Cottage equity buyout

Unless the marital home is paid for already. I don't know, a lot of ifs ands or buts.

In the big scheme of divorce, it seems dealing with the "summer home" should be quite easy.
 
blinkandimgone said:
It hasn't been hijacked. He's trying to give it to her and she's refusing.
Click to expand...

Yet when she offered the same, he said no... Taking it upon himself to decide only he could keep their home at a reduced rate. Almost as if he took control of it for his own purpose without her permission or authorization.

OP should speak to a lawyer and get to court asap.
 
He's living in it as his primary residence, she either has her own home or the matrimonial home. There's more to the story that isn't being told here.

But for someone who says she wants it finished and wants her equity out of it, she's going to great lengths to prevent getting her equity and attempting to force her ex to agree to continue living with her for what could be a very, very long time until she 'feels' like actually divorcing for real.

Seems to me like he feels like it for real now.
 
You know I know a couple who live in the Calgary area. They had a high-conflict divorce which continues on today. He was a high-income earner and she was a party gal. 2 teenage sons. Parties had several properties, including 2 lake lots with cabins side-by-side. The usual antics/accusations that occur with these sorts of divorces ensued. Lots and lots of litigation. Plenty of money was spent. Equalisation was directed by a judge at their trial. Prior to that the mother had an order against the father from being anywhere near her and conveniently that meant that he could not be at the lake cabins - either one. The mother let the teens use the lake properties as party dens. The mother used one of the properties on occasional weekends. The mother vacillated about whether her home was in the city or at the lake. This led to a HUGE discrepancy and added to litigation time. Both the mother and the father had their own beautiful homes in the city. in the end the father finally received, through equalisation, the one lake property. He thought he scored! Not - the place was a total disaster. Because the two properties are side-by-side he is finding that he cannot do many maintenance projects without her approval. The value of the lake property that is owned by the father is going in the toilet. (BTW the two teenage kids are in trouble with drugs... father cannot do anything).

So I asked what he would have done if he could have a do-over. He said that he would have gotten an order to sell the lake properties. Apparently he tried but his ex's well-funded lawyers put a halt to any disposal of matrimonial property until the divorce went to trial.

So now my friend owns pretty much useless property that he has to pay significant property tax on and maintain.

The lake properties, which were once a source of so much fun and happiness, are total negatives in the lives of the families.

Oh BTW to the poster - yes you have a right to occupy the property (as your ex does). If you have a lot of money (like my friends) you will likely receive appropriate equalisation remuneration. However, don't you think it would be logical to simply agree to sell the place? Or.... are you simply trying to stay connected to your ex through a fight about the "happy place" that you once shared?

If you don't want to fund a bunch of lawyer's vacations/cars then you should look at the most expedient way to end litigation. Lawyer's fees can escalate very quickly and before you know it your "equity" in the cabin will be owned by your lawyer - yes they can do that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top