(Ashe Schow) A wealthy Toronto businessman is on the hook to pay his ex-girlfriend more than $50,000 a month for the next 10 years after a court determined they were long-time spouses despite never being married and never living together.
by Ashe Schow, September 12th, 2020
Michael Latner, a reported multi-millionaire, was in a relationship with List Climans for 14 years. Latner was a divorced father of three while Climans was a separated mother of two when they began their romantic relationship in October 2001, the National Post reported. Throughout their 14-year relationship, the couple lived in separate homes, but would regularly stay over at each other’s houses. They also went on vacation together, and Latner showered Climans with expensive gifts, including a 7.5-carat diamond ring and other jewelry. He also gave Climans “thousands of dollars each month, a credit card, [and] paid off her mortgage,” the Post reported. Climans reportedly quit her job and would sleep at Latner’s house often.
The two had their own bank accounts and never bought property together, nor did they have any children together.
Latner proposed to Climans several times—and she accepted. They were never married due to his request that she sign a marriage contract, which she refused.
When the relationship ended in May 2015, Climans went to court to be recognized as Latner’s spouse and demand he pay her spousal support. Latner, according to the Post, argued that Climans had been his “travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more.” He argued they were never spouses, and he didn’t owe her any support.
After an eight-day trial, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore ruled that Latner and Climans were, in fact, long-time spouses and that Latner should pay Climans $53,077 a month indefinitely. Shore ruled that even though the couple maintained separate homes, they spent part of the summer together at Latner’s cottage and stayed together in Florida for winter vacations. That was enough to determine cohabitation.
As the Post reported, under “Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found.”
Latner appealed the decision, but it was upheld, with one change: He would only have to pay Climans $53,077 a month for the next 10 years.
“Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” the Appeal Court ruled, according to the Post. “There are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stayed together only intermittently.”
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.
About The Author
Ashe Schow is a reporter and columnist with bylines at the Federalist and the New York Observer. She has previously worked for Real Clear Investigations, the Washington Examiner, and the Heritage Foundation. She lives in Virginia with her fiance and two cats, Shadow and Charlie.
Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?
The news is important to all people because it is where we come to know new things about the world, which leads to the development of more life goals that lead to life wisdom. The news also serves as a social connection tool, as we tend to relate to those who know about and believe the things we do. With the power of an open truth-seeking mind in hand, the individual can grow wise and the collective can prosper.
– Justin
Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammatical mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Source:
Blatant lie by the judge then, as cohabitation is only determined by living under the same roof, and it has worked that way for every person in the military who wants a Private Married Quarter, so thi is just another attempt at redefining the rules so thieves can get what they want.
Why is she a theif? She wouldn’t sign a marriage contract and is now trying to make off with 50 grand a month for doing nothing and not wanting to be faithful and uphold her vows. She wanted the gold, and she wanted the guy gone.