View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2016, 11:39 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,216
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Should also note that if you are ordered to pay her half your pension you still have to pay that amount now not in the future when you get the pension. So even if the judge ordered her to pay you half the house, if it was the same amount of the $$ you would pay her from your pension, you get nothing. If I were you I wouldnt be sitting waiting for the cash cow to lay an egg. Assume that you get nothing and be happy if you get anything. There are two big assets in play. Both are being held for a final decision.
Dividing a pension is different. If he is ordered to pay her half his pension, it would come out of that pension, his future asset, and it stays a future asset for her as well. His future pension payments would then be smaller, and she would have a locked-in RRSP. But he would get his share of the house, a current asset. So they would each end up with balanced assets, some for retirement, and some useable now to buy a new (smaller) house for each of them.

If he is ordered to give up his share of the house but keep his whole pension, that's nice for his retirement, but he has nowhere to live in the short term. Meanwhile, his ex gets a house, and has decades left to worry about her retirement.

It's much better if a judge orders that they each get some form of both asset. But if his ex has good arguments why the kids should stay in this particular house, he'll have to come up with good arguments why not. A primary one would be his own need to have a down payment to buy a house for the kids to live in while with him.

And if she gets the whole house asset, despite her argument being that the kids needed to live there, NOTHING stops her from selling it the next day and dumping the whole amount into something else.
Reply With Quote