enrichment

[lucas]

hi i would like some help i have been locked out of my house as the mother- inlaw moves in,the house is in my partner's name and she has just recently
started working part-time we have been common-law for six years
we have moved several times and each time we purchased the home
we put in her name as i was still going thru a previous divorce
we now have about 350,000 in equity.
i have paid all the bill's and morgage and taxes,i do have this info
via my bank account.
i was informed that i do not have any legal right to this asset can
anyone help.
i have my own business and work from home i do all cooking and cleaning
and laundry and the maintenance around the house she had one son
and we have a son together.

[logicalvelocity]

lucas,

It appears you will have to bring forth an unjust enrichment claim.

For a succesful unjust enrichment claim, you will have to prove on a balance of probabilities that the other party was enriched by your contributions.

The leading SCC case on unjust enrichment can be found here.

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...3rcs1-980.html

From the Judgement


... In determining whether an unjust enrichment exists, policy considerations are to be considered under the head of absence of juristic reason for the unjust enrichment. Services given on the voluntary assumption of the role of wife and step‑mother give rise to a remedy based on unjust enrichment. Generally, a common law spouse owes no duty at common law, in equity or by statute to perform work or services for the other party to the relationship. Homemaking and childcare services may, in a relationship, give rise to equitable claims against the other party. It is not unfair for a recipient of indirect or non‑financial contributions to be forced to provide recompense for those contributions. Domestic services cannot logically be distinguished from other contributions. The test as to whether there is an unjust enrichment without juristic reason is flexible and the factors to be considered vary. No obligation arose here from the parties' circumstances and the elements giving rise to a legal gift were not present.

Equity finds a role where an injustice without a legal remedy exists. The courts can use the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment to remedy the situation even though the legislature has chosen to exclude unmarried couples from the right to claim an interest in the matrimonial assets on the basis of contribution to the relationship.

A direct link between the contribution and the property is essential for a constructive trust to arise, whether the situation be commercial or family. Unjust enrichment cases need not be categorized as commercial and family; no special rule exists for family cases. Clarity and doctrinal integrity mandate that the basic principles governing the rights and remedies for unjust enrichment remain the same for all cases. Even in a family situation, dispensing with the link between the services rendered and the property claimed to be subject to the trust would be inconsistent with the proprietary nature of the constructive trust. Insufficiency of a monetary award in a family situation, however, is usually linked to the fact the claimant's efforts have given him or her a special link to the property and give rise to a constructive trust. Although a minor or indirect contribution is insufficient to give rise to a constructive trust, the amount of the contribution governs the extent of the constructive trust once the threshold amount is met.

In assessing the value of a constructive trust, the "value survived" approach (the amount by which the property has been improved) is preferable to the "value received" approach (the value of the services which the claimant has rendered). Where the claim is for an interest in the property, the portion of the value of the property claimed and attributable to the claimant's services must be determined. The practical difficulty of calculating with mathematical precision the value of particular contributions to the family property favours a "value survived" approach....


lv

[KAR]

I see that you're recommending unfair enrichment, and I totally agree but can this be done once you're out of the home ? Especially if you leave of your own accord ?

[dadtotheend]

I wonder how that almost four year old story worked out.