Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

she moved out....threatening to move back

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • she moved out....threatening to move back

    So, the soon to be ex...moved out April 15, started demanding CS the nxt day (no interm agreement yet)..
    She calls yesterday, going on about $$$ again saying she can't afford to live and if she has to move back she will...ect ect

    She's on call, makes $25/hr and earned $54000 last year...I have to say, I really don't like that threat, nor do I think its in the best interest of our 2.5yr old son....it would be way too confusing.....she didn't like my theory of "maybe not needing a $1200 a month house PLUS utilities" she said..-f I lived in a house, she wa s living in a house...like f#ck I'm livin g in an appartment u live in a nice house!!"

    Any thoughts on that brain wave?

    Thanks

  • #2
    1. Change the locks.

    2. Start taking your child the 7 days out of 14 you indicated in your other post.

    3. After 90 days file the paperwork with ccra to show new marital status (sets the separation date down from a government standpoint)

    4. Start paying offset table amount starting this month(May) based on the income you both made last year. (doing this sets status quo for child support, and saves you from getting whacked with retro cs)

    5. 91 days after she left (so July 16 or so) file the forms with ccra to have the cctb/uccb payments changed to reflect the new shared status.

    6. If at any point she denies you access to the child, get an emergency motion into the court asap.

    7. Make sure you document the assets/debts as of April 15th. If you own the home, then get an independant appraisal done soonest. (to establish it's value as of the date of separation.)

    8. She may qualify for equalization, depending on your financial situation, but ballpark guestimate she's not eligible for spousal support since she's already over 45% of your net disposable income.

    Don't let her bully you, don't let your lawyer dictate, remember HE works for YOU.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks...yeah my lawyer advised me against changing the locks..which I think is BS...

      I did already give set off CS and plan to continue to do so.....I'm curious as to why we want to be so generous and offer more than set off..... I just don't see how a judge could differ that far off my favour....although if I could get her to agree to $250-300 I would be happy.....but $400 is likely....but then I would not want to give for babysitting...

      I don't fully agree with my lawyers suggestion to pay more for the first month and a half as there were start up costs associated...for fear of status quo....but then it would drop down to a more modest amount??
      Frig I hate this..lol. I JUST WANT SOME CLOSURE !!!!

      And I have been getting my son on my days off....if she keeps him, she can't really work...so, no benefit to her..

      Phaats

      Comment


      • #4
        It took me 3 years to get a settlement, we had a stable 50/50 status quo and there was nothing to argue about, but that didn't stop her from trying to squeeze a better deal. You have the right idea, but closure takes two.

        I agree, change the locks. She has moved out, has a new residence. She is no longer residing at this address so she loses her legal access rights.

        Don't pay a penny more monthly. Instead, like I said in the other post, offer her more as a "signing bonus". Paying more now is flushing it down the toilet. If you are going to pay more, get something for it, ie a settlement.

        Comment


        • #5
          I haven't read your other posts (yet) but the advice above is solid. If you are going to change the locks, remember to offer her set times to pick up any belongings that she might have left. Also, if the house is owned, then she does have the right to have a key, as basically you are her tenant (for half of the house..if that makes sense). As a landlord she must provide you 24 hours written notice before entering the house, and she must have a valid reason (repairs). If you think she will push the issue. check out the laws for landlords and tenants.

          As for CS, start paying her the setoff amount now. I did that and now that it's been 9 months there is nothing that he can change about it. If you can send it via email transfer or by cheque, so you have a paper/electronic trail. You never know when she might claim you never paid. If you pay more than setoff the judge may make that a permanent amount. If you feel like contributing more to your child, put it in an RESP or something.

          While you may not want to pay for babysitting, if the child needs to be looked after and neither parent is available, then you will have to pay. But wait for those receipts and do the calculations to determine what percent you have to pay. While you may want to agree to a set amount a month, at any time she can come back and ask for your share of the costs that weren't covered by your set amount. Cover you back and pay up monthly. You don't want a "bill" from her for thousands of dollars sometime in the future.

          If you let her have more than what the court will award her, she will get to keep that. Don't set up a status quo that you arent willing to stick with. It will come back to bite you, regardless of the reasons (trust me, I know)

          Comment


          • #6
            If this is the matrimonial home, she is entitled to be able to stay there w/o a restraining order providing otherwise. The house is legally both of yours. Baring a restraining order, neither party is permitted to refuse access to the house to the other party.

            But you do, is move her stuff to the spare room. Put a lock on the door for your room. Move any of your personal belongings into your room to protect them etc.

            Buy a digital voice recorder and wear it 24/7. Be it in her presense or not. It will help protect you from a false DV claim.

            Edit - if she moved out with the kid(s) welcome her (read - the kid) back with open arms. Do what I said above, but you want the kid in your home. That is what is most important here.

            Then just be a dad. Spend time with your kid, but be sure to document it. Did you wake them up, feed breakfast and get them ready for school? If so, write it all down. Same goes for homework, activities, dinner etc etc. Journal it. Be superdad.

            The house equity will get split if it is the matrimonial home. Not much can be done about that. But she left once, if she wants to go again help her move. But focus on the kid(s).

            Comment


            • #7
              He doesn't need a restraining order to keep her from living there.

              He can seek sole possession of the home without a restraining order. It would be absurd if a couple separated and one party could move in and out at will. A restraining order would only be issued if there were threats of violence or ongoing abuse. He still has every right to privacy and a stable living environment, without having his ex decide that she is going to be his new room-mate without warning.

              She has a new address, this is her new primary residence. This is enough reason on it's own to seek sole possession. She still has a share in it's value, but she doesn't have the right to keep moving in and out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mess View Post
                He doesn't need a restraining order to keep her from living there.

                He can seek sole possession of the home without a restraining order. It would be absurd if a couple separated and one party could move in and out at will. A restraining order would only be issued if there were threats of violence or ongoing abuse. He still has every right to privacy and a stable living environment, without having his ex decide that she is going to be his new room-mate without warning.

                She has a new address, this is her new primary residence. This is enough reason on it's own to seek sole possession. She still has a share in it's value, but she doesn't have the right to keep moving in and out.
                He can seek sole possession of the house. However, until he does so, she is entitled to live there.

                But more importantly then the house is, SHE TOOK THE KID(S). She left and is now looking to move back. I would open the door, give her a room and say that is that. Then take advantage of the opportunity to be superdad and try and at worst shared custody or a good 60/40 split with joint custody.

                I also don't believe 2-3 weeks would be considered a reasonable period for her to re-establish herself.

                But really, is it about the house or is it about the kids? To me, we all know she is going to take 1/2 the net value of the house. What we need more then that is to maximize our time with the kids and as a result of that, help minimize child support (or find a way that it is paid to us) for the next 16-18 years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I was told that after 30 days out, she automatically forfeits possessionary rights to the house?? Can't find anything tho.....

                  She threatens to move back because she got this lavish house rental...expecting $640 CS+ half daycare plus spousal!!! Lol

                  Sadly, its all about the money... I also believe it would be way too confusing to move back in with our 2.5yr old....then leave again!!!! This isn't. A game..

                  Phats

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                    He can seek sole possession of the house. However, until he does so, she is entitled to live there.
                    NO she is not. She has a new residence. Taking any action that implies giving up a residence, like turning over a key or signing a lease somewhere else will result in giving up your right to reside in a premise. Please research some real estate and landlord/tenant law. This is not a family law matter, it is a property matter.

                    If her name is on the title, then she has ongoing rights to access with 48 hours notice, subject to reasonable restrictions (ie not in the middle of the night.) If her name is not on the title, then all she has is a financial share that was frozen on v-date.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by phatkid77 View Post
                      I was told that after 30 days out, she automatically forfeits possessionary rights to the house?? Can't find anything tho.....
                      Phats
                      This sounds about right. Again, look at property law, not family law. Certain things depend on how your property title is set up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        YES!! I will look into it

                        She is NOT on title or mortgage...soley in my name!!!!!

                        Phats

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Possessionary rights...could be. But she is still entitled to her fair share. Hope you get this sorted out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's all I care about... HER NOT COMING back.....
                            I'm not interested in screwing out of equity.....contrary to her views on it.....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mess View Post
                              NO she is not. She has a new residence. Taking any action that implies giving up a residence
                              Here is the test for determining exclusive possession:

                              Order for exclusive possession: criteria – In determining whether to make an order for exclusive possession, the court shall consider,

                              (a) the best interests of the children affected;
                              (b) any existing orders under Part I (Family Property) and any existing support orders;
                              (c) the financial position of both spouses;
                              (d) any written agreement between the parties;
                              (e) the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and
                              (f) any violence committed by a spouse against the other spouse or the children.

                              The only point in this case is (e). And in this case the "affordable" part of the equation is out the window. So no, she can move back. She did make a vague attempt to find accomodation on her own and failed (pretty badly).

                              So OP choices are right now (a) let them back in and do his best to establish as much of a parenting pattern as possible to possibly get as best a custody arrangement as possible. Or (b) he leaves them out, looks like the bad guy by not providing a residence for his child, loses any chance of getting a decent custody arrangement and pays child support on top of spousal support.

                              IMO, the choice is pretty clear.

                              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