View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2016, 04:55 PM
mafia007's Avatar
mafia007 mafia007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 232
mafia007 is on a distinguished road
Default

@ Taiken,

To make it clear concerning the matrimonial home, my STBX wanted the house from the beginning. I did my calculs based on the worst scenario and decided that I couldn't keep the house so I let it be. My lawyer's advice was to show that I was very reasonable by allowing her to keep the house. So before asking the house to be sold, I waited to see if she could buy my share of interest. Both of our lawyers wrote an agreement and it was so ambiguous at the end it was decided that the house be transferred into her name alone. Was screwed with the wording despite I was mostly relying on my counsel but in the end, it all falls to the same results;
- because of the children (3), it is not the time to sell the home for stability purposes
- equity is at dispute: I want to split my pension, she wants to keep the house. She can't buy my interest so the house would need to be sold. This is a trial issue and can only be addressed at the equalization process. So no matter what, the issue won't be resolved until trial or settlement.

The pros and cons from this are;
- I am no longer on the title. As per the Partition ACT, I can no longer force the sell of the home but I do have my rights on the equity.
- My STBX was over 3 months in arrears on the Mortgage and the 2016 taxes were still not paid when we appealed last week. I told the judge who ordered her to pay everything up to date and make sure I am not responsible of any of those arrears. Following this, the house is to be transferred to her without my signature.

Basically, in a way or the other, everything will be settled only at the very end, when the judge will look at the statements from each party and proceed with the equalization. Too many issues are immerging on her side as she has yet disclosed everything to conclude this step.
Reply With Quote