Image Credit: Shutterstock

A Kamloops widower who guaranteed his new partner he was "an honourable man" and would never attempt to take her home has been left with a Cadillac, but no money, after he went after her assets in divorce court.

According to a May 16 BC Supreme Court decision, Denis Marcheterre met Marie Elizabeth March in 2009, shortly after both of their spouses had died.

Marcheterre had been married for 40 years and March for 36 years and they both owned their homes outright.

The decision says that from the outset of their relationship March stipulated that there were two "must haves" before she agreed to marry. One was that she could freely talk about her deceased husband and the other that the two kept their finances separate. She wanted any inheritance money to go to her children and not Marcheterre.

He told her he was an "honourable man" and would "never go after her house."

She had a marriage agreement drawn up which set out the details. At the time, she had a net worth of about $700,000, while he had a net worth of about $330,000.

The agreement was described as "pretty straightforward" and "what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours."

The two arranged to get married in 2011, but Marcheterre still hadn't signed the document.

He kept saying he would do it, but didn't.

Two days before the wedding, March said he had to sign it or the wedding was off. He signed.

After they were married the couple lived in her home in Revelstoke before moving to Kamloops in 2016.

"Ms. March bore all costs relating to the Kamloops property and Mr. Marcheterre bore none, other than his share of the groceries. It was not disputed by Mr. Marcheterre that this was the consistent financial pattern between the parties throughout their marriage," Justice Matthew Taylor said in the decision.

By 2022, the marriage was over, but for a while they shared a home.

"Mr. Marcheterre left many notes and cards around the home directed to Ms. March, some of which were threatening, including cut out faces of photographs and strange messages. He also created a paper mask rigged to jump out of a cabinet at Ms. March when she opened it, which he admitted was done to 'scare' Ms. March," the Justice said.

While Marcheterre had said he was an "honourable man" who wouldn't go after March's money, he did.

In court, Marcheterre alleged he never signed the marriage agreement and his signature had been forged.

A handwriting expert was brought in to testify but halfway through the trial, he dropped the argument.

Justice Taylor found much of his testimony to be neither credible nor reliable.

"I note that there were many internal and external inconsistencies in Mr. Marcheterre’s testimony that appeared either incredible or illogical," the Justice said.

Marcheterre also argued he was under duress when he signed the marriage agreement because March told him she would call off the wedding if he didn't. He argued he was in a vulnerable position.

However, the justice dismissed his argument.

"Mr. Marcheterre admitted to often throwing 'hissy fits' when he did not get what he wanted in the relationship. In one such fit he admitted that he ran outside of the house in the middle of a winter night, rolled around without a shirt in a snowbank, and then sat outside without a jacket in the hope that he would make himself sick and not have to go on a trip," the decision reads. "This is not the behaviour of a man who considers himself to be in a power imbalance; rather, it is the behaviour of someone who believes that he can get what he wants by behaving stubbornly and aggressively."

He also snooped through her personal papers and put CCTV cameras in the home without her knowledge.

The Justice said this was evidence of controlling and assertive behaviour and not the behaviour of someone who said they were in a "vulnerable" position.

Marcheterre argued that the value of the Kamloops property, in March's name, had increased at a greater rate than the value of his own assets and portfolio and he wanted a share.

"Marcheterre admitted at trial, he chose throughout the marriage to purchase a series of quite expensive vehicles for his own personal use, which he acknowledged were depreciating assets," the Justice said, adding he made poor decisions about investing.

Marcheterre argued the financial situation was unfair, but the Justice didn't buy it.

"For Mr. Marcheterre now to be claiming the benefit of a rise in market value of the Kamloops property without having assumed any of the burden of paying the cost and maintenance of that property, or fair rent, over many years appears to me to more convincingly create unfairness for Ms. March, not Mr. Marcheterre," Justice Taylor said.

The Justice pointed out he had lived rent free for more than 11 years which "easily exceeded" $200,000.

"It was entirely foreseeable at the outset of the marriage that Ms. March’s home would remain her principal asset over time, and that its value would grow, and that is precisely why she asked Mr. Marcheterre to sign the Marriage Agreement before the wedding and why he reassured her at the same time that he was a 'gentleman' and 'would not take her home,'" the Justice said.

Ultimately, the Justice ruled Marcheterre could have the Cadillac, but nothing else.

He also granted the couple a divorce.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2025