Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The House

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

  • The House

    Ok so you guys have given some great advice so far. I'm expecting to have another appointment with my lawyer in the next couple of weeks. Our whenever the X hands in his financials. Onto the question, I purchased the house in my name. Used all my own funds to buy the house. We were married when I purchased it. Lived together in the house for 19 months. Some improvements have been done but when I figured out the numbers for realtor fees/lawyer fees/penalty for ending mortgage, the house would have to sell for 30k more then I bought it for to break even. I very much doubt that’s going to happen. He's been out of the house for almost 6 months. Hasn't payed any house hold bills since he's been gone. No equity at all in the home. (Damn interest) If he decides that he wants some sort of equalization payment, what happens to the money I've paid on the mortgage/taxes? Is that somehow deducted off his interest in the home?

    Thanks again for any help!

  • #2
    For the house it goes from the time of separation...basically you figure out what the mortgage was at that time and get an appraisal done... you both will have to fill out a financial statement and if you have more debt in the home (with mortgage, loans against the house or what have you) he may end up owing YOU money...

    Any equity that formed after the separation date is solely yours. Any equalization can only go from the date of separation...provided it is true that only you contributed to the payments of the house!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
      For the house it goes from the time of separation...basically you figure out what the mortgage was at that time and get an appraisal done... you both will have to fill out a financial statement and if you have more debt in the home (with mortgage, loans against the house or what have you) he may end up owing YOU money...

      Any equity that formed after the separation date is solely yours. Any equalization can only go from the date of separation...provided it is true that only you contributed to the payments of the house!
      That only works for "common law" in Ontario. Marriage it is 50/50 split on value of home unless an agreement was reached prior to the marriage. (i.e. a marriage contract)

      So, if you got married and there is no agreement on the house it can be an uphill battle. Many people make this common mistake when getting married and have assets. The case law on it all is so mixed it is hard to say what way the court will go with assets pre marriage. It usually takes a lot of evidence to support the argument.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • #4
        Good old "Matrimonial Home" - I was common law and there was no "equalization" - I believe your ex (in the absence of a pre-nup, and they don't always stand up that well anyway) is entitled to HALF. Assets and Liabilities divided by 2. I suppose it's a plus, that there's no equity in your home - but definitely this will need to be addressed. :s

        Comment


        • #5
          Tayken... I thought that once two people are separated...if one moves out and one remains in the house and continues to pay mortgage and such, the party who moved out and did not contribute to the house after separation would only be entitled to equity at the time of separation... if not, does that mean when one party moves out and the other continues to pay down the mortgage, say it takes 2 years to get things settled, the party that moved out is entitled to the equity that was built during those two years? Even though they made no contributions to the house?

          Comment


          • #6
            Based on a current appraisal, the ex would be entitled to half, minus payments and contributions (prop taxes etc) - from the time that he left. Tracy123, have you advised Rev Cda that you are separated?

            Does X say much re: house? That he will get his "half" etc? I don't know that I'd live w/anyone again, but for sure I'd sooner they moved into my house before I'd sell and get a house with that person.

            Comment


            • #7
              An important term to understand, specifically regarding matrimonial home/equalization is the "crystallization date". This term is used to bench mark the date (month/year) you established yourselves formally separated.

              The courts will then use this date to determine the value of all assets/property. Life's expenses after this date are secondary to equalization.

              Can you mutually establish/agree on this date?

              Comment


              • #8
                He hasn't payed a thing since he's left. Yes Rev. Canada was informed the day he left. I made him change his status to. Yep, date was agreed too. At first he agreed to letting me have the house. His first lawyer flat out told him there's no equity, if you force her to sell, you'll end up owing her money. Not sure what he's thinking now. My lawyer stated the same. Berner_Faith, that's what I was thinking, and even if he wants his share he'd end up in the hole even if the house sold for 30k over what I paid for it just over 2 years ago. It's all a waiting game I guess though. I've handed in all my financial stuff and my lawyer has asked that I have the house and we both take on our own debts. (I have far more on paper he just blows threw his money and lives pay check to pay check.) He has poor credit so all loans, credit cards, were in my name.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                  Tayken... I thought that once two people are separated...if one moves out and one remains in the house and continues to pay mortgage and such, the party who moved out and did not contribute to the house after separation would only be entitled to equity at the time of separation... if not, does that mean when one party moves out and the other continues to pay down the mortgage, say it takes 2 years to get things settled, the party that moved out is entitled to the equity that was built during those two years? Even though they made no contributions to the house?
                  That gets screwed up with the whole "occupational rent" argument the other party not residing at the house will make. The counter argument to "occupational rent" is it should only be made when one of the two parties leaves on their own and without notice or is forced out of the home due to a court order.

                  You are technically correct, but, high conflict lawyers will make any argument, no matter how relevant it is, against the other party. So even if their client leaves, moves to a new jurisdiction, files an emergency ex-party motion, doesn't request sole possession of the matrimonial home and never returns... The left behind party could still be left paying "occupational rent" because the other party left.

                  Sad high-conflict setup situation. Commonly done... There is case law that stops this but, often the party this happens to only becomes aware of the case law and evidence to this conduct after matters are settled.

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Understood Tayken! Thanks

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                      Understood Tayken! Thanks
                      The case law that can be used to counter this kind of conduct is found here:

                      Rogerson v. Tessaro, 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA)
                      Date: 2006-04-28
                      Docket: C44199
                      URL: CanLII - 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA)
                      Citation: Rogerson v. Tessaro, 2006 CanLII 15126 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1n708>

                      [5] The mother’s problematic conduct included the mother’s decision to move the children’s home to a different town on the eve of trial. As a result of that move, the children were uprooted from their school and their community. Moreover, the mother said that if the father moved to her new town, she would move again. This conduct, in addition to many other instances of alienating conduct, was properly viewed by the trial judge as evidence of the mother’s inability to support the father’s relationship with the children and to consider the best interests of the children.

                      Often quoted... and a lot of material on the case... Rogerson v. Tessaro is something all parents facing possible HAP/PAS should read.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ok, so I guess that means he'd be fighting for about half of 2k. I wonder if he'll try.
                        Thanks for all the help everyone!

                        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