Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 03:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't believe there's such a thing as a "second matrimonial home". There's one mat home, the other properties are just properties.

Occupational rent would only be relevant if the ex was living primarily at the cottage, not if it's a property used for recreation.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:02 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Whitby, ON
Posts: 4
Splitsville15 is on a distinguished road
Default

Actually he had claimed this his primary residence and the only home he owns. The term occupational rent is new to me. So thank you Ontariodaddy
I wanted to buy him out but he flipped at that idea. I think know I just want out but this is the one sticking point in completing the separation agreement. We have not done anything through the courts as of yet. All mediation so far.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:18 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,174
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

You want it to be done, it's the last part of your separation agreement. So take the buyout and it's done.

What you need to understand is that without one of you buying out the other, it never gets done.

At this point, you are the one holding up the final agreement and what you're asking for is unreasonable. If it goes to court a judge will agree that you're being unreasonable expecting him to share a second home with you for an indefinite amount of time until you "feel" like actually separating your finances and your life from your ex.

You'll spend a tonne of money going to court to fight to be allowed to continue to share a home with your ex husband, and the end result will be the same: it gets sold to someone: you, him or a third party.

You've already said you want your equity, he's trying to give it to you.....take it. I can't see how occupational rent would apply given he's been trying to give you your equity and you are the one refusing.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 04:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

If you just want out ... why not take the buyout now? What would you gain by waiting any longer? The amount of money coming to you would be the same (as your share of equity is based on when you stopped making payments), and why would you want to be able to come and go on a property where your ex lives full-time, if that's what the cottage is? Take the buyout, say goodbye to the cottage (sad perhaps, but divorce is sad), and you're done.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 05:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OntarioDaddy View Post
I understand your feelings, but what are you basing this on?

In Ontario, you can have more than one matrimonial home which comes with different rules. Occupational rent being one of them.

Buyout should be based on the home's value at the time of buyout, not when op stopped paying mortgage... Regardless of ex's wishes to buy you out now. You're both equally entitled to the cottage.
They are both equally entitled to the cottage. But, one party has ceased paying their share. So, buy out would be sale price less mortgage/fees, divided in half, with her missed payments deducted from hers and added to his.

However, there is argument that because one party stopped paying their share, the other party stepped up and protected BOTH of their assets by paying both shares, and may have more entitlement to either buy the property out, or use it more often.

While you can't arbitrarily tell one person they aren't able to use the property - the response should not be stop paying your share. That could be construed as walking away from it.

Again, was there no agreement regarding use of this property?
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 06:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OntarioDaddy View Post
Imagine if op had no job or income. She couldn't make any payments, yet she would still be entitled to her asset and its current value.

A judge can certainly deduct her missed mortgage payments from her equity, just as a judge could charge ex occupational rent which I'm assuming is more than the mortgage. In that case, op doesn't need to pay mortgage, will still get rent paid back to her, and she gets the current value.

This was similar to my situation despite my desire to buyout my ex right away. Ex refused to sell, or pay for anything, and her asset kept going up in value. Occupational rent and mortgage payments cancelled out, and I was left paying a lot more for the house.
If OP has no job or income, they have no business owning a "summer home". But that's my personal opinion. The OP doesn't state that they stopped making payments because they had no money, she states she stopped because she wasn't allowed to use it. The OP did mention that she wanted to buyout the property from him, so I don't think this is a financial issue, rather a 'principle' issue regarding finances.

I just don't believe walking away from your obligation is a mature way of handling things. It's sure to go downhill from that point. Demanding that they receive 50% share when they haven't made payments isn't a reasonable place to start either.

It seems that the reasonable place to start would have been an agreed upon schedule of use of the property until an agreement is hammered out. But, that's passed now.

If he is really using this as his principle residence and she is residing in the marital home, then I would totally understand why he wouldn't want her in his personal space. Again, "barring" someone from the property isn't the way to handle that either.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 07:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Unless the marital home is paid for already. I don't know, a lot of ifs ands or buts.

In the big scheme of divorce, it seems dealing with the "summer home" should be quite easy.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 08:49 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,174
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

It hasn't been hijacked. He's trying to give it to her and she's refusing.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2016, 11:20 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,174
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

He's living in it as his primary residence, she either has her own home or the matrimonial home. There's more to the story that isn't being told here.

But for someone who says she wants it finished and wants her equity out of it, she's going to great lengths to prevent getting her equity and attempting to force her ex to agree to continue living with her for what could be a very, very long time until she 'feels' like actually divorcing for real.

Seems to me like he feels like it for real now.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-28-2016, 12:35 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,837
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

You know I know a couple who live in the Calgary area. They had a high-conflict divorce which continues on today. He was a high-income earner and she was a party gal. 2 teenage sons. Parties had several properties, including 2 lake lots with cabins side-by-side. The usual antics/accusations that occur with these sorts of divorces ensued. Lots and lots of litigation. Plenty of money was spent. Equalisation was directed by a judge at their trial. Prior to that the mother had an order against the father from being anywhere near her and conveniently that meant that he could not be at the lake cabins - either one. The mother let the teens use the lake properties as party dens. The mother used one of the properties on occasional weekends. The mother vacillated about whether her home was in the city or at the lake. This led to a HUGE discrepancy and added to litigation time. Both the mother and the father had their own beautiful homes in the city. in the end the father finally received, through equalisation, the one lake property. He thought he scored! Not - the place was a total disaster. Because the two properties are side-by-side he is finding that he cannot do many maintenance projects without her approval. The value of the lake property that is owned by the father is going in the toilet. (BTW the two teenage kids are in trouble with drugs... father cannot do anything).

So I asked what he would have done if he could have a do-over. He said that he would have gotten an order to sell the lake properties. Apparently he tried but his ex's well-funded lawyers put a halt to any disposal of matrimonial property until the divorce went to trial.

So now my friend owns pretty much useless property that he has to pay significant property tax on and maintain.

The lake properties, which were once a source of so much fun and happiness, are total negatives in the lives of the families.

Oh BTW to the poster - yes you have a right to occupy the property (as your ex does). If you have a lot of money (like my friends) you will likely receive appropriate equalisation remuneration. However, don't you think it would be logical to simply agree to sell the place? Or.... are you simply trying to stay connected to your ex through a fight about the "happy place" that you once shared?

If you don't want to fund a bunch of lawyer's vacations/cars then you should look at the most expedient way to end litigation. Lawyer's fees can escalate very quickly and before you know it your "equity" in the cabin will be owned by your lawyer - yes they can do that.

Last edited by arabian; 07-28-2016 at 12:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
buyout, property division


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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Capital gains on marital cottage sale - Options? whyme? Financial Issues 3 07-29-2015 09:38 PM
Alberta Equity battle bjm44 Common Law Issues 0 04-17-2013 07:51 PM
Quick question re: Equity in my home goosie77 Financial Issues 18 01-11-2013 09:53 PM
Another Alberta question re: home equity retireat50 Common Law Issues 2 07-03-2008 01:57 PM
Common Law Home Equity BestDad Common Law Issues 9 08-12-2007 08:34 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.