Been a while

[OB1]

Back in March 2005 my wife and I separated. We both attained lawyers, yet we never settled anything. No separation agreement/custody issues.etc.
Both my ex and I tried to reconcile many times through-out these eight years. we've traveled together went out on outings together yet we never moved in together. Now once again things are getting sour. My kids now are 12 and 16. I've been paying child support through-out these last eight years even though we have been trying to work thinks out. My question is, if she retains a lawyer again will everything be settled according to what the value was back in 2005..ex property/house, Rsp, bank accounts. (I've been living in the home throught-out these 8 years and paying everything) or on the value of today? This could make a huge difference. Also now that my daughter is 16 can she come live with me if she wants. thank you for your replies

[Mess]

Back in March 2005 my wife and I separated. We both attained lawyers, yet we never settled anything. No separation agreement/custody issues.etc.
Both my ex and I tried to reconcile many times through-out these eight years. we've traveled together went out on outings together yet we never moved in together. Now once again things are getting sour. My kids now are 12 and 16. I've been paying child support through-out these last eight years even though we have been trying to work thinks out. My question is, if she retains a lawyer again will everything be settled according to what the value was back in 2005..ex property/house, Rsp, bank accounts. (I've been living in the home throught-out these 8 years and paying everything) or on the value of today? This could make a huge difference.

This is a really sticky question. From your description, you never actually reconciled in the sense that you resumed the marriage. That is, you didn't resume having a single address, you didn't have joint accounts, share investments, present to the world that "This is my spouse." What you were actually doing was dating. If the relationship you had over that time was the only relationship you had, you would not be considered "spouses."

That being said, you are treading in a grey area where arguments can be made. What is your position on the separation date, and what facts would you present to justify it? What is your ex's position on the separation date, and what facts would they present? I realize that the date will make a difference, but will your ex actually disagree with you, or just go with the original separation date?

Ordinarily there can be no equalization claim made after 6 years. So if she wants equalization she has to argue that there was a reconciliation during the time period after initial separation, or that there was no clear intent to permanently separate.

Her argument would be strengthened by the fact that she made no initial claim for equalization. If you were doing something like going to marriage counselling during this time, or anything similar, it is further strengthened. On the other hand, maybe you have some evidence that it was completely over. Were joint accounts closed? Did any money change hands at all, like did you give her half of the house account? Were you paying 100% of taxes, insurance, repairs on the home?

She is still half owner of the house. I don't believe you can "not equalize" the house, even after 6 years, but get a proper legal opinion on this. The intent of the 6 year limit is that there is a point where we have a right to just get on with our lives and not have something hanging over us forever. If the other spouse makes no claim, they lose the right to after 6 years.

Also now that my daughter is 16 can she come live with me if she wants. thank you for your replies

Your daughter certainly has full choice of where she lives at 16. The courts would also tend to support the children staying together. They won't make the daughter go back to her mom's just because her brother is there, but they would likely support the brother coming to live with his sister if that was his clear choice as well.

[OB1]

Thanks for the reply

Thanks for your reply,

Over the last two years my ex wife and I have taken 3 trips together with the kids. She did stay at my place several weekends within these 2 years, yet we never moved back together. Keep in mind I asked her to many times.

Back in 2005 we had the house appraised at 270,000.00 since then it has gone up almost 100,000.00 dollars. My pension has also gone up in value. Two years ago my lawyer did send my ex lawyer an offer to settle. They never responded partially because my ex and I started dating again. She told her lawyer to hold everything off.

I know this is a very grey area. I just don’t know if I owe her the value of the home as of today or back when we separated. It’s cost me quite a bit of money to carry this home for the last 8 years. Taxes, reovations, bills.etc, and to add this home was co-owned with my father. It was purchased before I met my ex wife. I had her move in when we got married. Her name is not on title.
Please note I just want to settle once and for all and hopefully get my life back on track. I just don’t want to be taken to the cleaners. My ex has been renting an apt for the last 8 years. She walked out 8 years ago.

[DowntroddenDad]

I think no matter what, you should start gathering the data required to do the calculation from 8 years ago. While you it ay be difficult to get a market value, your house would have been assessed at some valuation for taxation purpose. And you should be able to figure out how much you owed at that point easily enough.

You probably need to consult a lawyer about the questions of exceptions to the 6 year rule and reconciliation. I would think unless you two share one address as your primary address(es) it would be hard to make reconciliation stick, but I'm not a lawyer.

The added value to your house should be yours, since you maintained and improved it. If the house had lost money, you would have been liable, so why not accept the gain.

How did you determine child support without an agreement?

If you think your offer to settle a couple of years back, dust it off. At a minimum it might be a starting point to see how far apart you are.

[OB1]

I have spoke to three lawyers and they more or less told me that if they were representing one of their clients they would argue that we were back together since we had been trying to reconcile. This is quite strange since we never actually ever moved in together, basically we were just dating.

If this was the case I would be entitled to whatever she accumulated through-out the last eight years and she would be entitled to the same, makes absolutely no sense.

I am disappointed that me ex and I have not been able to make it work and hope to settle with her peacefully as were much older and wiser now. I basically will wait it out and see where her lawyer directs her, and take it form there. I just hope I don’t have to pay more than what I was willing to settle with back in 2005. The money is simple not there now, maintaining a home paying child support has depleted my accounts. Not to mention my health is not where it was back then.

[OrleansLawyer]

Limitation periods, length of reconciliations, whether "dating" but no cohabitation can be considered a reconciliation.

Hire a lawyer. Make it a good (read: expensive with positive reputation) one if your assets are substantial.

[OB1]

Yes, one asset is substantial, lets say i borrowed a large amount against it, would the other partner be responsible for the dept. It sounds like it could make quite an argument. Keep in mind the home is co-owned by myself and my fathers estate. My ex was never on title. Home was purchased with my father before I got married. I can't seem to find the book expensive with a positive reputation..Thanks again

[OrleansLawyer]

I can't seem to find the book expensive with a positive reputation.

For clarity; the statement "read: expensive with a positive reputation" was intended to elaborate on the "good" quality of the lawyer.

[firhill]

Yes, one asset is substantial, lets say i borrowed a large amount against it, would the other partner be responsible for the dept. It sounds like it could make quite an argument.

Not sure any argument is necessary if the loan benefited both of you equally.

[Tayken]

For clarity; the statement "read: expensive with a positive reputation" was intended to elaborate on the "good" quality of the lawyer.

To elaborate.

"Cheap" family law advice generally comes from "Negative Advocate Solicitors" as they often sell the idea that "beliefs", "feelings" and "allegations" are a good way to "control" the other party. They operate on the idea that leverage over the other party with as many allegations as possible will cause fear in the other party to the litigation and they will make more compromises driven by fear.

They work on the failing strategy often that elaborate stories and allegations and lots of them made up front can (and often do) scare the other party into settling with what their client's "want" and not what is fair and proper in accordance with the law.

Lawyers who are settlement oriented but, have significant trial experience dealing with the often "cheap" negative advocate solicitor's litigation "truisms" (aka tactics) are not "cheap".

There are not many of these "good" lawyers around unfortunately.

I would recommend a lawyer who has read at minimum Mr. William Eddy's books and possibly has been trained by the High Conflict Institute. More lawyers need to invest in understanding more than just the "legal" aspects of Family Law but, the human and mental health aspects as well.

A lawyer who knows the law and the behaviour patterns of highly conflicted individuals is not "cheap" unfortunately.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[OhMy]

A lawyer who knows the law and the behaviour patterns of highly conflicted individuals is not "cheap" unfortunately.

This is very true. I must say, although their hourly rate is high, a lawyer that has a background education and experience with mental health can limit the amount of litigation when dealing with a high conflict opposing party.

The resulting affect is cost may be high on an hourly basis, but overall cost may end up being the same or less, with less of an emotional cost.

There are not enough lawyers in my opinion with this background. If a party dealing with high conflict opposing party can find one and afford it, it is well worth it.