matrimonial property Act Alberta

[kapuot]

Hi brand new to this and any forum - I really need help I have been married 51 yrs - I am 71 yrs old. I NEED to leave. House was inherited by h's parents after we were married. never trsf'd to both names - everything is in his name bank accts etc - I never worked o/s home I stayed home and raised our 6 kids and he went to work. A lawyer told me I have nothing and I have no claim as house was inherited it is exempt from Matrimonial Prop Act in Alta. I know this isn't right - but is it the law? I thank you for your help/advice.

[god knows the truth]

hi kapout

I'm not quite sure what lawyer you spoke to but I can't see you walking away with nothing.
I don't believe the laws in Alberta would be that cold-you are 1 by marriage and you both inherited the house b/c of your marriage.
I'm not sure if your Husband still works or not but You are entitled to money , considering the length of the marriage and the fact that you raisied the kids. You would be entitled to portion of rrsps, his pension, etc, I'm in ontario so I can't see the laws being that unfair in alberta(they're bad enough here in ontario)
There are a few very legalistic people on this forum who can help you much more than I can but I thought I'd respond because you posted over three hours ago.
HOpefully logicalvelocity, lindsay,Jeff,or Divorcemanagement logs on soon; if not you'll get a more solid answer later tonight or tomorrow.
Stay strong and don't let anyone push you around.
Is your husband saying he wants you to leave and that you get nothing??????????
Good luck

[logicalvelocity]

kapuot,

welcome to the forum

I am not entirely clear on Alberta Family law, but I advise that I suspect you would be entitled to an unjust enrichment claim. Being married to the same individual for 51 years, being a stay at home parent raising 6 children than suggests that the individual was enriched for your services rendered in the home.

Moreover, I suspect you would be entitled to spousal support if you have need and your spouse has means.

See this leading SCC case on the subject

Peter v. Beblow

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...3rcs1-980.html

lv

[Lindsay]

Hi kapuot,

Sorry to hear about what you're going through. The lawyer was likely referring to this:

Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-8

Distribution of property
7(2) If the property is

(a) property acquired by a spouse by gift from a third party,

(b) property acquired by a spouse by inheritance,

(c) property acquired by a spouse before the marriage,

(d) an award or settlement for damages in tort in favour of a spouse, unless the award or settlement is compensation for a loss to both spouses, or

(e) the proceeds of an insurance policy that is not insurance in respect of property, unless the proceeds are compensation for a loss to both spouses,

the market value of that property at the time of marriage or on the date on which the property was acquired by the spouse, whichever is later, is exempted from a distribution under this section.

However, please note the following section:

Matters to be considered
8 The matters to be taken into consideration in making a distribution under section 7 are the following:

(a) the contribution made by each spouse to the marriage and to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made as a homemaker or parent;

(b) the contribution, whether financial or in some other form, made by a spouse directly or indirectly to the acquisition, conservation, improvement, operation or management of a business, farm, enterprise or undertaking owned or operated by one or both spouses or by one or both spouses and any other person;

(c) the contribution, whether financial or in some other form, made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a spouse to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property;

(d) the income, earning capacity, liabilities, obligations, property and other financial resources

(i) that each spouse had at the time of marriage, and

(ii) that each spouse has at the time of the trial;

(e) the duration of the marriage;

(f) whether the property was acquired when the spouses were living separate and apart;

(g) the terms of an oral or written agreement between the spouses;

(h) that a spouse has made

(i) a substantial gift of property to a third party, or

(ii) a transfer of property to a third party other than a bona fide purchaser for value;

(i) a previous distribution of property between the spouses by gift, agreement or matrimonial property order;

(j) a prior order made by a court;

(k) a tax liability that may be incurred by a spouse as a result of the transfer or sale of property;

(l) that a spouse has dissipated property to the detriment of the other spouse;

(m) any fact or circumstance that is relevant

I can confirm that in Ontario, inheritances are normally excluded from a couples' net family property, meaning the inheritance would be your husband's and you would have no interest. HOWEVER, this rule does not apply to the matrimonial home. Regardless of how and when the mat home was obtained, you are entitled to an automatic 50% interest. It looks as though Alberta does not support this however.

Logicalvelocity is on the right track when he mentions an unjust enrichment claim. However, unjust enrichment claims really only apply to common law couples going through a separation. So, you would instead be seeking an unequal division of your and your husband's net family property. In other words, since you aren't automatically entitled to 50% of the matrimonial home, you can argue that you should be as a result of putting time, effort and possibly money into the upkeep of the home. The fact that you were married for 51 years, 71 years of age and have always been a stay-at-home mother surely should be sufficient in proving an entitlement to half of the value of the matrimonial home.

Lindsay