Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Common Law - Division of property

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teenwolf
    replied
    Makes sense for the division of property purposes. You either jointly own stuff or you don't. CL status doesn't really matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berner_Faith
    replied
    What CSAngel says sorta makes sense...

    If property is owned, whether they meet the 3 year threshold or not, if they both contributed then there are ways that an equalization of some sort will have to take place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teenwolf
    replied
    Originally posted by CSAngel View Post
    My lawyer said the 3 year thing means nothing.
    Huh? I wouldn't agree with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • NBDad
    replied
    Here's a situation for ya'll. A woman sells her house and puts all the $ down on a new one with her common law (yes over 3 years together) partner. He puts down nothing but since he fixed up the old house and enabled her to get more $ upon the sale, feels that is his contribution. SHE agrees..I guess.
    He has an argument. If he put labor into the old home, and they bought a new one, he can always make a claim. Doesn't mean it'll fly, but he can try.

    2 years after living in the house, shopping on credit cards (which are in her name due to his lack of credit)to furnish the place,
    Relevant only in terms of amounts owed vs. property valuation. The assets were acquired during the relationship, as well as the corresponding debt. It's a single entry on the balance sheet of equalization.

    The guy gets a rental and proceeds to help himself to whatever he wants in the house while she is at work. This happens for 2 days.
    Why in the world didn't she change the lock after the FIRST day? Document what he took, try and locate a value for them. Usually the way it works is that HE gets to keep what HE brought into things, SHE gets to keep what SHE brought in and JOINT assets are split. The VALUE of the asset would be it's currently value - what's owed on it (for things purchased on credit).

    HE now claims that since SHE changed the locks, HE is not required to pay on the mortgage (his name is on the deed - silly woman) but still is entitled to 50% upon the sale of the house.
    He's about half right. He's moved out, so he's not expected to contribute anything now. HOWEVER, document when he moved out and get an appraisal on the home done ASAP. He'll share in the increase in valuation of the home from the time it was bought to the day he moved out and stopped contributing. You would use that value (net gain or net loss) and it would again, be part of equalization. (or w/e the hell the common law equivalent is)

    HE claims this was told to him by a lawyer....I don't believe it?
    Don't take legal advice from the ex, or the ex's lawyer, goes without saying. Parts of what he's claiming are true, or partially true. Your friend should get some decent legal advice on protecting herself soonest.

    Leave a comment:


  • hockeydal
    replied
    Here's a situation for ya'll. A woman sells her house and puts all the $ down on a new one with her common law (yes over 3 years together) partner. He puts down nothing but since he fixed up the old house and enabled her to get more $ upon the sale, feels that is his contribution. SHE agrees..I guess.
    2 years after living in the house, shopping on credit cards (which are in her name due to his lack of credit)to furnish the place, they decide they will split. The guy gets a rental and proceeds to help himself to whatever he wants in the house while she is at work. This happens for 2 days. Finally she catches on and changes the locks. HE now claims that since SHE changed the locks, HE is not required to pay on the mortgage (his name is on the deed - silly woman) but still is entitled to 50% upon the sale of the house.
    HE claims this was told to him by a lawyer....I don't believe it? Can anyone advise. BTW - No I am NOT the she in this situation - far too smart for that!

    Leave a comment:


  • hockeydal
    replied
    This BlinkandImgone character has a chip on their shoulder it sounds like!

    Leave a comment:


  • preciosacalderon
    replied
    I mean situation, sorry

    Leave a comment:


  • preciosacalderon
    replied
    yah, that's right. it should be 3 years or more to be called it common-law. Believe me, I was in that separation before, and it's really very hard, the only difference is that he is the one who call a police, but I explain everything to them, then I get a lawyer and that's it. Just tell the police officer that your relationship with him is done. that, that property is yours because it's under your name and ask for a restriction against him, e.g. he should be 1000 meter off of you and your property. if he get nearer, call the police and they will take care of the next move.

    Leave a comment:


  • marzi
    replied
    Thank-you for the feedback.
    I did some research before and I thought it was three years. So I wanted to make sure.
    But how do you tell a cop that he/she is wrong?? That's the hard part.
    I fixed my door and he broke in again while I was at work. Didn't take anything but I feel like I can't do anything since the Police do not really know what is right.
    It's so uncomfortable. I have to sleep with one eye open.
    Anyways, thank-you so much for the posts.
    I think I will go to one of the centres to get more info as proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • preciosacalderon
    replied
    as far as I understand [and im quite sure about this], you're not yet considered common-law partners because you separate ways before 3 years of living together and the property is under your name. So, legally, he has no right on any of your property, but it's up to you, I think you're a good person. all the decision is yours.

    all the best

    Leave a comment:


  • HappyMomma
    replied
    My lawyer said the 3 year thing means nothing.

    But regardless, common-law or not - he has no rights because the house is in your name. You can change the locks if you want - the cop is out to lunch (shocking).

    Selling the house and dividing it equally is perfectly reasonable. If I were you I'd get on it ASAP.

    Good luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkingDAD
    replied
    ok you won, blinkandimgone

    I am just saying that as I read your answer that looks like it's general rule (3 years). It still may be tricky.

    what would you say if they file income tax as common law and now in court will argue that they are not in common law because 3 years rule?

    thx

    Leave a comment:


  • blinkandimgone
    replied
    No, I don't agree. My answer was not general at all, my response was specific to the information she gave which stated:

    We have no kids (thank goodness).
    If I were responding to a post where it wasn't specified I would have given a different answer.

    The poster was not inquiring about income tax, she was inquiring about common law rights which don't apply here because they don't meet the requirements.

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkingDAD
    replied
    Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
    Yes, it is. Ontario law says 3 years for common law when there are no children involved. Pretty straight forward indeed. They are living together less than 2 years so common law does NOT apply.
    exactly - if no children involved
    but before you gave more general answer

    ...in Ontario you have to be living together for 3 years to be considered common law.
    and again for Income tax as I remembered it should be at least one year - not 3 that why I answered in such way...

    I am not trying to be smart$#@% here but from my point of view statement " in Ontario you have to be living together for 3 years to be considered common law." is not correct or at least is not full because there is other things to consider...

    do you agree?

    Leave a comment:


  • blinkandimgone
    replied
    Yes, it is. Ontario law says 3 years for common law when there are no children involved. Pretty straight forward indeed. They are living together less than 2 years so common law does NOT apply.

    At most, it's a property settlement issue. Given that the house is in her name, his payments would be considered rent which he isn't entitled to have back given he would have had to be paying rent/expenses regardless of where he lived.

    If you are looking to sell the house then give him his downpayment back plus a share of any increase in value up until he moved out up until the time he moved out and send him on his way. (provided he has not been paying the expenses since moving out, if he has then he gets a share of the increase up to the current date)

    As for posessions, you each get what you brought into the relationship, joint purchases should be divided (or the value of joint purchases divided).

    Leave a 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