Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matrimonial Home question again....

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

  • Matrimonial Home question again....

    I am so confused with conflicting answers to my question so I'm trying again to see if I could get clarification. Here's my situation:

    My husband had a house before we were married (House A). I moved into House A for a year, we go married, and then continued to live there for another year.
    We sold house A and bought house B. House B's down payment was the money from house A. House B is in both our names, House A was only in my husbands name.
    We've been living in house B for 6 1/2 years.

    We are now separated and in the final stretch of our settlement.

    My soon to be exhusband has informed me that he has the right to claim house A since he owned this house before our marriage on his financial statement as an asset he had pre marriage.

    Here's the conflict:
    Everything I read on line and from other posts tells me that he cannot claim house A because this was the matrimonial home. The day we got married House A became the matrimonial home and became 50/50.
    However, his lawyer is telling him that he can because you can only have 1 matrimonial home and house B was the matrimonial home at the time of separation.

    I am SO confused. Logically I don't know how it would be possible for house A to be claimed. Especially knowing that I lived thier for 2 years paying the mortgage as well. If this was the case then what the hell is the matrimonial house exception's purpose???

    Does anyone....ANYONE know what is the source of truth here?
    If you do, do you have anywhere you can direct me so I can prove he can't claim house A.

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by rcooper; 01-13-2011, 11:25 PM. Reason: miscommunicated a section

  • #2
    Third thread same question.

    Comment


    • #3
      How much did your ex put down before you moved in to house A? I don't know if you are going to find a straight cut answer on this one but I could be wrong.
      Can you just subtract the amount he put into house A before marriage from the appraised value of house B before doing the split?

      Comment


      • #4
        It is straight.

        Her lawyer is telling her something different than everyone else.

        She needs those views reconciled.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
          Third thread same question.
          Yes I know, but, I thought I would present a clearer picture because I still don't know my answer which is legally doesn't he have the right to claim House A as an asset.

          Comment


          • #6
            He can claim his ass as an asset. lol. Just because he feels he is right and no one seems to know the real answer then contest it.

            Have you done the math if you calculate what he says against what you feel is right? Is it a big difference? Have you started the process in court? Is it worth fighting over?
            Last edited by tugofwar; 01-14-2011, 12:03 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tugofwar View Post
              He can claim his ass as an asset.
              Who's going to value it?

              Comment


              • #8
                the throne he sits on....lol

                Comment


                • #9
                  Let's say he had a pile of money (instead of house a) coming into the marriage. And while you were married he used this to purchase your matrimonial home (house b). I believe that the fact that he used that asset (pile of money, or house, doesn't matter) to purchase the matrimonial home means that the asset is now part of the mat. home equity to be split 50-50.

                  If you had separated while living in house A, then house A's equity would be split 50-50. But in your case, house A's equity was 'converted' into house B's equity - again split 50-50.

                  The same occurs if he had an inheritance - if kept separate and not used to purchase shared marital property, the inheritance remains fully his. But if you use an inheritance to purchase the mat home ... pfft there goes 50% of it.
                  Last edited by dinkyface; 01-14-2011, 12:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
                    Who's going to value it?
                    An asscountant? Isn't that up your alley? LOL

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So I am right then.
                      House A because 50/50 the day we were married and still living there & he CANNOT claim house A as a pre marriage asset....correct?

                      Is there a specific law that states this, or, is this something I will need to fight?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, it's the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act. If you're in 'the final stretch' of your settlement, your lawyer should have already told you this...

                        You've gotten some good advice from the forum members. Go with it. Try to split possessions and custody amicably with your ex, or the lawyers will be very happy. My divorce cost me less than a grand in lawyers fees - a simple property battle (and no custody issues) with a self-entitled ex-BF will end up costing me 10 times as much.

                        If one of you can afford to purchase the other's interest in the mat home, then do it. It will be better for your kids in the long run.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh I agree and don't even get me started!! 6 months into this and just having this dropped on me was a pretty good blow.
                          That's why I'm so confused. As it stands were to receive appx $250k each for the sale of House B and my Ex is expecting to get more and me less due to House A.
                          The problem is I can't prove my facts....only what people tell me. I'm wondering if I need to go to another lawyer for a 2nd opinion.
                          I can't find a site in my research that specifies anything around house A...just matrimonial homes are 50/50. His lawyer is saying you can't have 2 matrimonial homes and therefore he can claim House A because House B is the current matimonial home at the date of separation. Even though we lived and were married in House A.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What is YOUR lawyer saying? Perhaps you should ask a 2nd lawyer.

                            While your ex may feel it's unfair that he lose his original investment from house A, (and I can see where he's coming from), the onus would be on him to make his case, and it would be an uphill battle, IMHO.

                            Check out these links:

                            http://www.ottawadivorce.com/propertydivision.htm

                            List of Cases

                            scroll down to the cases marked 'equalization of net family property'. Read the cases. In Canlii, you can also see where these cases are cited in subsequent cases.

                            Try speaking to him calmly. Don't be a push over, but don't be a shrew. Otherwise you are both going to make some lawyers (and real estate agents) very happy otherwise...

                            Don't forget, you still have to co-parent with this man after all is said and done.
                            Last edited by KanataKathy; 01-14-2011, 09:42 AM. Reason: added link

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You can't have two matrimonial homes, true, but that means that if you own two homes simultaneously, only one of them is the "matrimonial" home. The family cottage, for example, is just an asset, and if one spouse owned it before marriage, it would stay theirs. In your situation, you only have the one matrimonial home, and you are legally a half owner of it, regardless of the source of the funds to buy it.

                              Your ex and his lawyer are trying to bully you into agreeing to something by confusing you. Because no matter what the law says, two people can agree to something other than the law.

                              That said, you have to balance what you'll pay in legal fees and loss of your ex's goodwill and cooperation by trying to fight it. I would suggest your counteroffer would be your legal half of that asset, but perhaps you should be willing to acknowledge that he contributed way more to the purchase of the house than you did. Conceding a bit of the asset in negotiations (let them talk you down to 25% from 50% maybe) might save you a lot of legal fees, and set you up for a far more cooperative coparenting situation post divorce.

                              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