Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2017, 09:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
It is decidedly wicked for someone in a position of power (your ex who holds the purse-strings) to threaten to cut the other person off financially. This is a stupid thing for someone to do as it will most definitely come back to bite them in the arse. In the meantime, however, you have to survive. The fear of having the other person pull the rug out from under them can be debilitating. I would strongly suggest that you seek legal counsel. A good lawyer will represent your interests and obtain an immediate Interim Order for spousal support and possibly and Order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until such time as the property is sold. I don't know specifically where you are at in terms of your separation. Best to get some good legal advice and do things the correct way right from the start.
Why exclusive possession? Interim support I agree but there's no grounds to take this woman's home.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:18 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

He's the primary caregiver and I would presume child would stay at same school? Of course the couple could continue to live in the home together until it is sold. A lawyer would advise him on the tactical advantage/disadvantage of obtaining interim order which would include temporary residence of matrimonial home. Who knows? People on these forums rarely provide all the nitty-gritty details of their situation.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 10:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
He's the primary caregiver and I would presume child would stay at same school? Of course the couple could continue to live in the home together until it is sold. A lawyer would advise him on the tactical advantage/disadvantage of obtaining interim order which would include temporary residence of matrimonial home. Who knows? People on these forums rarely provide all the nitty-gritty details of their situation.
Generally exclusive possession happens under extreme cirumstances...ie, abuse. It isn't advised otherwise for either litigant to leave their home because of the obvious issues it causes with custody status quo, etc. And to try to force her to leave with a court order isn't likely to be successful and would be a very hostile act.

I always find it interesting when people call the SAHP the "primary" parent as if that carries some special, magical designation to allow an unfair custody distribution against the parent that's out there earning a living every day to keep a roof over their child's head and food in their mouth.

This mom has as much right to her home, her money and especially to her child as any non-earning parent. In fact, I think what's she's about to undergo litigation-wise is likely to be very unfair.

Last edited by Pursuinghappiness; 03-16-2017 at 10:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 11:23 AM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,318
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
Generally exclusive possession happens under extreme cirumstances...ie, abuse.
Nah, it is frequently ordered when one parent has primary residential custody. The idea is that the kid gets to live in the house and is not disturbed too much as a result.

Quote:
It isn't advised otherwise for either litigant to leave their home because of the obvious issues it causes with custody status quo
Agreed, no parent should leave voluntarily. Exclusive possession is a weapon, not a shield. You can preemptively strike a decisive blow in the custody battle by getting exclusive possession. Once the other parent has been kicked out of the house, they will be financially devastated and will likely have to settle for much less than they deserve.

Quote:
And to try to force her to leave with a court order isn't likely to be successful and would be a very hostile act.
Litigation is inherently hostile. And exclusive possession is not nearly as difficult to achieve as you might think. Easier if you are female of course, you just say that you are afraid or some variation upon that, but it should be possible for a male to pull it off.

Quote:
I always find it interesting when people call the SAHP the "primary" parent as if that carries some special, magical designation to allow an unfair custody distribution against the parent that's out there earning a living every day to keep a roof over their child's head and food in their mouth.
Because, in family law world, the SAHP does get to claim "primary" which does have a special magical designation that allows for an unfair custody distribution against the parent who is out there actually working and earning money.

Quote:
This mom has as much right to her home, her money and especially to her child as any non-earning parent. In fact, I think what's she's about to undergo litigation-wise is likely to be very unfair.
Of course it will be unfair. This has been happening to fathers for decades, are you actually surprised?

The best way to change it is for these horrible things to happen to mothers. Stay at home fathers need to stop agreeing to shared and need to start eviscerating mothers who work. Stay at home fathers can win. We need to stop telling fathers to be nice.

Stop lying to this guy. If he goes to court, he will win. If enough fathers do this, eventually the laws (or at least the case law) will change. Right now though, he is looking at a slam dunk victory if he is willing to fight. That is good for him, good for fathers, and good for all children in Canada.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 01:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Nah, it is frequently ordered when one parent has primary residential custody. The idea is that the kid gets to live in the house and is not disturbed too much as a result.
Only IF the other parent is suggesting to move the child out of the home to a new residence. Particularly one in a new school district. If she's not planning to do that, exclusive possession is unlikely to happen. And he didn't suggest that she's trying to do that. Judges don't like to kick people out of their home and not force them to lose access to their children. This is HER home. She's paying the bills and this is a commonlaw situation which has slightly different marital home division rules.

Quote:
Agreed, no parent should leave voluntarily. Exclusive possession is a weapon, not a shield. You can preemptively strike a decisive blow in the custody battle by getting exclusive possession. Once the other parent has been kicked out of the house, they will be financially devastated and will likely have to settle for much less than they deserve.
Again, judges know this so they're not likely to just kick her out. I know a LOT of people that try this move and I know only one that's been successful (it was a man actually) and ONLY because the other person's lawyer was an idiot and missed the exclusive possession order in the filing.

Quote:
Litigation is inherently hostile. And exclusive possession is not nearly as difficult to achieve as you might think. Easier if you are female of course, you just say that you are afraid or some variation upon that, but it should be possible for a male to pull it off.
Just as long as he understands she can also get hostile. In my opinion, its something that should be avoided if at all possible. And that has nothing to do with differences in gender roles in this case.

Quote:
Because, in family law world, the SAHP does get to claim "primary" which does have a special magical designation that allows for an unfair custody distribution against the parent who is out there actually working and earning money.
That is starting to change though...as it should. And I'm equally as critical of the women who pull this stuff.

Quote:
Of course it will be unfair. This has been happening to fathers for decades, are you actually surprised?

The best way to change it is for these horrible things to happen to mothers. Stay at home fathers need to stop agreeing to shared and need to start eviscerating mothers who work. Stay at home fathers can win. We need to stop telling fathers to be nice.
I disagree. I think the rules are changing to be fair to working people. Punishing working mothers is equally as bad. I stand up for every working person regardless of gender. What really needs to happen is that adult people need to stop tolerating other adults in their house not earning a living. All adults should be contributing to their household and supporting the children of those households. That is one of your main duties as a parent.

Quote:
Stop lying to this guy. If he goes to court, he will win. If enough fathers do this, eventually the laws (or at least the case law) will change. Right now though, he is looking at a slam dunk victory if he is willing to fight. That is good for him, good for fathers, and good for all children in Canada.
You obviously didn't read my posts. I said 10 times that the law favors him...not her...because she's been stupid and allowed him to take advantage of her for years. I didn't say he wouldn't win...I said its unfair. Regardless of gender...its immoral and unfair...period.

People who do this stuff are simply trying to get away with not being responsible and forcing other people to fund their lazy lifestyles. And trust me, I say the same crap to long-term SAHMs...I have no respect for people who don't contribute to the financial burden of a household and then expect someone to take care of them endlessly after divorce. Its ridiculous. If you've ever read my posts....you've seen me ranting about females that do this. I'm not going to say its ok for this poster because he's male...its equally as shameful.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:08 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Like it or not, courts view marriages where one does not work outside of the home as "traditional." There is much case law and literature on this so there is no need to re-hash the topic. Agree or disagree. It matters not.

When there is a power imbalance (as in this case) courts will typically side with the individual who has no income for an INTERIM Order of exclusive possession - at least until outstanding financial matters are resolved. So the mother (in this case) should get her shit together asap as opposed to attempting to drag things out.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Like it or not, courts view marriages where one does not work outside of the home as "traditional." There is much case law and literature on this so there is no need to re-hash the topic. Agree or disagree. It matters not.

When there is a power imbalance (as in this case) courts will typically side with the individual who has no income for an INTERIM Order of exclusive possession - at least until outstanding financial matters are resolved. So the mother (in this case) should get her shit together asap as opposed to attempting to drag things out.
Actually the most likely scenario is that they'll live in the house together until the disposition of the house is decided. That's generally what happens. The only thing he's likely to get for an interim decision is SS...and that won't happen until after he can file a motion post 1st case conference. Until then, her lawyer will tell her to bare bones support the bills...particularly if he's able-bodied. Most litigants end up living together separated. Judges aren't likely to kick her out of her own home that she's paying all the bills in away from her kid. He's welcome to try but I'll bet it doesn't happen.

The most likely scenario is that this litigant is going to have to find a way to support himself or borrow money until he gets interim support.

If she's smart, she's already gotten a lawyer. And don't forget, this is a commonlaw relationship...so the marital home rules are not the same.

And by the way, the REASON that women get exclusive possession of the home at all is largely because they make false abuse allegations. It happens all the time. They initiate a fight, it escalates, they call the cops and get a police report, then they take the police report to court. You can't just kick someone out of their house..especially when they're paying all the bills...without a reason. This is the main reason that abuse allegations are so prevalent in early separations.

Last edited by Pursuinghappiness; 03-16-2017 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:27 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Hopefully the two can come to an agreement and avoid litigation.

People are stubborn though. A trip to the local family law centre, and then on to free legal aid lawyer will provide the poster "wings." If the wife is smart she will make a reasonable offer sooner rather than later.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 08:38 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 9
AVCanada is on a distinguished road
Default

Woah, lots of assumptions happening here.

I'm not after the house, just my equity and child support for some breathing room of at least a year in order to get my life in order and make the transition for our son as tolerable as possible. Nothing more really.

Thanks for all the replies.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2017, 08:54 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,916
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Yeah I guess from your perspective things sound pretty awful. Thing is, many people on here started where you are, with the best intentions and what they thought was a 'reasonable' position. What you may find out though, is that things can very easily blow up, particularly when one party takes an unreasonable position or obtains advice from friends instead of obtaining proper legal advice.

Hope things work out for you and that your ex is proven to be "reasonable."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common financial separation who is responsible for what? Beachnana Financial Issues 10 06-19-2013 05:01 PM
Common Law Separation assistance needed. drunkmunky Common Law Issues 26 03-05-2012 06:45 PM
Common Law Separation Agreement Justfine General Chat 4 01-04-2011 08:51 PM
common law separation concernedfriend1234 Divorce & Family Law 6 03-16-2009 10:11 PM
In the acceptance stage of common separation... mrmom Common Law Issues 3 11-11-2006 05:31 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:50 AM.