common-law separation

[Kenna Snow]

1 year ago my ex common law spouse up and left the premises and left all responsibilities to me. I have been paying the mortage, mortage insurance, household bills, house insurance, and upkeep of the house on my own, now he want his payout. I understand that he is entitled to half of the equity--Is it up to the time he left or up till now is he entitled to half of the equity. Should he be partially responsible for half of the mortage, mortage insurance, some of the household bills, house insurance, and the upkeep of the house since his abandonment?

[looking_for_help]

Depends on the province you live in or have lived in if you moved from province to province, how long you have lived together in each province if more then one. Because if you lived a year few years in Quebec then in Ontario for 2 years I believe it's only counts for each province individually. But otherwise it counts from date of separation just like a marrige

[Kenna Snow]

We have been living together in the Northwest territories since 2001. Purchased a home in 2004 until the time he left in 2007. So he sould or should not be responsible for the household payments since he he left?

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

When separating assets, you must include all assets, IE the equity in the home and it's market value, less any debts, IE the outstanding mortgage.

Let's say that the home was purchased for $200,000, after let's say four years the home is worth $250,000, and this is when he left. A year later it is worth $260,000. You base the equity on the date (year) he left, so you would have to get an appraisal done and have the value estimated for a time frame within the time he left. But for now we'll use made up numbers.

$50,000 is the equity when he left, but when he left you still had a $195,000 mortgage.
I am not 100% sure but I think he would be liable for 1/2 of amount owed, less 1/2 equity. And this would be the buy out amount (IE $72,500).
Anything that you had put into the home since the separation which he did not contribute to, means that he also is not entitled to the associated equity that resulted in that one year, IE the fictitious $10,000).

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps
FL