Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matrimonial home

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Matrimonial home

    If the matrimonial home is only under one spouses name is the evaluation date the date that they split up? One party moved out If many years go by and matrimonial price goes up is the other spouse entitled to the increase in value. Keep in mind the home title was only in one persons name since it was brought into the marriage. And no settlement has been established

  • #2
    My understanding is that if you are in Ontario, the matrimonial home is split 50/50 with your STBX even if it was brought into the marriage.


    My guess, is that the any increase is also split 50/50 but I'd definitely check with someone more knowledgeable than I am.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes I agree, but if there’s only one name on the deed and the person leaves the home are the still entitled to the increase in value from the date the left. My ex left the house in 2005. There name was never on the deed because I bought the home prior to getting married. Does the home seize to be The matrimonial home when they left

      Comment


      • #4
        These are questions to run by a lawyer. You’re dealing with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars here.

        Comment


        • #5
          The equity in the home up until the date of marriage belongs exclusively to the party whose sole name the home is in. You need to get a real estate agent to provide comparables of your home and what they sold for around the date of your marriage.
          Any equity increase from the date of marriage forward will be split 50/50. Not sure how the other party moving out affects that.

          Also, if the home is only in one person’s name, the court can order an equalization payment but can not order the matrimonial home to be sold against the sole home owners wishes. The court can only order it sold if it is in both spouse names. The spouse owed the equalization payment could put a lean against the house but would have to wait until the homeowner voluntarily sold it or died to collect.

          Comment


          • #6
            That isn’t exactly true stillbreathing.

            Once an order for equalization is made, the court can order a home sold to satisfy the payment, see FLA 9(1)(d)(ii)

            Comment


            • #7
              I’ve been receiving mixed remarks. Some
              Have said because the home was vacated by my ex and her name was never on title the home is only divided up until the evaluation date. Therefore, 10 years ago value when it was last evaluated. As for ordering the sale the home is dual owner with my parents from day 1. Not sure my parents want to sale. Touchy situation.

              Comment


              • #8
                I just found this, If the title to a matrimonial home is in one spouse's name only, then the other spouse's interest in the matrimonial home ceases on the date of separation. It will be the value of the matrimonial home on the date of separation that is the basis for the equalization calculation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Actually what I said is true. As we have had that exact issue come up. My lawyer said that the court can order equalization but can not order the sale of the matrimonial home to satisfy that equalization if the home is only in one spouse’s name and that spouse does not consent to the sale. The only time the court can order the sale of a matrimonial home is if BOTH parties are on title. The same as if you owe a third party money. They can get a judgement against you and put a lean against your home but can not force the sale of your home.

                  The court can not dispense with one party’s consent to the sale of the home if they are the only party on title. It does make collection more challenging but there are other remedies the court can use.
                  Last edited by Stillbreathing; 12-20-2019, 11:46 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Did the lawyer say to you it’s based on today’s value or on the date of separation. Can you PM me

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Your lawyer is wrong or you misunderstood them. See the case law citing the section I referenced above. The Partition Act already allows forced sale of property that is jointly titled, the provision would be redundant.


                      OB1. Talk to a lawyer who knows your situation, not randoms on the internet. Constructive trusts and resulting trusts are complex arguments that are very fact specific.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Our divorce and matrimonial laws in a divorce can override the title decision. The matrimonial home is the one special asset and doesn't matter whose name is on title. Joint tenants and tenants in common are preferred when married as it makes transferring of property easier if one dies. One may have to prove constructive trust if they haven't lived in it and want the equity if you aren't on title. Korman vs Korman 2015 is case law on this. If joint tenants and tenants in common you are both automatically entitled to the equity acquired up to the day you decide to sell or work some other arrangement out but the value of the home "today" is calculated for equalization. I just went through this myself. I was out of the house for 5 years and entitled to the equity up until the day the house was evaluated for equalization. I was a joint tenant.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I did speak to my lawyer and she advised me that the value would be from the date of evaluation. I purchased the home with my father 6 years prior to getting married. My ex’s name was never on title. She lift the home back in 2005 and never came back. When my dad died his portion of the house went to my mom as per his will.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Good.

                            As noted above equitable claims like this are very fact specific and can tricky for lawyers. The 'advice' you get on this site should not be trusted on this topic... too many relevant facts are not being shared or considered.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X