Trophy husband awarded $157,000

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,540
7
0
Calgary
A former world-class figure skater, model and wealthy widow has been ordered by a British Columbia court to pay her so-called "trophy husband" more than $157,000 in support after a 14-year relationship.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Randall Wong ruled that 66-year-old Gordon Walker was the spouse of 86-year-old Valerie Fortune Brown and is entitled to support as a result.

Before the relationship, Walker lived on welfare or was periodically employed, but then became a "kept man" and "economically dependent," with Brown covering all of his living expenses and luxuries, including about 60 trips to destinations around the world, said the court the ruling.

"Now at 66 years of age, with a long-time economic dependency, the breakup of their relationship has caused Mr. Walker to be economically disadvantaged in terms of what he had been accustomed," said Wong. "His future job prospects are extremely limited."

In addition to the $157,000, Wong ordered Brown to pay Walker interest dating back to Jan. 1, 2012 but also issued a permanent restraining order because of letters the man wrote to Brown's legal counsel, threatening to write his memoirs about the couple's sexual experiences.

Only a 'heavy luggage porter'

Brown had argued Walker was just a platonic live-in friend, a domestic male security escort and travelling companion, as well as a "heavy luggage porter."

Citing Walker's "reprehensible conduct," Wong also deprived the man of his court costs, which normally would have been granted.

The court heard Brown was raised in England, educated in a private girls' school, became a world-class figure skating champion and a model for art sculptures before she married twice.

After her second husband died in 1994, Brown was left with an estate of nearly $8 million that included investments, property and retirement income.

Meantime, Wong described Walker as a Grade 12 graduate and former bookkeeper, clerk, dispatcher and sales executive.

The two met in June 1997 at a federal polling station on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast, and within days she was helping him find work, buying him lunch, food hampers and even a $120 pen.

By September of that year, Brown invited Walker to move into her home, states Wong's ruling, and that same month she gave him money to buy a new home that both were supposed to inhabit but didn't.

The court also heard that during the relationship, Brown bought Walker a $10,000 Rolex watch, a new Lexus SUV and opened several joint bank accounts to cover expenses.

Plastic surgery

"Ms. Brown even underwent cosmetic face lift surgery to remove facial wrinkles and furrow on her forehead," wrote Wong. "This was done despite Mr. Walker's concern and objection, reassuring her that she looked beautiful to him."

Wong said the couple never married and maintained separate bedrooms but shared hotel and ship-cabin rooms with twin beds during their travels.

Walker even signed a residency agreement in August 1998, after Brown had returned from a trip to eastern Canada to visit her children.

"In their 14-year relationship, the [Walker] regarded himself as a 'kept man' and a 'trophy husband," wrote Wong, who noted Walker became more assertive in the relationship, pestered Brown for partial ownership of her assets and frequently asked her to marry him unsuccessfully.

Wong said Brown eventually became disillusioned with Walker and concerned he was abusing his credit cards for cash advances and personal use and was secretly withdrawing funds from their joint bank account.

"She felt she could no longer trust him," said Wong. "She was also concerned with protecting her adult children's potential inheritance, if Mr. Walker continued to aggressively press for a greater share of her holdings."


Score +1 for men in general.

SR
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,197
216
63
I think it's a lovely story...congrats to him!:clap2:
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,540
7
0
Calgary
The story plays out all the time with the roles reversed. If the guy hadn't been such an asshole, he would have gotten (and should have) a LOT more. Why is he a parasite any more than the sugar baby types that are so prevalent?
Thats the way I see it as well,whilst they may not have been married they were in a common law relationship and there are countless of examples of women taking men to the cleaners in those situations.This time the roles were reversed.

SR
 
L

Larry Storch

The two met in June 1997 at a federal polling station on B.C.'s Sunshine Coast, and within days she was helping him find work, buying him lunch, food hampers and even a $120 pen.

By September of that year, Brown invited Walker to move into her home, states Wong's ruling, and that same month she gave him money to buy a new home that both were supposed to inhabit but didn't.

The court also heard that during the relationship, Brown bought Walker a $10,000 Rolex watch, a new Lexus SUV and opened several joint bank accounts to cover expenses.

So you see, it does pay to vote. :D
 
W

westcoast555

The story plays out all the time with the roles reversed. If the guy hadn't been such an asshole, he would have gotten (and should have) a LOT more. Why is he a parasite any more than the sugar baby types that are so prevalent?
He's a cheap jigolo taking advantage of an elderly woman. He's not a man. The fact that there are a lot of female gold-diggers hardly excuses it.
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,543
308
83
In Lust Mostly
Score +1 for men in general.

SR

So that's your goal in life to score a woman who will cover all your expenses, provide a home, a luxury SUV, an expensive watch and eat away at her children's inheritance? Wow, cool gig SR. :rolleyes:

humming the song "True Colours" as I type.


:clap2::clap2:
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Cheap gigolo + not a man vs. female gold diggers.

Guess neutrality is a given then or should I dig to find all your hate directed towards sugar babies, to show you're being fair?
Nothing wrong with being a sugar baby if what you get is freely given.

But, there is something wrong with thinking you deserve more and are still entitled to feed at the trough after your gig is done.
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,540
7
0
Calgary
So that's your goal in life to score a woman who will cover all your expenses, provide a home, a luxury SUV, an expensive watch and eat away at her children's inheritance? Wow, cool gig SR. :rolleyes:

humming the song "True Colours" as I type.


:clap2::clap2:
I never said it was my goal.My point of view comes from being a meal ticket by my ex wife and my opinion
is that is nice that the justice system recognized this guy's situation for what it actually was which is a common law marriage.Whilst he did not get half of the womans assets he did get compensation that was fair.

As for myself I wont get involved with any woman relationship wise unless she brings as much to the plate as I do in owning a home that is paid off and other savings/investments as well.I have met 1 and only 1 gal since I chucked my ex to the curb who measured up to my expectations.Sadly I had to pass on her as she fully expected me to move into her home.As I was not willing to give up my independance and live under the rules
of somebody else I chose not to persue the relationship.It was a tough decision I will say though as the gal was a very attractive Korean who really had her act togeather and was also 5 years younger than me.

Most gals even 10 years younger than me these days come with so much baggage it is unreal and a high percentage of them do not have their act togeather.

My take on the story is that the guy got cut loose after a long term common law marriage because children of the woman sewed the seeds of dissent for fear of losing their inheritance.He lawyered up and got well represented and justly compenasated for his loss of income.

SR
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
"maintained separate bedrooms" means they weren't in a common law relationship as man and wife. He was just leeching off her. For a relationship to be a common law marriage, both parties have to present themselves as being married, but according to the OP, only the plaintiff did that.

If you read the article you will see that the judge himself points out numerous instances where plaintiff apparently tried in one way or another to get control of assets or goods.

It is pretty clear to me that is an exploitative relationship.
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,540
7
0
Calgary
"maintained separate bedrooms" means they weren't in a common law relationship as man and wife. He was just leeching off her. For a relationship to be a common law marriage, both parties have to present themselves as being married, but according to the OP, only the plaintiff did that.

If you read the article you will see that the judge himself points out numerous instances where plaintiff apparently tried in one way or another to get control of assets or goods.

It is pretty clear to me that is an exploitative relationship.
I would say it was exploitive by both sides and the judge took that into consideration when he only awarded the guy $157,000 and not half of the assets.She used him and he used her and he felt slighted when she cast him aside abruptly and with no means of support.

SR
 

wilde

Sinnear Member
Jun 4, 2003
3,040
44
48
"maintained separate bedrooms" means they weren't in a common law relationship as man and wife.
A non-existent conjugal relationship with an 86 year old is hardly an argument against their common law status. I believe co-habitation is the key here. The fact that he was exploitative is irrelevant.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts