Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exclusive occupation matrimonial home and division of profit on the sale

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

  • Exclusive occupation matrimonial home and division of profit on the sale

    So, I have a few questions concerning the process once the Matrimonial home is sold. Both parties had agreed to it and both parties have agreed to the final price. One party has been staying in the house for a year and was paying the mortgage and utilities. They were both paying house insurance.

    If after everything has been paid from the proceed of the sale (realtor's commission, lawyer's fees, mortgage penalty, other legal fees) what happens if there is not enough to cover the amount of principal that was paid by the party who remained in the house for a year. The party who was not staying in the house obviously will not get any funds from the sale but for example what is the net profit is $3000 and the party who stayed in the house paid down $5000 in principal... is the other party who did not reside in the house responsible to pay the difference to the person who did? Or since the party who was residing in the house accepted the final offer ( a reduction of $10,000 because of septic tank issues) then that party will only get what ever is available?

    Also, last questions, in Ontario... when referring to a previous court case, is it only Ontario Cases that are valid or, if a case from the Supreme court of nova scotia ruled a certain way, can it be used as a reference even if it's in a different province?

  • #2
    All profits are spite. If both had left the home, both would have had to rent and utilities.

    The one that stayed paid occupational rent by paying the mortgage and is responsible for their own bills. Might have been cheaper to pay mortgage than the going rate for a rental on the same property.

    Why would it be expected to stay for free...

    Comment


    • #3
      Well it's not about living rent free since out of the mortgage payment, only a portion goes to the principal and the rest goes to interest. I guess the question is mostly if there is enough money to cover all related expenses to the sell of the house (legal fees etc...) but not enough to cover what the spouse who stayed in the house paid on the principal, is the other person expected to 'compensate' them... I have tried to find case laws regarding this but couldn't ... I found something about the fact that the date of valuation should be the date of the division, meaning when the house is sold, but it's a decision from the supreme court of Nova Scotia so not sure if it can be used for Ontario

      Comment


      • #4
        Lets try this again.

        A&B separate, both leave mat. home and home is rented out to C who pays x amount for rent and all utilities. Rent is used to pay mortgage(principal and interest). Home is sold and both A&B will split what is left.

        What you are not understanding is this: you are paying rent by paying mortgage and it has no effect if you are paying interest or principal.

        Why should you get more...once you separated and the other party left the home you both became "landlords" and you became the renter.

        Comment


        • #5
          I totally agree on how you see this.. but case laws seem to differ on that issue... and the question is that IF yes the person who stayed is able to get the principal paid back but, after all legal stuff has been paid out, there is not enough to cover the entire amount of what they paid down on the principal, should the non-occupying person be responsible to 'compensate' that 'lost'... To me, since both agreed on the final amount of the sale and they knew that it would mean $10,000 less in profit ... well it means that they have to accept the amount that is left to 'split' and if it's not enough to cover everything that the occupying spouse paid.. well it should not be the responsibility of the non-occupying spouse to compensate...

          And I completely agree that who ever stayed in the house would have paid rent if they didn't ... and in this case, the rent of the new places that the occupying spouse will pay once moving out is even higher than what the mortgage was... but that's beside the point...

          I also found a court case but it's from the supreme court of Nova Scotia that says that the valuation date of the house is at the time of division... so at the time of the sale... but not sure if it's relevant in Ontario

          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