Many family law lawyers will say that there is no winning and losing in
family law. In most separations and divorces, there is some ‘give
and take’ rather than the feeling of ‘wining and losing.’
Oscar-nominated actor Terrence Howard, however, really seems to have ‘won’
in his divorce settlement, leaving his wife of one year with little more
than a bicycle and bruised ego.
In February of 2011, Michelle Ghent, (then) wife of Terrence Howard, filed
for divorce after just one year of marriage. Shocking allegations were
flung by the couple at each other, Ghent claiming Howard was viciously
abusive, and Howard alleging the Ghent is a disgusting racist (with such
terrible allegations, no wonder their marriage was short-lived!).
The ex-couple are now formally divorced, and one can confidently guess
that Howard is well pleased with how this tale came to an end. According
to the court order, Howard is to pay Ghent $5,800.00 per month in
spousal support for the next three years-an award which is not too costly, when considering
that Howard is worth an estimated $30 million. The modest three-year duration
of support, is likely due to the extremely short length of the marriage.
In Canada, applying these facts to the Spousal Support Guidelines, spousal
support would likely be for a maximum of one year.
In terms of the division of net family property, Howard is keeping two
houses, the full amount of all funds in his accounts, as well as other
high-value items. Ghent, on the other hand, is getting only one of several
cars…and a bicycle.
Why does Ghent get so little from her multi-million dollar ex-spouse?
In Canada, the
Family Law Act states that a marriage, whereby the parties lived together for less than
five years, provides grounds for the un-equal division of net family property.
This means that Ghent would not be entitled to half of the value of Howard’s
assets. The reasoning behind this is that, with short marriages, the assets
were not acquired thanks to the other spouse, and even more so, the assets
would likely have been acquired whether or not the marriage had occurred.
Lastly, with certain exceptions, you get to deduct the value of all assets
you came into the marriage with, because the other spouse is not entitled
to share the value of pre-marital assets.
With facts as set out in the Howard-Ghent divorce, one can suppose that
in very specific circumstances, there may just be ‘winning’ in
family law.