Let me introduce my self...stressed, depressed, and out of ideas

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by Daffodil

4. Division of property. we have a house, which i paid for, and not too much else for assets as we were only married for a year and I had a 1 year mat leave and was taken off work at 6 months for health reasons. I owned the house premarriage but while living together, and took out a large home renovation loan But that loan doesn't count as a deduction for my net family property because it was a premarriage debt. (My net family property is $300K, his is zero, the loan is $100K)

If you correctly calculated net family property, the $100K loan would already be included in the $300K. Methinks you might have some learning to do on equalization.

Originally Posted by Mominneed

However, you should be able to get sole custody due to dv charges and you should go for unequal division so you get more than 50% of the home.

You have got to be kidding. You are willing to stip away custody based on untested allegations? And good luck on unequal division. Not happening. You have really extrapolated a lot out of that argument. You're basically telling her that the child's father s/b removed from him and he should lose his right to the home based on an argument that was described in a couple of sentances.

[Mominneed]

Mess, your right and I apologize. I'm sure we all get a little emotional when a post touches us regarding our own histories. You do always give fair and practical advice - this I know. I just get a little tired of all the talk about women with false claims of abuse - I don't buy that.

Nomad, not sure why you took my post so personally - this is my perspective based on what the poster wrote and I was trying to be supportive. I don't think I was likely far off the mark - and if I was, poster is welcome to ignore my comments. He was charged with domestic violence and that tells me that there's a problem - could be small, but more importantly could be big and this needs to be taken seriously not shrugged off as an emotional time.

DTTE, I'm not the judge here so I'm not stripping custody away from anyone. I'm just suggesting that if there is abuse it's likely that a judge looking at the entire story would likely suggest sole custody. If there is a restraining order in place, how will joint custody work in the future? Same on unequal, it's no guarantee in a courtroom but it's highly possible given the information in the post - short marriage, she paid for home, large debt in her name for the home. Just giving my perspective which is what I think we're all here for - isn't it?

[dadtotheend]

I disagree about the abuse. The last time I checked, you're innocent until proven guilty. And even if the child wasn't wasn't victimized then it's the child that loses out.

As for unequal division of family property that's a tough argument to make, and doesn't happen very much. As I understand it, that is a remedy most typically made when the assets brought to the marriage by one spouse are very large (as in millions) compared to what the other spouse brought. And the spouse with less has to have been a real bum during the union to merit the other spouse keeping an unequal share.

[Mominneed]

Can't speak to the norm regarding unequal but on my own first case conference on a 4 year marriage (only 2 living in the same country), judge automatically recommended a less than 50% equalization. Didn't seem difficult to me but this is case conference and anything may happen at trial. He had nothing when we met, I didn't have millions but had RRSP's saved over about 10 years.

Yep, abuse should be somewhat documented and not assumed to be true just because it's claimed. I wasn't suggesting it didn't need to be proven - just that the presence of a domestic violence charge, a no-contact order and possibly other documentation regarding abusive behaviour could result in a sole-custody decision. Again, in my own case it seems to be a given.

I'm no expert, just telling it from my own limited experience.

Thanks for listening!

[holdthemaccountable]

Sorry to come across as a bull in a china shop but....

Most matters are simple. If both parents want to raise their children then it should be 50/50. Simple. Next question.

Question
But what if one parent wants to move away?

Answer
Simple. Let that parent move but... The kids stay with the parent who doesn't move. Next question.

Question
But what if the parent will be better off economically if they move?

Answer
Simple. That parent is still out of luck. The kids stay with the parent who doesn't move. Note no gender biasness at all here. Same rules for both mother and father. Next question.

Question
But what if one parent has been accused (and or charged) of abusing the other parent?

Answer
Well that parent might then go to jail. If its a peace bond then the accused should not lose one bit of the 50/50.
The parents set up a safe neutral drop off and pick up place. To keep pick ups and drop offs to a minimum the 50/50 arrangement is in place. One week with DAd one week with Mom. That is they only briefly interact once per week. All communication is done via email. Next question.

Q
But one parent is underemployed?

A
So what. If this parent wants to live a life of lower standards thats his/her perogative. We don't live in a police state that deligates what jobs we should and should not do. Next question.

Q
But if they are underemployed they will receive more child support based on the 50/50 arrangement.

Anwser
Yea so what. This money is for the child it is not there to raise the parents standard. If it did raise the parents standard then...the whole concept of paying child support would be flawed for this then is spousal support.

This is of course just my opinion and in no way should be construed as legal advice.

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by 06nomad

Totally abusive! Where did you come to that conclusion? A b-day party fight over 4 years, she doesn't suggest controlling over the 4 years? She seems to have more worry about ss cs and her home...holy jump to conclusions batman! I am not sure if I would come to that conclusion, there are not enough details for that assumption. If she is being abused and in danger then she has reported that. Then it has to be proven. There are always two sides and emotion run high. I am sure her ex would have a different take. What mess has said is right and cautious.

06 nomad - I'm not here to tell you my life story, but I will say that the incident over my cousin's bday - was not just a "fight". There were many examples of controlling behaviour over the years......I just went along with things to keep the peace. Do I have bruises and scars? no. Am I afraid of him when he becomes angry - hell yes.

[Daffodil]

[quote=dadtotheend;64134]If you correctly calculated net family property, the $100K loan would already be included in the $300K. Methinks you might have some learning to do on equalization.


No - I don't. $100k loan is PRE marriage. Not tied to the mortgage in any way. So
considered to be a"pre maritial debt" and not deducted from my assets the same way the mortgage would be.

[Mess]

I realize you are keeping the numbers a bit simplified but I think we are all confused..

You took out a $100k loan for renovations on the house. You then got married. Your current asset is almost nil except for the value of the house.

The question is, what is the current value of the house? It isn't clear from your post.

If the value of the house is $400k, on the surface you would split that amount, he gets $200k and you get $200k but keep the loan debt leaving you with $100k.

That would only be fair if you had spent the loan money on personal items before marriage. The issue is you used the loan for house reno. You should therefore argue that the loan went directly into the home, you should gather all receipts and bank records which would point to that, you should then assert that the loan amount should come off the top. This leaves the home worth $300k and you each walk away with $150k effectively splitting the loan.

Because it was a short marriage and the loan and house purchase were made just before marriage when you were living common law I think you have a very strong argument. Lay it out in a reasonable argument and suggest a settlement out of court because fighting would be a waste.