Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law > Common Law Issues

Common Law Issues The law regarding common law relationships is different than in cases of divorce. Discuss the issues that affect unmarried couples here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-08-2009, 03:19 PM
AlexaJJ AlexaJJ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13
AlexaJJ is on a distinguished road
Default Living expenses and child support

Just have a quick question but will give a little background information first. We were living together for 8 years and have 2 children. Separated September 2008 but remained living in the house as work needed to be done prior to selling. We both own the home and both names are on the mortgage. On Mother's Day he was arrested for domestic assault and removed from the home and can't return due to bail restrictions. Question is does he still owe me to pay for the expenses of the home (i.e. mortgage and household bills) as well as child support and a portion of the extraordinary costs such as day care. He is only giving me just over half of what he used to when he was living in the house and he is not paying anything else towards the care of his children or for their day care other than this amount. I have retained a lawyer and we are in the process of doing financial statements but wanted to get an answer about this issue.
  #2  
Old 07-08-2009, 03:53 PM
GreyShadow GreyShadow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9
GreyShadow is on a distinguished road
Default

Hope this helps .... as I can't comment on the side of domestic violence, but would believe that since it was his fault that he cannot return he is still responsible.

When I moved out - it took 2 years before the house was sold. Up until that time I was paying the mortgage, when the house sold, I paid Child Support as per guidlines (of note Mortgage was higher than CS). house was in my name and bought before marriage.

I was told at a Case Conference by a Justice that in affect what I should have paid was half the mortgage, she was to pay half the mortgage and I was to pay CS in full as well. (always plus Extraordinary expenses).

So in this realm - I should have paid

Full Child Support plus Half of a mortgage on a place I did not live at.

Living Expenses are the responsibility of whom lives there - I am doubtful that he will have to pay half of those.

-Gs
  #3  
Old 07-08-2009, 06:29 PM
Max22258 Max22258 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: hawksbury
Posts: 169
Max22258 is on a distinguished road
Default

If he is not entitled to live in the house due to bail restriction, he does not have to pay, hopefully the utilities are in both your name as he can stop paying for this as well just like I did. You must have put a complaint thru the police for that, excuse me if I sound a little rude but a complaint was made for rape 3 days before she was to leave the house. She is still in the house but she was reprimanded by the family law judge and in criminal court she will have to face the music for false allegation. I am not saying that your allegation are false but I doubt anyone that makes them. Actually he can ask you for the money is is putting towards the mortgage. What you want to do is have an interim order of child support, do not pay attention to the small thing you have to get the important taken care of and that is your children.
  #4  
Old 07-08-2009, 09:46 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

I beg to differ from prior opinion. If you are living in the home then you must assume all expenses related to the home. He is out therefore no responsibilty, you are not required to stay there if you do not wish or can not afford, sorry that is a harsh way of stating it. You would be entitled to the increase in value of the home from the date he was out since you are paying on your own. Fat chance in today's economy.

He must/should pay child support only as per guidelines, regardless if you have an order yet. Once you hit court spousal support may also be coming your way, but no one should voluntarilly start paying that until ordered.
  #5  
Old 07-08-2009, 09:50 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

To Grey Shadow, you state that since it is his fault, domestic violence is a big problem but there is in Canada due process prior to one being deemed guilty. Therefore he may not be at fault at all, please do not read this to mean domestic violence is not a serious issue but rather at times a weapon used to gain an advantage, hopefull in very rare circumstances.
  #6  
Old 07-08-2009, 10:51 PM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by today View Post
I beg to differ from prior opinion. If you are living in the home then you must assume all expenses related to the home.
I don't agree with this. Only the utilities should be paid by you. Not the mortgage, not the taxes, not the insurance. The home is owned by both of you. Given that you don't have a separation agreement and have not divided assets there are many ways you can fairly handle all this. In the short term, until you separate assets, you need to setup support payments immediately - CS and SS if warranted. CS should be paid according to the tables and SS needs to be determined. If you do that, then you can 'rent' the house from the both of you - determine a market price for rent, you pay all the utilities. Then you equally share in the mortgage, taxes, insurance - your 'rent' goes into the income for the property. The house becomes a rental property owned by both of you equally, but you also happen to be the tenant - treat yourself as two different people and the math will work out. That is a fair interim way to handle it until you divide property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by today View Post
He is out therefore no responsibility, you are not required to stay there if you do not wish or can not afford, sorry that is a harsh way of stating it.
You are both equal owners in the house, yet only you live there, so you both have responsibilities, but you must pay for using the house as I mentioned above, by simply renting it from the both of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by today View Post
You would be entitled to the increase in value of the home from the date he was out since you are paying on your own. Fat chance in today's economy.
This is totally wrong - it is not your house, its increase or decrease in value until its ownership is transferred, is for both of you - unless you agree to a price today to buy it from him, then after that point the value of the house is your responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by today View Post
He must/should pay child support only as per guidelines, regardless if you have an order yet. Once you hit court spousal support may also be coming your way, but no one should voluntarily start paying that until ordered.
Everyone should pay SS immediately if it is warranted. To wait to pay until a court orders you is immoral. Of course, it works both ways - any SS desired to be paid or desired to be received should be a reasonable, justified amount.

Assault is a criminal offence and is not right. However the best way to deal with these issues is to keep them separate. He will be punished for his assault if found guilty. This should not have anything to do with dissolving your relationship equitably.

Last edited by billm; 07-08-2009 at 10:55 PM.
  #7  
Old 07-08-2009, 11:05 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

With all due respect Blim, I am speaking only from my own personal experience it was determined in court that I did not have to pay half of anything regarding the home if my ex wished to continue living there, I did however on advice from lawyer have an immeadiate appraisal done to ensure exactly what I described in terms of an increase in value, again Blim you are correct another option considered was to allow her to become a tenant, we ened up allowing her to remain in the home with her paying virtually all expenses including mortgage, she was however given the choice to move out and me moving back in with the same scenerio reversed, with me to cover all expenses including mortgage, considering the number of times we were in front of a jdge seemed to be a very well accepted scenerio by the courts, again in my case, perhaps an exception I really can only speak from my own experience in a very similar scenerio. Another piece of advice that "seems" widely accpeted is to never ever pay spousal support unless odered. We do have a moral responsibilty to always care for our children in every way including financially.
  #8  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:58 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

Since there has been no further activity on this post I would like to add that of course when two persons own a property it would normally be irrelavant if both live there or not , they must share the expense of a mortgage. Family law as we all know if a different world. I have seen a family court judge strike down and change the restrictions of a person charged but not yet convicted of DV (criminla court) to allow the person to attend to the home to pick up the children, this when the criminal court had decided that it may be unsafe for the accused to come within 300 metres by way of restraining order. They are two very different subject/matters yet somehow get intertwined at times, also sometimes a judge may feel he can see through an obvious false accustation that has not seen it's day in court which takes rouglhy one year to get to trial.

Following this logic the accused has not voluntarilly left he home, he has been forced out, yet some insist he continue to pay towards the mortgage, chld support, possibly spousal support and also find an alternate place to live.
Hmmmm go figure. How would this be possibe finacially speaking?

In my case market value of the the so called rent would of exceeded the cost of simply paying the mortgage in full therefore easier to just pay the mortgage rather than so called market value "rent" if this makes any sense.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 21 05-03-2019 06:21 AM
Post Secondary Education Ginger_Mallow Divorce & Family Law 39 12-11-2012 08:18 PM
Retroactive Child Support (Ont) Mess Divorce & Family Law 21 03-02-2010 12:41 AM
Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS 350_dad Political Issues 43 12-18-2009 01:01 AM
Child Support Question Gwen Financial Issues 10 10-16-2008 11:54 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:26 PM.