Credit Card Debt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matrimonial Home

Matrimonial Home

just got a letter from son's ex-wife lawyer stating that the matrimonial home (owned by us , his parents) is deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.... and is asking for 50% of the increased value of the home during their 4 year marriage. Son originally purchased the home with a different common law wife and when they split we purchased it at fair market value and the common law wife got 50% of the increased value... (which mostly went to pay for her lawyer)...

what are your thoughts on this new scenario that it could be held in trust, but that is not stated on the deed or title to the property... thanks
 
My simple answer to this is don't rely on the ex, or the ex's lawyer, for legal advice. It will never be in your interest, let alone neutral.

I would simply state that it is not a matrimonial asset as the son is not the registered owner. The husband and wife resided within the house as tenants and as such have no interest in the lands.

I am sure they will deem it anyway that benefits them, but they will have to argue the point in court to prove it. Unless they have proof that it is being held in trust, they have an uphill battle. They were tenants and should be treated as such.
 
Mooner43 said:
just got a letter from son's ex-wife lawyer stating that the matrimonial home (owned by us , his parents) is deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.... and is asking for 50% of the increased value of the home during their 4 year marriage. Son originally purchased the home with a different common law wife and when they split we purchased it at fair market value and the common law wife got 50% of the increased value... (which mostly went to pay for her lawyer)...

what are your thoughts on this new scenario that it could be held in trust, but that is not stated on the deed or title to the property... thanks
Click to expand...

Sounds like lawyer BS to me. You're not dead yet!

In a way, all of a parent's assets may be "deemed to be held "in trust" for him to be inherited later.".

It seems clear to me that it is your house and not your son's.

Why is it your house - why didn't your son buy it?

Do you have other children? What was the deal you made with your son, if any? Does he pay rent? Who pays the taxes?

What if you (and your wife) died before they split - would the house simply have been part of your assets to be divided equally among your children?

I wonder if there is case law on this type of situation....
 
we received $900/month rent which included all utilities, gas, hydro, water and we also paid the $3200/year taxes.
I know the lawyers just love to keep it going, pitting one against the other to pad their invoicing. We also have another son who will share equally in the estate. Thanks for your input, it helps to ease the anxiety... we did it this way to protect our sons from losing all the equity we put into the house.....her lawyer is asking again for mortgage statements and balance owing on the house.
 
It's definitely lawyer bs and scare tactics. His name is not ON title. Why should they DEEM it to be in trust? It either is, or it isn't. If your names and your son's were on title: she would likely have claim to one half of his THIRD.

My EX owes me a lot of money - most of which I will probably never recover. He is an undischarged bankrupt but he makes plenty of money. The mat home (he's married w/2 kids) is in his wife's name, and her parents. There is nothing I can do (ie: register a lien) b/c his name is not on title. I looked into all of this thoroughly, and consulted with a lawyer.
 
Do you have a valid purchase and sale agreement? I assume you used a lawyer to deal with the purchase from your son and his 1st ex wife and to register you on title.... (please remind your son never to marry again by the way and if he says he is engaged again, please smack him....)

Unless your tenancy agreement provides for some sort of interest in the property, your son and his ex were normal tenants whose sole interest in the lands were as residents.

However, I would be VERY careful about making comments like:

we did it this way to protect our sons from losing all the equity we put into the house
Click to expand...

The residence is yours. Should both you and your spouse decease, it would form part of your estate. But the first person with interest is your spouse, or should she pre-decease you, then your estate as provided for in your will.
 
Too Funny and Too RIGHT HammerDad "(please remind your son never to marry again by the way and if he says he is engaged again, please smack him....)"

No way in hell am I ever going to make the mistakes I've made, again. Prob is :( Still trying to get out from the rubble. So what should they provide the lawyer with? Just what you indicated above? Yes - bang on - say nothing or very little (nothing better) to the other solicitor.
 
Yes we have a valid Purchae & Sale agreement completed by a lawyer and deed registered in our names ONLY.
its nice to see a little humour on this site.. to lighten up the tense issues...
Our lawyer replied that there is no way she is going to get any money from the matrimonial home notwould she get any compensation for property that does not belong to her. just wondering if her lawyer will start family court proceedings on this? seems like a waste of time and money
thanks for your input...
 
Lawyers exceed in wasting time and money Mooner43. I swear they take "wasting your clients time and money 101" in law school. In graduate school they take "keeping the divorce from being settled."
 
Mooner43 said:
just wondering if her lawyer will start family court proceedings on this? seems like a waste of time and money...
Click to expand...

A lawyer will do what their client tells them to do......even if they highly recommend against it. That is what they are paid to do. However, should they attempt to go after the house, you ask for costs as part of your response.

Are they likely to succeed? Depends on what evidence they can bring that shows you are holding the house in trust for your son. If they have no evidence, their chances of success are likely NIL.
 
Has the son been paying you rent all along? Who has covered capital replacement costs like furnace, roof? Do you pay for house insurance?

If the son pays for all that, these are things that are normally done by the owner, even if paid for through rent received. If the son handles them, it adds to the appearance that the house is his, held in trust by you.
 
^ my ex is the only adult in the household working. He pays ALL the bills. The family survives (rather well) on HIS income. His name is not on title. His wife and her parents are on title. The parents live 4 hours away. Ex pays mortgage: Everything. The wife does not work outside of the home - she's raising young ones. I cannot register a lien against his property (currently listed for Sale, and they've purchased a larger home) b/c HIS name is not on title. He owes "costs" of trial - to my lawyer, by mid-June. He's NOT going to pay it. The ONLY option I now have is to register something against his business (sole proprietor) b/c his NAME IS ON THAT.

He's over 30k in arrears w/FRO. I'm still waiting to have a worker assigned - but even they said that the house not being in his name might be a problem (re: enforcing the arrears by way of a lien). The new house will also have his wife, and her retired parents on title. There's not a damn thing I can do. Seems not to matter that it's the matrimonial home, and that there's no doubt at all, as to who is financing all the expenditures. Edit: he pays the home insurance and property taxes on the home from his business. (I saw all of that in the Family Court disclosure).
 
Last edited:
You would need to go to court and establish that he is hiding the assets this way first. It needs a judge's decision. He would then be deemed to have that value as his asset, regardless of who's name it was under. You would need to do this first, the FRO would not be able to do anything unless already had a court order declaring that this is his asset. Same with a civil court lien.
 
@Mess. Thx. I have read the F.R.O. Act and everything else under the sun. I have tried everything. I do know that the Court has to establish all that - question is HOW do I get them to DO, all of what you said - b/c you're right. Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread w/my nightmare - so if you have any tips/advice for me, PM me: I'd really, really appreciate it. I will do whatever it takes, I simply don't know where to begin :(
 
Last edited:
son paid contents insurance only, there was a minor furnace problem which son paid for otherwise the house is only 8 years old and no other repairs have been required....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top