Sometimes, you just can’t win — like when you’re ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in spousal support.
And like when you’ve not been married to the recipient, lived with them, or shared any children.
Just ask Michael Latner — he should know.
As reported by the National Post, Michael dated List Climans for 14 years.
When they began, he was a divorced dad of three and she was a separated mom of two. Throughout their near-decade-and-a-half courtship, they resided in separate homes.
However, they’d stay over at one another’s places.
And they vacationed together as Michael — a reported multi-millionaire in Toronto — showered her with gifts.
One such nifty nugget: a 7.5-carat diamond ring.
Beyond that, List got lobbed “thousands of dollars each month (and) a credit card.”
He even paid off her mortgage.
Not bad work if you can get it, and she did — so she quit her job.
Even so, they never shared bank accounts or property, and they never had kids.
As noted by The Daily Wire, Michael did in fact propose — multiple times.
But his lover wasn’t lured, on account of the marriage contract he required her to sign.
Eventually, the pair went their separate ways.
However, List wanted something to remember him by — like a bunch of cash.
She went to court to gain legal recognition as his wife, at which point she could receive spousal support.
Michael argued the ambitious ex was his “travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more.”
After eight days of argument, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore ruled the duo had been wrapped up in wedded bliss — so Michael’d have to fork over $53,077 per month for…ever.
Or, as the Post put it, “indefinitely.”
On appeal, Mike was cut some slack: He’d only have to load List with lots of loot for a decade.
That’s $53,077 x 12 x 10 = $6,369,240.
Hey — that’s the same amount they spent here:
Except Steve Austin got to be snatched from death and transformed into a superhuman, whereas Michael just gets to not date a woman and give her lots of money after he dated a woman and gave her lots of money.
Potato, puh-tah-toe.
The Appel Court pointed out, “Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation. There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”
Here’s more from the Wire:
The higher court used Shore’s analysis and concluded she was correct that the couple was considered to have cohabitated even though they weren’t married, didn’t own a home together, and only stayed with each other for part of the year. The Appeal Court did determine that Shore erred when she determined that the couple met the threshold for indefinite spousal support, ruling that the couple didn’t start this “cohabitation” as early in the relationship as Shore ruled.
Poor Mike — he probably feels listless. Which, of course, he is.
But congratulations to Ms. Climans: For the next decade, she’ll get to be the Buy-onic Woman.
-ALEX
See more pieces from me:
Woman Tries to Frame Ex-Boyfriend by Supergluing Her Vagina, Accidentally Goes to Prison Instead
Woman Is Told She Can’t Vote Because of Her Shirt, So She Takes It Off
Man’s Penis Falls Off, Doctor Adds One to His Arm
Find all my RedState work here.
And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
