Tweet
I, the undersigned, ***, hereby acknowledge and confirm the following matters related to my meeting on ** with my solicitors, ***, including my instructions to my solicitors on a go forward basis:
1. In the course of our meeting, my solicitors again advised me that my Answer & Claim in this matter does not specifically contain a claim for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, my solicitors indicated to me that, should I wish to proceed with a claim for unjust enrichment, it is imperative that my solicitors forthwith secure an amendment to my Answer & Claim.
This can be effected with the consent of ** and if consent is forthcoming via a motion to the court. I was advised that ** may consent to a request to amend my pleadings given that my solicitors have only recently been retained on the file. Nevertheless, there is a real possibility that ** would request the payment of a sum as costs that the other side would incur in responding to my amended pleading. I have also been made aware of the fact that ** could refuse to consent and that my solicitors would then be required to bring on a motion on my behalf, requesting this relief from a judge.
2. My solicitors also advised me that there is an applicable limitation period relating to the claim for unjust enrichment. Specifically, there is a 2-year limitation period for an equitable claim that does not relate to land, such as mine. Given that the date of separation in my matter is March 1, 2012 and that ** did not include a claim for unjust enrichment in my Answer & Claim, my solicitors advised that, should I wish to amend my pleadings to include a claim for unjust enrichment, this request should be made as soon as possible. (My solicitors also noted that while ** did not include a claim for unjust enrichment in the Answer & Claim, she did include this claim in the Settlement Conference materials, executed on January 27, 2014).
3. My solicitors discussed the complexity involved in making an unjust enrichment claim, given that ** and I are married and that there will be an equalization of net family properties. My solicitors clearly explained that while I do have a case on this issue, it is uncertain as to whether or not I would be entitled to share in the monetary equivalent of the accumulation of ** pension from 2000 to 2007. Also, my solicitors explained that the outcome of a claim for unjust enrichment in a situation where the parties are married is uncertain and that there is a reasonable possibility, that a trial (and quite possibly an appeal) would be required to finally resolve the issue.
4. I confirm that at the conclusion of the meeting and having considered this matter carefully I clearly instructed that my lawyers that I do NOT wish to amend my pleading to include a claim for unjust enrichment. I understand that my decision to firmly instruct my solicitors NOT to attempt to amend my Answer & Claim will very likely prevent me from pursuing an unjust enrichment claim as against my spouse in the future.
1. In the course of our meeting, my solicitors again advised me that my Answer & Claim in this matter does not specifically contain a claim for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, my solicitors indicated to me that, should I wish to proceed with a claim for unjust enrichment, it is imperative that my solicitors forthwith secure an amendment to my Answer & Claim.
This can be effected with the consent of ** and if consent is forthcoming via a motion to the court. I was advised that ** may consent to a request to amend my pleadings given that my solicitors have only recently been retained on the file. Nevertheless, there is a real possibility that ** would request the payment of a sum as costs that the other side would incur in responding to my amended pleading. I have also been made aware of the fact that ** could refuse to consent and that my solicitors would then be required to bring on a motion on my behalf, requesting this relief from a judge.
2. My solicitors also advised me that there is an applicable limitation period relating to the claim for unjust enrichment. Specifically, there is a 2-year limitation period for an equitable claim that does not relate to land, such as mine. Given that the date of separation in my matter is March 1, 2012 and that ** did not include a claim for unjust enrichment in my Answer & Claim, my solicitors advised that, should I wish to amend my pleadings to include a claim for unjust enrichment, this request should be made as soon as possible. (My solicitors also noted that while ** did not include a claim for unjust enrichment in the Answer & Claim, she did include this claim in the Settlement Conference materials, executed on January 27, 2014).
3. My solicitors discussed the complexity involved in making an unjust enrichment claim, given that ** and I are married and that there will be an equalization of net family properties. My solicitors clearly explained that while I do have a case on this issue, it is uncertain as to whether or not I would be entitled to share in the monetary equivalent of the accumulation of ** pension from 2000 to 2007. Also, my solicitors explained that the outcome of a claim for unjust enrichment in a situation where the parties are married is uncertain and that there is a reasonable possibility, that a trial (and quite possibly an appeal) would be required to finally resolve the issue.
4. I confirm that at the conclusion of the meeting and having considered this matter carefully I clearly instructed that my lawyers that I do NOT wish to amend my pleading to include a claim for unjust enrichment. I understand that my decision to firmly instruct my solicitors NOT to attempt to amend my Answer & Claim will very likely prevent me from pursuing an unjust enrichment claim as against my spouse in the future.
Comment