Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

unjust enrichment claim

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mamma View Post
    Out of our 4 year common law relationship we lived 3.5 in quebec where my rights as a property owner were protected. I sell my place - we move to ontario three months later we break up and he claims unjust enrichment for contributing 450$ to the living expenses !? No one seems to notice this but I get large criticism for not supporting shared access for infants. Sorry I don't and am willing to try my chances in court. I support the father - son relationship but as it was pointed our numerous times it's not a quality but a quality of the time spent that really matters.
    So you won't agree to shared parenting if he dropped his unjust enrichment claim?

    Just want to be sure we all understand what you are saying.

    First it was you were a better parent
    Then it was he wanted to move to far...
    Then it was he's only worried about money
    Then it's quality or quantity

    Curious what you next emotional reasoning will be?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mamma View Post
      Out of our 4 year common law relationship we lived 3.5 in quebec where my rights as a property owner were protected. I sell my place - we move to ontario three months later we break up and he claims unjust enrichment for contributing 450$ to the living expenses !? No one seems to notice this but I get large criticism for not supporting shared access for infants. Sorry I don't and am willing to try my chances in court. I support the father - son relationship but as it was pointed our numerous times it's not a quality but a quality of the time spent that really matters.
      So this really has nothing to do with his parenting, it has everything to do with that he wants some of what you feel is your money? You do realize that going to court these issues are going to be totally separate. Why cant you have quality and he have quantity if that's all it is really about?

      Unfortunately you seem to be looking for someone to tell you that he shouldn't get shared parenting because he is the father. You are not hearing what you want so you are getting aggressive. That's fine, it is the typical behaviour of a new poster who comes here and wants to be heard... I assume you want your day in court?

      I think you mentioned that he wanted $5000 from you... $5000 won't even get you into a court room. Give the father equal access to his child. YOU are being VERY childish and withholding the child because of money

      Comment


      • #33
        Your argument about quality vs quantity gets shot down pretty hard when your ex is parenting on his parenting time.

        When you were together you each made decisions based on the relationship on parenting. You may have taken the lead on a number of facets and your ex may have totally willing to allow you take those leads. Now, that may or may not be case. But either way, those were decisions made in connection with your relationship. Now that the relationship is over, there is no issue about whether who will parent when. Each parent will parent the child during their parenting time. Because you may have been more involved with parenting during the relationship, doesn't mean that he won't be forced to do the exact same thing during his parenting time.

        Also, what you are offering is LESS than what any convict could get, so long as the convict is a pedophile. Should you end up in court with this as your stance, you will likely not be happy with the judges order. Your ex may not get 50/50 right away, but he will get more than what you are offering and duration when 50/50 would be set as a date, not some whimsical notion of "when it is best for the child". Because in most cases "when it is best for the child" becomes either a) never or b) a huge battle because who is the one to decide when the time is right? Because I am sure you and your ex have and/or will have different opinions on when is appropriate.

        It sounds like you ex is competently represented. Some of his arguments are likely negotiation tactics. Be sure to use those that you think you can use to your advantage to negotiate something that is fair. And be sure to be reasonable in the offers you do make.

        And FYI the "tender years doctrine" got tossed from the courts years ago. Now it is just what is in the best interests of the child. And it is commonly found that it is in the child's best interests to have frequent and meaningful contact with both of their parents. "two 2h visits during the week plus a 5h visit on a weekend" is neither frequent or meaningful.

        Comment


        • #34
          Great, I ask a question about unjust enrichment claim but as soon as it becomes known that I am not pro shared parenting I am being labelled 'emotional' and 'agressive'. I don't wan't to be 'heard', I started this treat beacuse I was and still am looking for input on the enjust enrichment and constructive trust claim - a topic much less discussed here than the custody/access. And you are absolitely right the two issues will be treated separately. FYI, the Father made a claim of unjust enrichment when I refused his offer of shared access, made when when our baby was 8 months old.

          Comment


          • #35
            How dares he to want to spend more time with his child! How dares he trying anything and everything to be equal parent to his child? He must be a very bad person since he is fighting toot and nail to be an equal parent!

            Since you are not pro shared custody, how about you offer to your ex primary custody and you get to see your child 2 hours during the week and 5 hours on weekend? What makes you think that you instead of your ex, you should be primary parent? Do you somehow have a better claim on the child? why do you think that your child does not deserve to be parented by his two parents equally? Are you really thinking about what is best for your child or you are trying to punish your ex? in the end you are punishing your child the most!

            I just don't get it, what makes you ''worthy'' of having primary custody and your ex not? Because you are a mother?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Toutou View Post
              How dares he to want to spend more time with his child! How dares he trying anything and everything to be equal parent to his child? He must be a very bad person since he is fighting toot and nail to be an equal parent!

              Since you are not pro shared custody, how about you offer to your ex primary custody and you get to see your child 2 hours during the week and 5 hours on weekend? What makes you think that you instead of your ex, you should be primary parent? Do you somehow have a better claim on the child? why do you think that your child does not deserve to be parented by his two parents equally? Are you really thinking about what is best for your child or you are trying to punish your ex? in the end you are punishing your child the most!

              I just don't get it, what makes you ''worthy'' of having primary custody and your ex not? Because you are a mother?
              I don't think you will get that answer.

              Comment


              • #37
                I know that will not get the answer, but I am hoping it will make her think about it, for a sake of her child.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mamma View Post
                  Great, I ask a question about unjust enrichment claim but as soon as it becomes known that I am not pro shared parenting I am being labelled 'emotional' and 'agressive'. I don't wan't to be 'heard', I started this treat beacuse I was and still am looking for input on the enjust enrichment and constructive trust claim - a topic much less discussed here than the custody/access. And you are absolitely right the two issues will be treated separately. FYI, the Father made a claim of unjust enrichment when I refused his offer of shared access, made when when our baby was 8 months old.
                  Indeed. And just as an FYI, claims for constructive trusts are extremely difficult to prove, and this is likely just the other blowing smokeupyourazz.

                  As to the parenting discussion, I don't know anyone who has ever changed another's opinion on the internet by ranting. But perhaps you have all given this OP something to consider as she moves forward through the system.

                  Should any others wish to continue on with a discussion of parenting and access arrangements, feel free to take it to the political discussion forum.
                  Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mamma View Post
                    Great, I ask a question about unjust enrichment claim but as soon as it becomes known that I am not pro shared parenting I am being labelled 'emotional' and 'agressive'. I don't wan't to be 'heard', I started this treat beacuse I was and still am looking for input on the enjust enrichment and constructive trust claim - a topic much less discussed here than the custody/access. And you are absolitely right the two issues will be treated separately. FYI, the Father made a claim of unjust enrichment when I refused his offer of shared access, made when when our baby was 8 months old.
                    It isn't because you are not pro-shared custody, although that likely plays a small part. It is because your offer in relation to custody is absurd. No right thinking parent who has been in any way involved as a parent would accept that.

                    My feeling is that your ex is going to use unjust enrichment as leverage to gain on the custody side. If what you provided in your earlier post was your offer to him he will need that leverage given the absurdity of your parenting time arrangement and to drag you somewhere near the realm of reality.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Treating the unjust enrichment portion of your question based on what you have written he does have a case. If he is successful or not will depend on the judge. Given the numbers you have mentioned it might be less expensive to pay him rather than a lawyer. You might also find that the custody maters go in your favour if he is indeed using custody as a bargaining tactic for monetary gain.

                      If he is not using it as a tactic for monetary gain but is indeed seeking equal shared parenting you will find out quickly enough.

                      Why do you FEEL he is not able to parent a child as equally as you?

                      I having custody of a house full would love to see my ex have even some of them for half the time. I don't have the benifit of an ex who has any interest.

                      And I even have a penis.
                      Last edited by Once.is.enough; 08-20-2014, 05:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        DTD was quite correct in his initial posting on this thread, the OP’s ex must demonstrate his specific efforts during their short 4 year relationship in some manner enriched the OP, and then show a corresponding loss to himself. Based on what the OP has written here, it is clearly evident that this ex isn’t even close to meeting that standard. In fact, it doesn’t look as though he was contributing even an equal share to the running of the household.

                        His lawyer’s stab to establish a constructive trust (particularly given the OP at one time asked for a pre-nup clearly setting out her terms for a downpayment on any future house to be owned jointly), is a desperate attempt to confuse the issues.

                        OP I might have missed this, but are you self-rep? This one item should be a no brainer for your lawyer to argue.
                        Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Your thread was about unjust enrichment, but you did indeed mention the custody issue as well, syou can't blame people for wanting to offer an opinion on it as well.

                          That being said, a lot of the moms and dads here, myself included, tend to be pretty militant about about the shared parenting bit. I can see why that turns you off a bit.

                          Let's just leave that all aside for a moment.

                          On the face of it, the majority of his demands are not unreasonable. The unjust enrichment bit is asketchy on his part, and the whole notionnof principle residence is presumptuous, but I have to be honest with you, the shared parenting and 50-50 is quite reasonable. The majority of people in this thread support it, and that is based on a mountain of case law, and the thousands of hours people on this forum have spent dealing with court, OVL, and CAS. You ignore that advice at your peril.

                          My ex and I breezed through mediation because we both jumped all over 50-50, and agreed to share decision making. She had a brief "but I'm the mom" moment, but she got over it. Our biggest hurdles were money, of course, but here is the part where I ask you to learn from my situation:

                          Although custody and money can be very separate, the amicable resolution of one can help both parties resolve the other. You are setting yourself up for a war on to fronts:money and custody. To help you as best we can, we have implied that your custody approach is neither viable or winnable. In fact, if you are limiting him to a few hours a week already, it is demonstrating to the court that you may not be an ideal sole custody candidate. Waiting until your child is 2 to assess 50-50 is disingenuous, because you and I know what the assessment will say: "Child has already settled with mom as primary, so dad should only get every other weekend". If your exes lawyer is half competent, he has already been advised of this risk.

                          You are right, we don't know the whole situation, but we have offered advice based on what you have shared with us. If the father is negligent or abusive, of course it changes everything. If he isn't, you being the one that did the primary parenting up until this point will mean very little to a competent judge.

                          On a personal note, if my ex had suggested that a few hours a week was fine as long as I mad it " quality time" instead of "quantity time", I would have hapilly agreed with the theory, and then dedicated my life to making sure that she was the one that ended up with a few hours, just so she could test her theory more directly. You need to consider just how insulting your parenting proposal is, and realize that it will influence how your ex conducts himself moving forward.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Sorry was busy getting all my financial info updated - such a pain
                            Yes I do have a lawyer - unfortunately she is on vacation for another week and I really wanted some input on the unjust enrichment claim I received last week.
                            I also like being well informed and having my own opinion formed instead of bluntly following her advice. So all you comments are welcome - especially the constructive comments made by Straittohell, Mcdreamy, HammerDad, Once.is.enough . Don't attach me because I have a different opinion - this is a forum right?

                            No my ex was not an involved father - he only started showing interest in the baby when he received court papers. Sure not everyone is a baby person, he may do more things with his son as the child gets older.

                            Most of those who commented are probably fathers of older kids - not babies/toddlers. My son's main method of communication is crying - I understand it most of the time - my ex just thinks that the baby is being cranky 'again'. My son is asleep by 7.30pm we both have standard work schedules (9-5) so by offering two 2h visits on the weekdays my ex would have two complete evenings out of five. Plus a much longer visit on the weekend. My ex does not spend that much time with him right now.

                            There is a lot of speculation about what is the best access arrangement for children under 3. And I say speculation because no one really knows. There are two theories the 'tender years' and the 'multiple caregiver'. Both have lots of studies to back them up. I remember reading a case on the temporary access where the father was demanding overnight access to a 1 year old baby and the two lawyers went on and on and on bringing studies / providing expert opinions to defend these theories. At the end the judge said that this is not the place for a scientific debate and left the schedule unchanged.

                            No one knows which theory is correct because each child and each family is different. I just know that according to the first believe early separation from the primary attachment figure and drastic changes during the first years of life MAY result in some problems related to attachment and the ability to build strong relationships later in life etc.. The second theory states that no such thing will happen since babies adapt well to change. As a mother why would I agree to a schedule for which there is even a slight change of my son having any type of negative impact later in life? I will let my lawyer work out a defense strategy for the court but this is the reason why I refused the 50/50 arrangement offered by my ex. We have at least 17 years of co-parenting in front of us... what's the rush?

                            Unfortunately our court system puts too much weight on the status quo so I feel that my Ex is under the impression that whatever schedule will get established right now - will stay there forever. And for me the immediate shared schedule is unacceptable - and this is the only thing he is offering. And of cause the money... i asked my lawyer if we could not ask for the child support but she thought it was a bad idea and when on and on about how it was the child's right etc.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Okay but once again it is asked, would you be acceptable if your ex was the primary caregiver? It's fine not to believe in 50-50 but if it is truly a belief it would go both ways would it not? Or are you of the opinion that as the mother you are more of a right?

                              When my partner had his children, he took the parental leave and his wife at the time returned to work a couple weeks after having the children because she wanted to work, rather than be home with her kids. He was and is an excellent father and his children certainly don't suffer because they were raised by their Dad and not their mother.

                              Just know that if these are your arguments for court, you may find yourself very disappointed. Be careful that your lawyer isn't just trying to pad their pocket by telling you that if this goes to court you will win.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                "Most of those who commented are probably fathers of older kids - not babies/toddlers. My son's main method of communication is crying - I understand it most of the time - my ex just thinks that the baby is being cranky 'again'. My son is asleep by 7.30pm we both have standard work schedules (9-5) so by offering two 2h visits on the weekdays my ex would have two complete evenings out of five. Plus a much longer visit on the weekend. My ex does not spend that much time with him right now."

                                Yes, I do happen to have two older kids. Five and Eight. Not quite sure where they came from. I just woke up one day and found them on my doorstep just the other day. It is not like I was up all night with them in the early months of their lives helping with feedings, rocking them back to sleep, preparing their food, playing with them, dressing them, changing their diapers, etc.

                                Honestly, do you know how stupid that statement sounds? Fathers of older kids? What the heck so you think they were before they were older?

                                Your supposedly ingenious rationale for limiting dad to only a few hours a week does not fly. At all. The biggest problem? Using the word "visits". They aren't visits. A father does not babysit his own children.

                                You are right, 17 years is a long time, which means that the last 11 months of what you have seen from him as a parent mean nothing. Of course he didn't care until he filed! When you were a couple things were different. Divorce changes everything.

                                With the attitude that you have, don't be surprised that you spend a lot of time fighting over this in court, making this unjust enrichment business the least of your concerns.

                                But do go on and try to convince yourself that your 1950s viewpoint on fatherhood will survive a 2014 judge.

                                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