Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple question: can you keep the matrimonial home? Yes or No

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

  • #16
    I didn't want to be there in the first place. My lawyer said that I had to attend as I am still the owner of the property. At the very first sign of hostility, I move myself at the end of the driveway so neighbours could witness everything if she would have followed me. I stayed closely to my vehicle until the appraiser came outside.

    The purpose is to have my share at a fare value. The first appraisal was conducted in January 2015 so we needed a new one. I know the market value would be higher but after all expenses related to the sell of the house (cleaning, painting, repairs, agent fees, legal fees...) at the end, the equity could be even or less. The point was just to force her to buy me out or list the house on the market if she can't afford as it was going for too long. Once again, I needed to get in front of the Court to make things moving forward and it shouldn't be that way. Her behavior to move the case forward to settle is very very poor. I'm keeping all the evidences for my costs.

    Comment


    • #17
      The appraisal came back 10K$ more than the first appraisal.

      It is 20K$ more than what I have offered to STBX last April. It proves that when you are greedy, it will definitely slam in your face sometime later.

      Now the answer to keep the matrimonial house is due today and we have yet received a response with the evidence from the bank that STBX can keep the house. If no answer is received by end of day, I am to call the realtor agent, specifically appointed and ordered by the Court to list the home on the market.

      I know STBX lawyer is on vacation but the term's date is today and no mater what... no answer at all means she wasn't successful in getting approved for a new loan to buy me out. I guest the house will be listed on the market.

      Comment


      • #18
        It's very rare for anyone to be able to keep the home unless they are extremely wealthy.

        Being crippled with divorce costs (legal, support payments, equalization, etc) virtually guarantees that no one will be able to manage it on their own.

        Comment


        • #19
          Here is an update from the last motion.
          We consented that STBX would make the necessary to get pre-approved and then the house would be transferred to her in 60 days. If not approved, the house would be listed.

          Apparently, she was approved. They sent me a certificate from the bank showing she did. But they wont tell for how much she was approved and I need to know as I want to make sure she was approved so I can get my share of the equity and not just for the remainder of the loan. I refuse to sign the Acknowledgment and Direction with draft transfer until the transaction is final and that I am sure the funds will be deposited in my account.

          I am suspicious that STBX only got approved for the outstanding amount of the loan and she will ask me to keep my pension at equalization process. This is not an option for me since I got into debts since I lost access to my house and I need to clear them in order to meet my obligations... as CS and arrears. Otherwise, I won't be able to make it. More of this, I've been requesting to have my share of the equity since the very start of our case and to share my pension.

          I know it's nice to save our pension but instead of having to fight for that issue sometime in the future, I would prefer to share it right away for a fair and equitable treatment. I've could have done this last year but now, I need the equity of my house.

          Can a judge refuse that I share my pension so that she keeps the house?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mafia007 View Post
            Here is an update from the last motion.
            We consented that STBX would make the necessary to get pre-approved and then the house would be transferred to her in 60 days. If not approved, the house would be listed.

            Apparently, she was approved. They sent me a certificate from the bank showing she did. But they wont tell for how much she was approved and I need to know as I want to make sure she was approved so I can get my share of the equity and not just for the remainder of the loan. I refuse to sign the Acknowledgment and Direction with draft transfer until the transaction is final and that I am sure the funds will be deposited in my account.

            I am suspicious that STBX only got approved for the outstanding amount of the loan and she will ask me to keep my pension at equalization process. This is not an option for me since I got into debts since I lost access to my house and I need to clear them in order to meet my obligations... as CS and arrears. Otherwise, I won't be able to make it. More of this, I've been requesting to have my share of the equity since the very start of our case and to share my pension.

            I know it's nice to save our pension but instead of having to fight for that issue sometime in the future, I would prefer to share it right away for a fair and equitable treatment. I've could have done this last year but now, I need the equity of my house.

            Can a judge refuse that I share my pension so that she keeps the house?
            Any thoughts on this? I tried to find cases similar to this where a spouse would be disadvantage at equalization process by having assets that are not accessible until they retire. By refusing the transfer of half the pension, the other spouse faces the dilemma of having no equity (no cash) to pay his debts and buy a new home. This is really unfair for the spouse who has a big accumulated pension. It's like starting at zero if it's not under zero...

            Comment


            • #21
              So your ex wants you to buy out her share of the equity as part of the equalization process, but you want to use your (future) pension for equalization instead because you are short on cash? But if she's keeping the house, why would you be buying her out? This is confusing. Can you clarify?

              Comment


              • #22
                No it's the opposite. She want's to buy me out but I think she can't. The only way she could is if I keep my pension and I get no equity in returns from the house. Like I say, I want to split my pension right away and transfer her share so that question won't come back to haunt me in the future.

                And for most, by losing access to my home (under false allegations) I started to accumulate debts when I only had a mortgage. Now to resettle, I need the equity in order to meet my obligations (arrears and CS).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well, either she has the money to buy you out or she doesn't. If she doesn't have it, I'm not aware of anything that would oblige you to use her share of your pension in lieu of a cash buyout. So I think you can just say no. It seems simple. Or am I missing something?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That's why I am asking. She was suppose to get approved by the bank to remortgage under her own and buy me out. Instead, I think she only got approved for the remaining of the loan and now they are asking me to sign the acknowledgment and direction for draft transfer in order to have the loan transfer in her name and to remove mine. It's obvious to me that she got approved only for the balance and not for the balance and my share of the equity. I am not signing until they can prove that I'll get my share of the equity.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If I recall right, when my ex bought out my share of the house, we had an agreement that within ten days of me receiving the funds in my bank account, I would sign the papers to transfer title to him. Why don't you do the same? If she doesn't give you the money, you won't transfer title. I'm really not seeing what the problem is here.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        That's where it kicks in. They want to transfer the title and then do the equalization some time later. I am saying no. Transfer the funds and I will sign to transfer the title.

                        From the agreement, they are saying that only my name should be removed from the mortgage and all other items would be discussed later during the equalization process. In my view, the matrimonial home issue was to be all done (transfer of tittle and funds) and then all other issues at the equalization process. What they are trying to do really is to get her to own the matrimonial home all to herself with a very small mortgage to assume and then drag the finalization of the equalization process sometime in 2-3 years from now where they will force me to keep my pension. And then, 2 years later, she will bring another motion to have a share of my pension. I can smell the evil behind all this ploy.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Don't agree to it without a dollar figure attached, and do not sign off on the house until you have the money. Sounds like she is simply trying to take over the existing mortgage with no equity to you. Don't do it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mafia007 View Post
                            What they are trying to do really is to get her to own the matrimonial home all to herself with a very small mortgage to assume and then drag the finalization of the equalization process sometime in 2-3 years from now where they will force me to keep my pension. And then, 2 years later, she will bring another motion to have a share of my pension. I can smell the evil behind all this ploy.
                            I agree with your interpretation, and there is no need for you to sign. I think you focus too much on what the bank has told her or promised her. That is not your problem. She owes you the cash, the arrangements she has made with her bank are her business.

                            If she wants you to sign over the house without providing the cash, obviously that is a non-starter. I think it will go down exactly as you predict. Equalization will show that your pension is worth the house so you get no cash. A few years later she is house poor and she goes after your unequalized pension.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Received a letter from STBS's lawyer stating that I am in contempt of the Court Order for not signing the transfer of deeds. I am replying that they are in breach for not transferring the funds. Until I get my equity, I am not signing to remove my name from the matrimonial home.

                              When dealing with an asset with such a value, like the matrimonial home where the equity is very significant to both parties, does the Court always apply a decision that is fair to both? Will a judge say that the order is not specific enough for that type of transaction and leads to different interpretations and the contempt order should be dismissed?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mafia007 View Post
                                Received a letter from STBS's lawyer stating that I am in contempt of the Court Order for not signing the transfer of deeds.
                                I'm pretty sure contempt is decided by a judge.

                                You can probably safely ignore that letter. If they thought you were in contempt they would bring a motion. Your ex just spent money, that's a good thing! That means she has less money to do things that could help her case and hurt you.

                                When dealing with an asset with such a value, like the matrimonial home where the equity is very significant to both parties, does the Court always apply a decision that is fair to both?
                                Courts don't dispense fairness, they dispense justice. Contrary to popular belief, those are not the same. Justice means that the decision is consistent with the laws, which may or may not be fair.

                                Will a judge say that the order is not specific enough for that type of transaction and leads to different interpretations and the contempt order should be dismissed?
                                huh?

                                Have they actually started a contempt motion? Maybe I've lost track, I didn't reread thread, but I don't remember thinking that you were actually defying a court order. She wants to buy you out, you want the cash. She wants you to sign over the house before she gives you the cash, right?

                                Unless you have a court order that says that you must transfer title, I'm not sure what you are in contempt of?

                                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