A B.C. Supreme Court judge has found that CBC Radio host and Bachman-Turner Overdrive guitarist Randy Bachman had not taken care of business in an out-of-court separation agreement with his estranged wife, ruling that the two should sort out their remaining differences on their own time.
Bachman claimed to have reached a settlement with his ex-wife, Denise, that included monthly support payments of about $32,000, and he had asked the court for a declaration confirming its terms.
But Denise Beck, a.k.a. Denise Bachman, denied she reached an agreement with Bachman and wanted a court order for interim spousal support.
“I find that not all of the issues between the parties are addressed in the agreement that the respondent seeks to enforce, and I therefore dismiss his application,” wrote Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in his recent decision.
The two musicians met in 1981 and married about three months later. Beck ended her music career to look after their children — Bachman had six kids with his first wife and one more with Beck, who also had a son from a previous marriage, according to court documents.
After the couple split in 2011, Bachman and Beck’s lawyers gradually negotiated terms of a settlement agreement.
In it, Beck was to get 27.5 per cent of Bachman’s annual royalties — some $1.4 million per year, which worked out to about $384,000 a year to Beck, or $32,000 monthly.
But there were outstanding issues, according to Beck. She told the court that Bachman had paid her only $3,000 in support during the nearly five-and-a-half months leading up to her court application. On hearing submissions from the pair, the judge awarded Beck $32,500 interim support payments that Bachman was to pay starting July 1, 2014.
But Beck also claimed that Bachman needed to provide her some form of security so she knew she would continue to receive spousal support in the future.
Complicating matters, the pair had agreed before they separated that if Bachman predeceased Beck, she would get his one-half share of a London flat. But she later realized the flat had been registered in a company name, owned by members of a trust.
“I infer that the claimant harbours a concern that she cannot rely on the estate planning that she and the respondent engaged in, nor upon his beneficiaries to necessarily ensure that whatever settlement she reaches with the respondent will provide her with the security that she feels she requires for her financial support,” wrote Hinkson.
“It is not for the court to fill in essential terms in an otherwise incomplete agreement,” he continued, then dismissed Bachman’s application.
