Alberta Property Division Questions.

[gondola_ride]

Hello All,

My Alberta Adult Interdependent Relationship is coming to an end. We've been living together for 6 years or so and bought a property in 2005. At the time of purchase we put unequal down payments in. I put in about $62k and she put in $20k. Since that time the property has appreciated of course. We don't have children and except for the house everything else would be pretty easy to split up. My questions are all related to the split on the house. The plan is for me to buy her out but we need to come up with the value.

We are amicable and generally trying to be kind to each other however when the question of the house split comes up it seems to be a bit of a hot button. I want to find out what the "answer" is so we can avoid the issues.

I would say there are three possible options:

1. I feel that each of us taking out our down payments and splitting the remaining equity minus an assumed realtor fee would be fair. I've talked to a few lawyers on the phone and they say this would be a good solution. (I could live with this easily.)

2. She spoke with a lawyer who told her to get half with no assumed realtor fee or cost of breaking the mortgage. This doesn't seem fair to me and I would resist this.

3. I also feel that I could make a case for saying that I invested more in the property therefore I am entitled to a larger proportional share of the investment. This benefits me but I'm not really pushing for it. I'm only mentioning it to show that option number 1 is really what I consider the middle and fair option.

Does anybody know how this would be resolved if it went to mediation or whatnot? Keep in mind Alberta specific circumstances of course.

Thanks in advance,

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

I would think that asset division rules would prevail fin this case since this is was 6 year relationship.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...01abqb579.html

This case is similar to yours, in that a home was purchased during a CL relationship, one party paid 67K to the purchase, and the other 20K.

A portion of the final ruling,

There are no dependent children with links to the home. Mr. Vanderlinde has made the largest single financial contribution to that home; he is entitled to the return of his equity in that asset. There is no historical relationship between one spouse and the home; therefore there is no reason to order a buy-out rather than the sale of the property. Nor is there any special character of the neighbourhood, including the presence of friends, relatives or members of a specific ethnic community which affect the disposition of the home. There has been no informal agreement between the parties as to the home.



In all the circumstances, therefore, the property should be immediately listed for sale in the expectation that the net proceeds from the sale will be divided equally between the parties.

[gondola_ride]

Thanks very much for your reply. I am a little confused though. In the first paragraph it states "he is entitled to the return of his equity in that asset" but then the second paragraph talks about a equal division.

Is that equal division of the net proceeds AFTER he has his equity in the asset?

From my internet searches and even from the lawyers I have talked to it does not seem that there are hard and fast rules as to how these things are split.

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

There really aren't any.
Every claim is determined based on the evidence presented, and one needs to be very thorough to win a claim when it is CL. ALL are judged on a case by case bases.

There is a misconception that CL is like marriage, but that simply is not true, it is only the same when filing your tax return, nothing else.

With the sample case, I took away that given the fact that he was entitled to his equity, the judge would then add to that entitlement by ordering his proportionate share based on his contribution. And he had a higher vested interest, therefore should also be awarded a higher split of the asset.