Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assets before marriage

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

  • Assets before marriage

    Hello all,
    I'm currently separated, living under the same roof as the spouse, not giving up custody of our child, or equity. We have to wait six months before we go to Trial Management Conference and/or Settlement conference.
    Before marriage, my wife owned a home with her mother and sister. I moved in with her in this house for 3 months before marriage, then lived there for about six months after marriage until they sold it. My son was also born in this house. My wife's mother and sister lived in the same house through that time.
    Is this home considered a matrimonial home? In my financial disclosure documents, I did not include any of the value of this asset under my data because my name was not on the title, but I think I should have included it because it appears to meet the definition of "matrimonial home".
    Thus, what I am asking is, because I lived in this house, I got married in it, and my son was born there, although my wife owned it before marriage, is the value of this asset (my wife's share) half mine? Should my wife's share of the value of this house (including "my half" if applicable) be considered family property, or should it be considered equity before marriage, hers alone?

  • #2
    No expert ... but I'm going to say NO since you state that you lived in a house for 9 months (3 before marriage & 6 months after marriage) and then the house was sold.

    You and your STBX are obviously living somewhere else now and at the time of separation. Wherever you were living at the time of separation would be the Matrimonial home

    Comment


    • #3
      From what I gather is each your ex, her mom and her sister were all co-owners of a property. You lived in said property for 9 months.

      It could be deemed the matrimonial home, however it a court ever determined it was, you would only be entitled to 1/2 of your ex's share, so 1/6 of the equity.

      What did your ex do with the funds from the sale of that house? Has she included them on her financial statements? Were they used to purchase the existing house? These are questions that I would be looking to answer.

      It would be a difficult matter to argue. The short duration, the other owners etc all muddy the waters.

      But if your ex used the funds from the sale of that house to purchase the existing house, which is the matrimonial home, then she co-mingled the assets and they would likely be fair game.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hmmm....yea I'm no expert either but I think DunnMom is right.

        If the house wasn't sold, I think what you'd be entitled to is half of your ex's portion of the increase in equity.

        However, since the house was sold and these funds were absorbed into your marital expenses, its a non issue. I think the only way you might have a case here is if she put those specific funds away into some account.

        Comment


        • #5
          But if your ex used the funds from the sale of that house to purchase the existing house, which is the matrimonial home, then she co-mingled the assets and they would likely be fair game.
          I'm not sure I understand this.

          If she co-mingled the assets or used them to purchase a new home...wouldn't those funds wouldn't already be included in her NFP in the listing of those assets? I would have thought he would have had a case if she's got those funds separated from everything else and not listed on her financial statement.
          Last edited by Pursuinghappiness; 10-19-2012, 01:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
            I'm not sure I understand this.

            If she co-mingled the assets or used them to purchase a new home...wouldn't those funds wouldn't already be included in her NFP in the listing of those assets? I would have thought he would have had a case if she's got those funds separated from everything else and not listed on her financial statement.
            They should be listed on their NFP either way....

            If they were separate and never co-mingled, he still has an argument for them given the house could easily be deemed the matrimonial home. But if they were never co-mingled, it would mean he would have to argue that they should be deemed family assets and that they be divided. Essentially, he still may have a claim, it is just a harder argument.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
              From what I gather is each your ex, her mom and her sister were all co-owners of a property. You lived in said property for 9 months.

              It could be deemed the matrimonial home, however it a court ever determined it was, you would only be entitled to 1/2 of your ex's share, so 1/6 of the equity.

              What did your ex do with the funds from the sale of that house? Has she included them on her financial statements? Were they used to purchase the existing house? These are questions that I would be looking to answer.

              It would be a difficult matter to argue. The short duration, the other owners etc all muddy the waters.

              But if your ex used the funds from the sale of that house to purchase the existing house, which is the matrimonial home, then she co-mingled the assets and they would likely be fair game.
              Well, I never knew how much she got, and never knew what she used the money for. I do know that she came up with the downpayment for our current home, but she said that she used a LOC for that, and never even mentioned her proceeds from the sale of her other home. I never even bothered asking because I never thought I would be brought into a mess like this.
              So it is a messy issue. She potentially used that money to purchase our current home...

              Comment


              • #8
                then your current home is the matrimonial home.Not the previous one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You are not sure of the sale proceeds? I am near positive that if it was a MLS listing the list and the sold information can be obtained by any real estate agent who has access to the MLS system as it is public knowledge. (I make the assumtion it is public as listings with sold prices are printed and given to potential clients all the time as comparables when buying/selling a home)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wow. If this were a female poster the responses would definitely be different.

                    My advice would be not to nit-pic this issue. You were married for a very short period of time and in my opinion it is not worth pursuing.

                    I don't know how long you have been married? Yes that is the matrimonial home. I hope you are selling this yourself and not through a realtor to get every last drop of equity you can for it. Check out realator's fees before you sign on the line and remember you can always cancel a contract with a realtor.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by arabian View Post
                      My advice would be not to nit-pic this issue. You were married for a very short period of time and in my opinion it is not worth pursuing..
                      Where in his post do you read that he was married for a very short period of time?

                      c800957276, you seem to be confusing different issues.

                      There can only be one matrimonial home (usually; if you own a cottage, that may be included.) When you married, it became the matrimonial home. Therefore the value should not be included in her NFP from before marriage. So neither of your assets at the time of marriage should include any of the value of this home. For example, if you owned a home 100% at the time of marriage and it became the mat home, you would not claim this as part of your marriage date NFP. If the 1/3 value is showing on her pre-marriage NFP, this is an error, or she is not interpreting the home as "marital" because of the joint ownership with family and the short time you lived there. Either version may be argued.

                      When the home was sold, it ceased to be an asset. It doesn't matter what happened to the money or whether it was co-mingled or not . Otherwise it doesn't matter what happened to the money. She can spend it on blow and male hookers, it does not change a thing in your separation date valuations.

                      After that house was sold you bought another house. It doesn't matter if she put money from the sale of the previous house into this home or not. It doesn't matter if she borrowed the downpayment and paid it off later. It doesn't matter how much either of you put into this home. It is the matrimonial home and you split the value 50/50.

                      From the information you give, you do not have an issue. You would not under any of the circumstances you describe put any of this value on your NFP. First, because it wasn't yours on the date of marriage. Second, because mat homes do not go in the marriage date NFP. Third, because the home was no longer owned on the date of separation. So it has nothing to do with your NFP.

                      The only possible issue is whether she is including the 1/3 value on her marriage date NFP or not. Personally I would not see the point in pursuing that as an issue unless she were nit-pickng some financial point of yours.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [QUOTE=Mess;112145]Where in his post do you read that he was married for a very short period of time?
                        [QUOTE]
                        he put in another thread that he was married for 7 years.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
                          I'm not sure I understand this.
                          I would have thought he would have had a case if she's got those funds separated from everything else and not listed on her financial statement.
                          She's got these funds listed as her equity before marriage, not as family property.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            Wow. If this were a female poster the responses would definitely be different.
                            No, my answer would be the exact same.

                            I don't like what the OP is suggesting, I never even bothered responding to his post about his ex's law suit claim as I rolled my eyes and moved along.

                            I simply put what I believe to relevent. The 1st house became the matrimonial home when they married and resided there notwithstanding that the ex was one of three owners. So, he'd be entitled to a portion of the proceeds as a spouse.

                            I could suggest that if this was a female poster and they were asking for SS you'd be all about how to get as much as they could.....but that is just a matter of perspective.

                            IMO, given how much the OP may stand to gain vs how much it would likely cost him to try and have it included, I doubt there is much value there, so I'd pick my battles and move along. If anything, I'd leverage including the funds against other matters more important to me.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              When you married, it became the matrimonial home.
                              This is correct.

                              Therefore the value should not be included in her NFP from before marriage. So neither of your assets at the time of marriage should include any of the value of this home.
                              This is not correct. While the home was a matrimonial home, because it was sold (or otherwise disposed of) prior to separation, the value of the home on the marriage date may be included as marriage date assets.
                              Case law - CanLII - 1999 CanLII 787 (ON CA)

                              It doesn't matter if she put money from the sale of the previous house into this home or not.
                              This is correct.

                              She's got these funds listed as her equity before marriage, not as family property.
                              This is the correct treatment of the money. Keep in mind, she can only claim her actual interest in the home's equity, not the entirety of the property, if she shared ownership.

                              But if your ex used the funds from the sale of that house to purchase the existing house, which is the matrimonial home, then she co-mingled the assets and they would likely be fair game.
                              While this is true for excluded property, it is not the case for marriage date assets. This is dealt with in the case law cited above.

                              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