what I’m thinking.

Lorne:  Well, I have one person, one client I’m thinking about who I acted for him on the first divorce. He then got married, acted second divorce. And then he called me and he said “Wish me congratulations. I’m getting married again.”

I said “Have a marriage contract. You’ve already gone through two marriages.”

Interviewer:  Without a marriage contract?

Lorne: He didn’t have a marriage contract. But he was getting married. I convinced him “Let’s have a marriage contract.”

Interviewer:   He’s doing it all for love?

Lorne: He’s a hopeless romantic, yes.

Interviewer: But he’s also probably lost more than the occasional process, I would think.

Lorne: It cost him some money.

Interviewer:  It’s still going to have so-called “cost” money when you divorce. In fact, I know of couples who are together because they can’t afford to get divorced. Either one of them, so certainly, those things exist, don’t they? It’s always going to cost.

Lorne:  There’s always a financial aspect of the relationship. If there’s property, if there’s kids involved, if there’s spousal support involved, there’s going to be financial aspects. Very seldom is there not some type of financial aspects involved in a breakdown.

Interviewer: Well, if you’re into it for a second time or more, there’s also going to be kids on both sides you’re going to have to take into consideration, I’m [inaudible 00:04:04].

Lorne:  Right. The problem is and it’s very important for people to recognize is that there’s a concept called “loco parentis”; which means you stand as if you are the biological father of the child. So, let’s say you’re going into your second relationship and your partner has kids from the first marriage, say young kids from the first marriage. And these kids are living with your partner. And you then start a relationship with this person. These kids will be treated by the courts as if they are your biological kids. As if you have an obligation to support these kids. If your relationship extends for a certain duration, let’s say you’re together for five years, eight years, ten years, whatever. These kids treat you as a so-called “dad.”

Then the courts could say that you are loco parentis to these children and you have an obligation to pay child support to these kids. Not withstanding that they’re not your biological children. So, it’s a really significant obligation.

And no matter what you say in an agreement. You can say in an agreement “We don’t intend to treat these children as a biological child.” But regardless with what you say in an agreement–

Interviewer:  But you can say that and be contested on it later, couldn’t you?

Lorne: No matter what you say about the kids, a court could always oversee it and overturn it. So, the loco parentis obligation is a very big obligation. And there’s really nothing you can do to prevent it.

If there’s kids involved in the relationship, there’s an exposure for child support. And that’s just the way it goes.

Interviewer:   Imagine for a moment that you’re getting married for a third time and you’ve got kids at every stage. Or the other person is coming to you, having been married two other times. It can get pretty complicated.

Lorne:  It can get complicated. Yes. I have a case where I act for the second father. And when I say the “second father,” the second partner. He was with his partner for a long time, so the child was very young when they started the relationship.

So, there was him, who had a support obligation, my client. There was the biological father. He had a support obligation. So, the mother could get support from both parties, from both the biological father and the stepfather.

Interviewer:  You often hear people who get married and they adopt each other’s kids. Does that happen? How does that figure in to what you’re saying?

Lorne: That’s just–

Interviewer:  Overkill? I guess, in a way, you could say that.

Lorne: People want to make a [inaudible 00:06:45] expression to society.

Interviewer:  And to the kids, maybe, as well, right?

Lorne: To the kids and to the partner, that’s right. “I am your biological father. It’s as if I am your biological father. I love you so much, I want you to be my child.”

Interviewer:  Even though loco parentis would dictate that if it got into a court of law anyway, a family court.

Lorne:  Right. Even if they’re loco parentis, yes. Some people just want some type of declaration that they are, as if they’re the biological father.

Interviewer:  Because when you have marriage breakup situations, it always seems to me in many cases that I have known of that happen to other people that we have known, the kids always wind up, I think, being somewhat disadvantaged by what’s going on. It’s tough, tough for kids.

Lorne:  It is tough for kids. I think it’s important for your listeners to also be aware that if there is going to be a breakdown of the relationship and a second relationship, be child-focused. Think about the kids. I think the kids need both parents, both biological parents. And it’s important for, I think kids can be mixed up and stressed when there is a severing of a relationship, when they don’t see their biological father as often as they should. Or they don’t see their biological mother as often as they should. Kids benefit from a relationship with both parents.

Interviewer: And because these things are these marriage breakups. And divorce, of course, is so emotion-ridden. I’ve talked to at least one family court judge who says he is asked from time to time to do the near-impossible and decide what should happen to the kids, what should happen here, what should happen there. Because the whole jumble comes to him and it’s his decision. He has to make the determination based on what he’s hearing.

Lorne:  It’s not easy being a judge. You’ll have conflicting affidavits. It’s difficult for a judge to determine who’s telling the truth. In a lot of instances, a judge will get a third objective party to investigate. There’s an organization called the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, which can investigate and report to the court what truly is going on, what’s in the best interest of the kids. It’s not easy being a judge. But they try their best with what they have. Some courts are very busy. Some courts are very overworked. In particular, I’m thinking Newmarket, which is York region. It’s just so busy. Toronto is not so busy.

Interviewer:  Really? What accounts for that, I wonder.

Lorne:  I think a lot of people are doing mediation arbitration in Toronto. They’re opting of the court system, trying to mediate things instead of litigating things. So, Toronto, in comparison to Newmarket court, is a lot less busy. A lot fewer cases.

Interviewer:   With due respect to legal fees, there is a lot of money involved. A lot of lawyers’ time goes into some of these cases.

Lorne: Absolutely. If a matter is litigated, it’s going to cost much more. It’s going to cost much more than if it’s negotiated. With mediation/arbitration, people try to amicably come to some type of resolution with the assistance of a mediator and try to narrow the issues. When you go to court, there’s affidavits, there’s letters, there’s numerous court appearances. It can get costly.

Interviewer: And even if you did go to all the care, say, with going into a second marriage and getting together a prenuptial agreement and dotting all the I’s and crossing all the T’s. Later, that can be contested. It’s not chiseled in total stone, is it?

Lorne: It is not chiseled in stone, no. It’s not written in stone.

Interviewer:  It’s a precaution. But it may not be the guarantee you think it is.

Lorne: It has to be done properly. Everybody should have a lawyer. There should be full financial disclosure. Everybody should know what they’re negotiating about. And it should be done in a reasonable manner, not rushed. Not the day before the wedding.

Interviewer:  I would think not. “Let’s see, I’ve got to go pick up the tux. I’ve got to get the prenuptial agreement.” Yeah, right, you don’t want to do that.

Lorne: And that happens.

Interviewer: Really? “You’re getting married this afternoon, could you draw me up one”?

Lorne: I never got “This afternoon,” but I get “Next month.” “I’m getting married next month. Can I bring my wife in? We’re just going to sign an agreement, we’ll do it in your office together.” You can’t do it together in my office. It’s not going to happen. All the time.

Interviewer:  What’s the sector of the legal profession now that covers divorce? Is it a family lawyer? Does a family lawyer do divorce? Or does a so-called “divorce lawyer” do something else? Or it’s part of the same thing, really, isn’t it?

Lorne: Well, a divorce just means you didn’t get remarried. But there’s a divorce act, there’s a family law act. I’m a family divorce lawyer. I deal with family law.

Interviewer:  Okay. So you handle both those acts?

Lorne: Yeah. I deal with family/matrimonial issues. And there is some people, I just do that and there are lots of lawyers that just do that. And there’s some lawyers that dabble in different areas. Some lawyers may do family and criminal with maybe real estate. I just concentrate in that area of law.

Interviewer:  In other words, you’ve got to be careful if you’re in the market for some of these services to get the right kind of person in the beginning and you have those opening conversations to narrow in in terms of what you think you need from a lawyer.

Lorne:  Absolutely. It’s best to get a lawyer who concentrates in the field. Speak to people you know about referrals. People who have had experience. Investigate, interview lawyers. Call up a lawyer, see if you have a good rapport with your lawyer.

Interviewer: Yeah. You might be the world’s best lawyer and you don’t like the guy. Or the lawyer doesn’t like you.

Lorne: It happens sometimes. You want to have a good relationship with your clients and you want to like your lawyer, right?

Interviewer:   Lorne, you want to like your lawyer, right? Okay.

Lorne:  You’ve got to get along with them, right?

Interviewer:  Certainly, you do. If you can’t get along with them, you’re not going to be able to get through the legal issues that need to be gotten through. Lorne Fine is here. He is the “Goldhawk Fights Back” family lawyer. If you have a question about this area, give us a call, (416) 360-0740 or 866-740-4740. Okay, we’re back with Lorne Fine, the “Goldhawk Fights Back” family lawyer. We’ve got some questions here, let’s get right to them. Dave is on cell phone. Dave, do you have a question for Lorne Fine?

Dave:   Yes, I do. I have a question in regards to access. I heard him say earlier that he likes to see parents have equal time with a child. And I’m just wondering if both parents are able to have the child, let’s say, 50 percent of the time. Is that something the courts are leading more towards?

Lorne:  Well, if you can demonstrate to the court that it’s in the best interest of the child to be with both parents in a shared custody relationship, that means equal time with both parents. Then the court is going to do what’s in the best interest of the kids. The courts are leaning more and more towards some type of joint custody type of relationship, as opposed to a sole custody relationship. If you can demonstrate to the court that you’re an actively involved parent, that it’s in the best interest of the kid to be with you as often as possible as much as the other parent, then yeah, there’s a good argument.

Dave: Okay. So, kind of gone are the days where mom always got the kids and they lived with mom and dad kind of got a weekend here and there.

Lorne:  No, no. You’re right. It’s the courts moving away from that. Away from rubber stamping mom has custody.

Interviewer:  But it doesn’t mean those things can’t be argued in court, because they could be, couldn’t they?

Lorne:  Of course, it can still be argued. There’s no presumption, necessarily, for joint custody. There’s a presumption that both parents are good parents. But you have to demonstrate to the court that the child’s best interest is served by a shared parenting relationship.

Dave: Okay. Great, thank you very much.

Interviewer: All right, Dave. Thanks a lot. I guess that answered Dave’s questions. It would depend, I guess, on how strenuously, if it happened to be the wife arguing for total custody of the kids and the husband was arguing for shared custody. I mean, those are diametrically opposed. But, then again, court is an adversarial situation. So, that’s where it gets settled, right?

Lorne: The court presumes that both parents are loving parents and caring parents. And neither side is necessarily favored. But you have to put forth the argument to the court as to why shared custody is in of the best interest of the kid. Why sole custody is the best interest of the child; through affidavit evidence or other evidence. And a court is going to do what is in the best interest of the kid.

Interviewer:  But as you told Dave, it’s more and more towards, the shared custody seems to be an idea a little more common these days.

Dave:  It’s becoming more and more common.

Interviewer:  Okay. (416) 360-0740 or 866-740-4740 if you have a question about divorce, about a prenuptial agreement, about other family court issues, that’s really what we’re dealing with today. Lorne Fine is here and standing by. Here’s Maria. Maria, do you have a question for Lorne Fine?

Maria:  Yeah. Hi, thank you for taking my call. I just want to ask Lorne, my partner and I, we’ve been together for more than nine years. The kids are grown, he’s divorced previously and I’m divorced as well. We have two kids each, so there’s four kids in total. So, they’re all over 20 years old. Do we need a cohabitation agreement if the house that we bought, it’s both in our name. So, we don’t have kids together. I’m thinking, hello?

Lorne:  We’re here. We’re listening.

Maria:  Do I need a cohabitation agreement if we already have the house in both our names? We don’t have kids together, so what do you think?

Lorne:  You’re still together now? You’re together for nine years?

Maria:   Still together.

Lorne:  And you’re thinking now whether you should have some type of marriage contract?

Maria:  Is it necessary for us? We are in our 50’s and we’ve been together for a long time. Is there a need for cohabitation? We’re not young people anymore. The only thing we own in common is the house and both of our names are on the property title. So, maybe in that case, it’s okay not to have a cohabitation agreement? Is that what you would agree?

Lorne: Are there other assets besides the house? Is there a pension or anything like that involved?

Maria:   I guess when he retires, when I retire.

Lorne: Do you have a pension?

Maria:   No, actually, I don’t. But I had a small pension when I used to work with the government. And he is the beneficiary. But it’s a small one.

Lorne:  Does he have a pension?

Maria:  He’s self-employed, so I’m not sure if he has a pension.

Lorne:  Okay, so he has a business?

Maria:  Yeah. He’s a self-employed person.

Lorne:  Well, let’s say you separated. The business would be an asset that he would have to value. And you would have an interest in that business. The house is jointly owned, so you both have an equal interest in the house. But a marriage contract would serve to protect assets in the event of a separation. So, if he wanted to protect his business from you, then he would want a marriage contract. But it doesn’t seem to me that from what you’re telling me, that there’s much besides this jointly-owned house and this business.

Maria:  Yeah, that’s all we have. I’m not a money-grabbing person. His business, he works hard for it, he’s doing it now, we’re together. But he pays the mortgage and everything. So, I don’t think I want to make a claim because that’s his thing. That’s his job.

Lorne:  So, you both bought the house together?

Maria:  Yes, both together. We put a down payment. But he put more of a down payment than me. But actually, right now, he’s also paying the mortgage. He doesn’t mind because I pay the other smaller things.

Lorne: It would seem to me that he’s the one that would probably want a marriage contract because he has a business. He brought more money into the relationship. He put more money into the house. So, he’s probably the one that would want a marriage contract in the event of a separation to protect his assets.

Maria:   But he doesn’t want to get married, that’s the problem.

Interviewer:  Maria, I’m not a lawyer, so let me ask you this question. Is your main concern that if you broke up, you wouldn’t get half the house?

Maria:  I think I’m quite sure I would get half because my name is on the [inaudible 00:20:35].

Lorne: It’s jointly-owned.

Interviewer:   That would be fine, that wouldn’t be the problem?

Maria: No. But I’m thinking, is it necessary to do a cohabitation agreement when we’ve been together so long and we’re older people and we don’t have kids together?

Lorne:  No; a cohabitation only serves the purpose of protecting assets in the event of a separation. So, like I said, your spouse has a business that he may want to protect in the event that you separate. You don’t need it, it’s not mandatory. But it’s recommended if you want to protect your assets. It doesn’t sound like there’s any assets you want to protect. It’s more your spouse seems like he has assets.

Maria:   No, he has more assets than me.

Interviewer: Okay, Maria. Thanks very much. Can you stick around for a few minutes, I’ve still got calls here. And let me remind everybody of the number if you have a question about family law, about divorce, those kinds of issues. Lorne Fine is here, (416) 360-0740 or 866-740-4740. The”Goldhawk Fights Back” family lawyer Lorne Fine is here, answering all of your questions. And here is Harvey from Ridgeway. Harvey, what’s your question?

Harvey: My question has to do with the role of pension payments in a divorce case where a settlement was reached maybe 20 years ago with a lump sum payment. But the judge also gave the ex-spouse half the pension, what happens to be an Ontario government pension. $100,000 later, I’m in the sewer with no assets, no income. And she’s doing well, thank you.

Lorne: Okay, I don’t really understand the question.

Harvey: The question is, what chance have you got of getting her off the pension and getting some of your money back. Custody was never an issue with the children. I had the custody.

Lorne:  Okay, so you had a settlement 20 years ago?

Harvey:  Yeah. I get off the alimony because I lost my job and my income dropped drastically.

Lorne:  Okay, so the judge divided the pension? Is that what happened?

Harvey: That’s right.

Lorne:  And your spouse got $100,000 from your pension?

Harvey: Over the last 20 years.

Interviewer: Over time, she did.

Lorne: Over time? Okay. And are you still in receipt of pension income?

Harvey:  Yes.

Lorne: Okay. And you want to set aside the settlement?

Harvey:  Yes.

Lorne:  I think it would be very difficult to set aside a settlement that’s 20 years old, unless you can prove there was some type of misrepresentation or something that was done.

Harvey: The fact of the cash settlement wasn’t a surprise, it was an offer. But when I got the papers back, I saw what the judge had done. What a lot of judges did in those days was give the person half the pension. But you don’t know how long a pension is going to last. A guy could walk out of the courtroom and get killed. Or he could be around for 100 years.

Lorne: You’re right. Back then, the value of the pension, as of the date of separation. And the judge would have factored the value of the pension into your net family property or into your assets. I don’t know if he necessarily took half the pension in its entirety. Maybe as of that time, it was what half the pension was.

Harvey: Well, it’s graded, so if the pension goes up, which it does moderately, she still gets half.

Lorne:  Okay. I think what you have to do is go see a lawyer, bring in all your papers. It doesn’t sound to me from what you’re saying that it seems like there was either a settlement or there was an offer and acceptance. I don’t think there is a strong argument to set it aside. But I think you need to speak to a lawyer.

Harvey: Well, the Supreme Court apparently hasn’t decided otherwise that it’s double-dipping.

Interviewer:  Now, we’re getting it, all right. Okay.

Lorne:  Now, you’re talking about that you’re paying spousal support and a pension division? But the spousal support ended.

Harvey: The spousal support ended with a cash settlement. But the pension continued.

Interviewer:  Harvey, I think this is going to be very hard to do on the radio.

Lorne: It’s complicated. This is a complicated situation. Go to a lawyer, take all your documentation, review it with a lawyer. And see if you have an argument. Thank you very much.

Interviewer: Okay. It doesn’t mean necessarily just because it’s 20 years ago, that it could not be brought up again, I guess. Is there anything that would stop that?

Lorne:  Well, he’d have to show that something just happened. So, there’s the delay issue.

Interviewer:  He couldn’t just be arguing the same old thing again. It would be tough.

Lorne: No, no, no. Something just all of a sudden happened that made him realize that it was an unconscionable resolution for something like that.

Interviewer: All right. John is on the line from Oakville. John, do you have a question?

John:  It’s not so much a question as it is a comment for Mr. Fine. I have found, through personal experience and also through many people that I have met, that men today are still, the presumption of guilt occurs well before the presumption of innocence. I went through a scenario where I had 19 court appearances and 13 separate police occurrences where I was accused of everything. And at the end of all of it, after being investigated multiple times by multiple authorities, it was found that my former partner had basically fabricated everything.

Interviewer:  These are allegations of abuse against yourself, right?

John: That is correct. And you are immediately removed from your home. And in some cases, you are immediately removed from your child or children. And when it is all proven to be false, the courts do not have any consequences for the party who accused falsely. And I’d like to know why that is.

Interviewer:  All right. That’s an awfully big question, but John, thanks very much for posing it. What, generally, can you say about that kind of situation, Lorne Fine?

Lorne:  Well, I think that this individual’s experiences are quite unfortunate. That’s a lot of court appearances. If there is an allegation of an assault and the police are involved, the police are, in most instances, going to take a very cautious approach and remove somebody from the house. The courts are becoming more and more aware of people using the police in an effort to gain a tactical advantage and they’re not tolerating it.

Interviewer:  So, that kind of abuse in itself of the process is being curtailed a bit, do you think?

Lorne:  Right. The judges are more and more aware of it. And they’re coming down on it.

Interviewer:  Maybe not then, but now.

Lorne:  Yeah. The courts are more and more aware of parental alienation. So, this individual has said he has not seen his child. It sounds to me like his ex was trying to alienate him from his child, get him out of the house. And the courts are moving to a place where they can even change custody. If they see that one partner is alienating the child from the other parent, it’s obviously not in the best interest of the child. There have been court cases where a judge has changed custody.

Interviewer:  Those custody things can change at any time, can they not? Following a good argument or at least an acceptable argument, whatever you can call it.

Lorne: The court has ultimate jurisdiction over anything in regards to the child. It can always be changed depending on what the best interest of the child is. But this situation sounds very unique, really unfortunate.

Interviewer: Although we’ve all heard those kinds of stories, have we not?

Lorne:  We have. It happens.

Interviewer: Here’s Joy-Lynn calling from Brampton. Joy-Lynn, what’s your question?

Joy-Lynn: I need to know, if you have a divorce that was in, what I should say [inaudible 00:28:57]. I had a divorce, my husband passed away and it was an incomplete divorce.

Interviewer:   He passed away during the divorce proceedings. Is that what you mean?

Joy-Lynn:  No. He was granted [inaudible 00:29:11] when he went out of the jurisdiction and got the judge to give him the divorce. But the equalization of the family assets was not done. Would that be considered an incomplete divorce?

Lorne: Okay, so, I’m trying to understand the question. Your partner died before the divorce was granted?

Joy-Lynn:  I don’t know. I did not get the papers saying that the divorce was granted because I was in hospital. But he went out of the jurisdiction, he and his lawyer and he was granted the first phase of the divorce. The equalization of the family assets was not done. The house was separate because we had to pay an [inaudible 00:29:52]. But is it too late?

Lorne: When did your husband die?

Joy-Lynn:  2003. And he sued me for money when he went with all the financial and the IRS fees and so on and the pension. I am not [inaudible 00:30:09] the pension because I was too sick to fight for myself. And then, he passed away in 2003. He sued me in 2002 for money, but the judge [inaudible 00:30:21].

Lorne: All right. So, he died before the property issues were resolved, is that it?

Joy-Lynn:   Only the house was resolved.

Lorne: Okay. And you have other property claims that weren’t resolved? Okay, so now I understand. So when someone dies, the surviving spouse, it’s as if they’ve separated. So, the surviving spouse has to elect to take under the will or by way of division of property. So, your property claims aren’t extinguished just because he died. But you would have to make a claim against the estate. I’m not sure, 2003 is a long time. I’m not sure why–

Joy-Lynn:  I’m sick and I’m still sick. But right now, because of my expenses with my medical expenses and so on, I feel like the judge has told me to go into the family court and file for the equalization of the family assets. So that I should get a part of his pension to–

Lorne:  You should go immediately to see a lawyer and explain your situation. And I would take steps to proceed with your property claims.

Joy-Lynn:  Okay.

Interviewer: Because under those kinds of circumstances, that would be quite feasible to do, right?

Lorne:  You could do it. It’s just, I’m concerned about the delay here. But if you have a valid reason, you said you weren’t well?

Joy-Lynn:  I’m still sick. I had surgery, I could not represent myself in court.

Lorne:  So, you should do it as soon as possible and don’t delay. Go see a lawyer.

Interviewer: Joy-Lynn, thanks very much. Boy, it just goes to show you, does it not, how complicated and convoluted some of these divorce proceedings can be. Because while you’re busy going through the process, life happens.

Lorne: Stuff happens.

Interviewer:   And you’ve got to be there as best you can to represent your clients.

Lorne:  It sounds like she had a really unfortunate situation. Her health got in the way. 10 years is a long delay. So, it’s a hurdle that she’s going to have to overcome. But she should seek legal assistance. Hard for her to do it by herself. She needs a lawyer to help her.

Interviewer:  Got to have a lawyer for those kinds of things, don’t you?

Lorne:  It’s complicated.

Interviewer:  Lorne Fine, thank you very much for being with us once again. I always enjoy your visits.

Lorne: My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Interviewer:  All right. Lorne Fine, he’s the “Goldhawk Fights Back” family lawyer.

Do You Need Help with Pre-nuptial Agreements in Toronto?

If you are looking for legal assistance with pre-nuptial agreements in Toronto, experienced Family Lawyers and Divorce Lawyers Fine & Associates can provide the personal and professional services you need. Contact us through the form at the right, or visit our contact page.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.