Hi everyone
I hope I am doing this correctly - never been on a forum so if not, please feel free to let me know.
My boyfriend and I purchased a house together. He had an existing mortgage on a property he had been living in before we decided to purchase the house. As the penalty to break the mortgage was significant, and because the down payment for the new house was from the proceeds of his condo at the time, the mortgage remained in his name. We had a verbal agreement that if anything happened to the relationship, he would get his initial investment back and anything between the purchase price and the market value at separation would be split 50/50.
During the course of the year we lived together, along with my three children, because my income was higher, I paid more into the household, with the knowledge that we had an agreement and that if anything happened I would be ok financially. Neither of us could have afforded the house on our own. I took care of the inside of the house, he did the outside, we shared in the responsibilities of the children.
At the time of separation, the increase in the value of the house was approximately $40,000. We had accumulated approx $20,000 in debit, most of which was his.
When the time came to discuss the house, the equity, and what would be done, I was told that I was entitled to nothing, verbal agreement nul and void. Because I had contributed more on a monthly basis than my spouse, I feel that I am entitled to something. Again, he would not have been able to support the house, the mortgage and the bills on his own, and as I stated before, I contributed more on a monthly basis.
I was told, and I have read that I am not entitled to the property because common law for property is 3 years – ok – however, I came across Unjust Enrichment and I believe that is the case here.
The house was rented, and my children and I were left homeless, with not a cent of financial help from my ex. I took some furniture mostly the childrens, and a few other things, that’s it. Not one cent has exchanged hands.
As all my income was going into a home I thought I had a portion of rights to, I had no savings, and moved into a three bedroom townhouse which I have had to furnish on my own. I am budgeted to the penny, and have no room for things like car repairs, new tires, activities for the children, clothing.
I truly feel like I entitled to something. Based on this information, would Unjust Enrichment come into play.
Unjust Enrichment
An unjust enrichment occurs where one party gains a valuable advantage from another without legal reason. The requirements for a finding of unjust enrichment are:
• one spouse has been enriched,
• there is a corresponding deprivation to the other spouse, and
• there is no legal reason for the enrichment.
The first step is to examine the parties’ common law relationship and the roles each played. A person can argue that she made a contribution, in a collaborative relationship, that ought to be compensated. She will ask for damages or an interest in her partner’s property, or both. In response, her partner may argue that she has done nothing out of the ordinary, and that she was compensated fairly during the relationship.
The contribution. A person’s contribution may have been domestic services, such as housekeeping, child care, unpaid work in her partner’s business, yard work, repairs or renovations, and may also include financial contributions, or quasi-financial contributions such as the purchase of consumables for the family.
Enrichment. As a result of a person’s efforts, has her partner improved his lot? The answer is normally yes, if he has assets, or paid off debts, or improved his property. Almost anything done for a person’s partner will have enriched him somehow.
Deprivation. This is usually the converse of the enrichment. A person will have put herself out caring for her partner’s interests and in the process will have sacrificed her own opportunities, her energy, her free time, her future, and her prospects. There is a presumption in a long-term relationship, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, that the enrichment of one party has resulted in a deprivation of the other.
I hope I am doing this correctly - never been on a forum so if not, please feel free to let me know.
My boyfriend and I purchased a house together. He had an existing mortgage on a property he had been living in before we decided to purchase the house. As the penalty to break the mortgage was significant, and because the down payment for the new house was from the proceeds of his condo at the time, the mortgage remained in his name. We had a verbal agreement that if anything happened to the relationship, he would get his initial investment back and anything between the purchase price and the market value at separation would be split 50/50.
During the course of the year we lived together, along with my three children, because my income was higher, I paid more into the household, with the knowledge that we had an agreement and that if anything happened I would be ok financially. Neither of us could have afforded the house on our own. I took care of the inside of the house, he did the outside, we shared in the responsibilities of the children.
At the time of separation, the increase in the value of the house was approximately $40,000. We had accumulated approx $20,000 in debit, most of which was his.
When the time came to discuss the house, the equity, and what would be done, I was told that I was entitled to nothing, verbal agreement nul and void. Because I had contributed more on a monthly basis than my spouse, I feel that I am entitled to something. Again, he would not have been able to support the house, the mortgage and the bills on his own, and as I stated before, I contributed more on a monthly basis.
I was told, and I have read that I am not entitled to the property because common law for property is 3 years – ok – however, I came across Unjust Enrichment and I believe that is the case here.
The house was rented, and my children and I were left homeless, with not a cent of financial help from my ex. I took some furniture mostly the childrens, and a few other things, that’s it. Not one cent has exchanged hands.
As all my income was going into a home I thought I had a portion of rights to, I had no savings, and moved into a three bedroom townhouse which I have had to furnish on my own. I am budgeted to the penny, and have no room for things like car repairs, new tires, activities for the children, clothing.
I truly feel like I entitled to something. Based on this information, would Unjust Enrichment come into play.
Unjust Enrichment
An unjust enrichment occurs where one party gains a valuable advantage from another without legal reason. The requirements for a finding of unjust enrichment are:
• one spouse has been enriched,
• there is a corresponding deprivation to the other spouse, and
• there is no legal reason for the enrichment.
The first step is to examine the parties’ common law relationship and the roles each played. A person can argue that she made a contribution, in a collaborative relationship, that ought to be compensated. She will ask for damages or an interest in her partner’s property, or both. In response, her partner may argue that she has done nothing out of the ordinary, and that she was compensated fairly during the relationship.
The contribution. A person’s contribution may have been domestic services, such as housekeeping, child care, unpaid work in her partner’s business, yard work, repairs or renovations, and may also include financial contributions, or quasi-financial contributions such as the purchase of consumables for the family.
Enrichment. As a result of a person’s efforts, has her partner improved his lot? The answer is normally yes, if he has assets, or paid off debts, or improved his property. Almost anything done for a person’s partner will have enriched him somehow.
Deprivation. This is usually the converse of the enrichment. A person will have put herself out caring for her partner’s interests and in the process will have sacrificed her own opportunities, her energy, her free time, her future, and her prospects. There is a presumption in a long-term relationship, in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary, that the enrichment of one party has resulted in a deprivation of the other.
Comment