title of house??? reposting to correct form

[may]

[may]

I forgot to add that we have a vebal agreenebt that if we were ever to split up that we would split evertthing 50/50

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

Unless he is willing to honour a verbal agrement you may have something to worry about.

Family Law in British Columbia: Which laws apply to your case

This site covers some of the issues for common law unions in BC.
It states,

Property division can be complex, especially if you were not married to your partner. There are important time limits involved that you need to be aware of. Get legal advice as soon as possible if you have property issues that need to be resolved.

I am not familiar with BC family law and how it applies to CL unions.
However, this site does a pretty good job at explaining the basics and offers several useful links

[billm]

So, are you saying that I do not get full credit for my contribution bescause it was used to purchase vehicals that have depreciated ... and he gets full value of what he put in? Wow Did i get taken advantage of?
What about the fact that he signed the full ownership of the house to me to avoid creditors as well as CS arrears? I have paid more than half of everything. I also operate a buisness out of the basement of this home.

This quote is from the other thread (introductions)

may, you are right, I did not consider it correctly. Where the money was put should not effect who benifits, so if you put your money toward a joint thing such as a car, which depreciates, and his money toward a joint home, which (usually) appreciates, then you must equally share in the gains and losses.

I know you said you have an agreement, to split everything 50/50, I don't know what everything is - your house too? what you had before? what about debts etc?

The best way to look perhaps is like a joint venture. What do you each have when you met (total net worth, considering all assets and debts, including your house, the cash he got from selling his, ALL assets and debts including the ones that don't have anything directly to do with the other) - call this value A for you, B for him (could be positive or negative numbers!) Now determine what you have now (total combined of both of you, considering ALL assets and debts) call this value C (could be a negative number!)

From C, give A to you, give B to him.

From what is left of C after subtracting A and B, which could be negative (ie debt to be subtracted from your A and his B), you each get half.

If you had relatively the same when you started (A is close to B), then this could be fair. If A and B are a big difference, then one of you may have benifitted from the others better initial finanicial state (ie cost to carry the others debt, or benifit from investment), but you could ignore this.

Even though the new house is in your name, I think it would be fair if you moved back to your original house and he remains since he sold his original house.

Of course anything you both consider fair is in my book fair, but these are my suggestions for thought. Its just math!

[may]

We each have children , He has an inheritance in the future of approx. $300,000 and my home has approx. $300,000 equity in it. We agreed to each keep those seperate for the protection of our children. We agreed to share equally all that we accumulated from date of moving in and purchasing the new house.

As far as the new house is concerned he would not want to live here, he would want something much smaller. You said it would be FAIR to let him stay in this house, but legally would I have to?

[may]

Hi billm,

I am looking forward to your opinion on my last post? Thank-you for your imput.

[billm]

Originally Posted by may

We agreed to share equally all that we accumulated from date of moving in and purchasing the new house.

This statement confuses me - what do you think is the agreement you have regarding the new house - half is yours, or half is yours after what is left after you get back what you each initially put into it?

Also, I don't consider myself capable of stating what you are legally entitled to, or able to get, as I have never been near a court house, have dealt with my ex essentially direct, and most of what I know about what actually happens in the courthouse I have learned here.

I have read a lot of information here and other places however and that has given me the understanding of how to approach what I think is fair all things considered in my opinion.

When people first consider what they can get, before what is fair, or go to a lawyer, and get them to tell them what is fair, that is when I tune out. Sure, some people are incapable of figuring things out, others simply can't deal with their ex due to some imbalance in their relationship, but generally why not start with a lot of thought on what is fair today, write it down with explaination, and show it to the ex? Most 'promises' during the relationship were only made as an offer to prove love, rather than a solution on how to end a relationship, and I think they are mostly meaningless.

One thing for me though, I found at the start of my separation that I (and I suspect my ex) were afraid to make an offer on a fair settlement because I worried that a fair justified offer would be a considered by her to be a starting point for negotiations, rather than an ending point - the old adage of who ever speaks first, looses. In hind sight though, the delay caused tension and added to our problems, once we got going it went smooth (I did all the work, but it was surprisingly accepted (though it was just simple math, and tables, and a few who wants what decisions in the end)).

Did i just rant?...