Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unjust enrichment, Nova Scotia

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by torontonian View Post
    You should search for it again - it's all over the place, including in this forum...
    Occupational rent is for when one of the party is out of the MH, and has no access to the equity (i.e. one rents, the other enjoys the MH). There are issues with payments (mortgage/insurance/taxes vs occupational rent) but that's it in a nutshell.
    Based on this definition, occupational rent isn't applicable to the OP's situation. They were common law, so there is technically no matrimonial home. The house is also solely owned by the OP. The issue here is the ex's "free ride" while he lived with her and the fact that he contributed very little financially. The OP asked about his cost of occupancy, and the concept of occupational rent was given. I fail to see how it applies.

    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
    even though they were just common law and she owned the place first and he moved in with her? Does it matter that she has always and still pays all the bills? If so can she go after him for half the mortgage, property taxes, utilities etc from the time he moved into the house?
    Why would she go after him for half the mortgage, property tax, etc? The place is hers and she paid the bills. If he paid half of all that stuff, then he would have an argument to half the equity accrued during his occupancy.

    To me, the OP was hinting at his claim of unjust enrichment vs. the benefits of him living there for practically free. Couldn't any small amounts he attributed to the home be weighed against his low cost of living expenses while living there, which was borne by her?
    Last edited by Teenwolf; 03-01-2012, 01:49 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Teenwolf View Post
      Based on this definition, occupational rent isn't applicable to the OP's situation. They were common law, so there is technically no matrimonial home. The house is also solely owned by the OP. The issue here is the ex's "free ride" while he lived with her and the fact that he contributed very little financially. The OP asked about his cost of occupancy, and the concept of occupational rent was given. I fail to see how it applies.



      Why would she go after him for half the mortgage, property tax, etc? The place is hers and she paid the bills. If he paid half of all that stuff, then he would have an argument to half the equity accrued during his occupancy.

      To me, the OP was hinting at his claim of unjust enrichment vs. the benefits of him living there for practically free. Couldn't any small amounts he attributed to the home be weighed against his low cost of living expenses while living there, which was borne by her?
      you took my post out of context. I was wondering why he could get occupational rent when they were just common law and if he could could she go after him for half of the mortgage payments. I was responding to the post before me.

      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