Claiming back support for mortgage paid

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wife#2

New member
Hello all! I'm a new member and this is my first post. I'm sad to see so many people in the same hell my husband and I have been in for the past 2+ years.
He has been dragged to court approx 10 times now in just 2 years. The latest issue? Here goes.
During the first year of separation (2years ago) my husband agreed to continue to pay both the mortgage and taxes on the matrimonial home which his ex continued to live in, in lieu of support. This cost him about $2000 a month when his child and spousal support should have only been about $1500 a month or less. They sold the house one year after separation. She changed the locks and he had no access to the house during this time. So now she is claiming back support because she thinks because he got money from the house when it sold, he did not really pay support. It was her choice to stay in the home. He never stopped her from putting it up for sale, which she decided to do 7 months after separation. If he/we knew she would make this claim, obviously he would have forced the sale of the home right after separation. Our lawyer has said most judges are not entertaining this crap, but we have heard that about a lot, and yet the judge has sided with her almost on everything. Anyone else deal with issue? Thanks all!
 
If your husband and his ex wife entered into an agreement, both receiving ILA (independent legal advice) which specified the amount of spousal support he was to pay to her, and then they both agreed that he would make the mortgage payment etc. in lieu of the SS, then you shouldn't have anything to be worried about.
 
Unless he sold the house and recouped his payments that he made in lieu of SS. The ex is correct, the amount he 'paid' in SS during that time period should have been deducted from his equity payout during equalization.
 
I can't say for sure but it sounds like a six of one, half dozen of the other type of thing to me. There are several others on here who can better dissect your situation based on the numbers you have provided but in my totally honest opinion, I believe the ex-wife has a strong case.

The mat home should have been sorted out along with all other equalization issues at the time of separation.
 
All depends upon what they agreed to and what was in the separation agreement. I'm sure everything can be tallied appropriately. Doesn't sound like too much time has elapsed.
 
If he was to pay $1K/month in spousal support and the mortgage was $1K/month he should have been paying the money directly to her and she could choose to pay the mortgage with it.

As he was paying it directly to the mortgage for 7 months, it still qualifies as 'her' payment and that $7K should have been attrinuted to her during equalization olf the home equity. (hypothetical numbers)

He could, at this point, ask for occupational rent however it is very difficult to get and it could end up dragging out this process for quite a long time.

He should simply make her an offer for the edifference she paid into the home's equity and see where it goes.
 
Perhaps the OP could clarify what the terms of their agreement was..

Was it verbal? Was there anything legal about the agreement? I might be wrong but to me it 'sounds' as though the 'agreement' was loosey-goosey.
 
Lots of variables to consider. Not sure if a mortgage payment can be traded off in lieu of SS - two different things with different rules. OP mentions the ex wife could have sold the MH anytime yet goes on to say the ex felt the husband had received money from the sale of the MH. Bit confusing and more information would be needed to say for sure.

One good thing is that everyone has a few years of collecting income information so there shouldn't be too much of an issue determining CS and SS. Just need to do some number crunching.
 
Quote "if he was to pay $1K/month in spousal support and the mortgage was $1K/month he should have been paying the money directly to her and she could choose to pay the mortgage with it."

^ THAT says it all.. Using Blink's hypothetical numbers ^
 
arabian said:
Lots of variables to consider. Not sure if a mortgage payment can be traded off in lieu of SS - two different things with different rules.
Click to expand...

True. However it should have all come out in the wash on equalization. If he was paying into the mortgage and NOT paying ordered spousal support he would owe her the amount of spousal retroactively.

It sounds like it just wasn't addressed at the time.
 
I meant to say that I'm not sure about trading off CS for a mortgage payment. If the guy did pay the mortgage while the wife and kid were still in the house he might get some credit for it. Again, who knows if they even had an agreement in place.

My ex isn't the brightest star in the world but when I kicked him out he did seek legal advice and we had an interim order/agreement in place within weeks. My lawyer insisted on it so that nothing could ricochet against me down the road.
 
It was verbal. There were no lawyers involved at that point. The equalization portion was already settled when they sold and she made no claims about this at that time. Only now. Again though, if he had known that he would have sold a year earlier. It was her choice to use that money to stay there. She now says he owes for half the mortgage/tax during that year plus child/supposal support. He was renting at the time and clearly this would have been way to much to pay and he would have never agreed and put the house up for sale.
 
She was in a rush to settle the equalization portion to use the money for a down payment on a new house. My husband complied. He gave her what she wanted which was basically 50/50 split. I'm sure she did not raise issue then because it would have taken time and possibly court. So she waits a year and now comes up with this.
 
How long has it been since the house sold?

If he was fortunate to have sold the house immediately upon separation he probably would have ended up paying her rent, moving costs, etc. on top of everything in an interim order until separation/divorce was finalized. If the mortgage was in both parties then they are jointly responsible for it.
 
Ok so it was her that wanted to sell the house. Your husband basically went along with whatever she wanted. There was no written agreement in place. When did the SS and CS get determined - before or after the house was sold?
 
wife #2 - maybe put down as many facts as you can and through the next day you will get many other opinions besides mine. I live in Alberta and some of the laws vary from Ontario and other provinces.

When you post put your information down as succinctly as possible with dates indicated.

Helpful information would be to let us know the length of the marriage, # of children, current employment status of the two of them.

You say your husband has been to court at least 10 times. Please specify what these court visits were pertaining to.
 
After house was sold. He paid like this for six months, then both sides got a lawyer. Even her lawyer stated that he was way over paying his support obligations. They agreed he would start to pay less ( still well above guidelines) and a month later she wanted to sell, which hubby agreed too. The house then sold about 5 months later, 13 months after separation.
 
arabian said:
I meant to say that I'm not sure about trading off CS for a mortgage payment. If the guy did pay the mortgage while the wife and kid were still in the house he might get some credit for it. Again, who knows if they even had an agreement in place.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually easier with CS rather than SS because even without an agreement in place it's fairly simple to determine what CS payments would be. SS payments are more flexible so who could have predicted at that time what the SS order would be.

wife#2 said:
It was verbal. There were no lawyers involved at that point. The equalization portion was already settled when they sold and she made no claims about this at that time. Only now. Again though, if he had known that he would have sold a year earlier. It was her choice to use that money to stay there. She now says he owes for half the mortgage/tax during that year plus child/supposal support. He was renting at the time and clearly this would have been way to much to pay and he would have never agreed and put the house up for sale.
Click to expand...

Tomatom-Tomahto: it's the same amount of money. He would have paid it either to her or to the mortgage in 'lieu' of support. He wouldn't have had the money for himself. IF the amount of his equalization was NOT reduced by the amount he paid into the mortgage as 'support', he would very well indeed owe a minimum of half the mortgage and taxes for that time period.

wife#2 said:
She was in a rush to settle the equalization portion to use the money for a down payment on a new house. My husband complied. He gave her what she wanted which was basically 50/50 split. I'm sure she did not raise issue then because it would have taken time and possibly court. So she waits a year and now comes up with this.
Click to expand...

It's well within her rights to do so. It may be an annoyance to you, however she isn't doing anything wrong by excercising her rights to re-open it.
 
I would agree with it all if the house was put up for sale from the beginning and he had to pay until the house sold. But this was the agreement at the time, and she had every right sell earlier.
 
Blink, this is actually a good point you make and a question I have. As you say she is well within her rights to reopen equalization issue, then I guess my husband can do the same? As I mentioned earlier, he was trying to be cooperative by signing the papers for her to get her new house. At the time, I asked him, 'do you not want to ask for anything at all from the house?' He left with nothing. Large, nice, 3 bedroom house fully furnished, BBQ, lawn mower, snow blower, you name it, she got it all! He was trying to be nice at the time, but if she can reopen this, then can he go back and make a claim for all the things he left?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top