family home

P

phaydra

New member
Hello all,

this is my first post. my issue is this. I was with my partner for ten years. in year 7, my parents gave me an early estate payout of 100,000.00. My partner and I used this money to purchase a house. The house and mortgage are in both our names equally as joint tenants. Before we moved in, my partner spent two months renovating the house, and we moved in soon after. we have no children. I have health issues, and am currently on a disability pension. My partner gave up his career after 7 yrs of working to take care of me, and from this point forward he had little income (some part time jobs) and i made all the mortgage payments, while he looked after me and the house. In year 9, he inherited 30,000.00 and used 2/3 of that money to replace the roof and do upgrades to the house. Now we are separated, and he wants half the house, even though I've made all the mortgage payments, and the down payment came from my parents. Is he entitled to half the house? He is claiming because he did all the house work, renos, improvements to the property, as well as sinking his inheritance into the house that he is entitled to half. who is right? I believe that because i got the money from my parents that the house is mine, but he says my money was intended for both of us, and he is on both title and mortgage. help!
 
Depends on the province you are in, and most importantly, as has been asked, whether you were married or not.

IF you were married, he's entitled to half the net marital assets, which includes the house.

If you were not, it's slightly more complicated, but the end result is that he has a claim on some of the value due to his inheritence + the value of the reno work + the resulting increase in value from that work.

You may have a claim for occupational rent if you were making the mortgage payments after that time. I'd be careful, he could go after you for spousal support if your income is greater than his, given he gave up a career to care for you.
 
Interestingly, if you were married, and he did not put a single penny into the house, and you bought the house entirely with your own money that was brought into the marriage by you alone... he would still be entitled to half of the house.

It is incredibly unfair, but justice has never been the mandate of family law.
 
we were not married. how could he come after me for spousal support? We were 50/50 the first 7 yrs, and then when we bought the house i began supporting him. even with my disability pension i make over three times as much as him, but because of my health issues surely they wouldn't make me pay? wouldn't my health issues give me more claim to the house? he can work, i can't.
 
So if I understand correctly.

This guy worked and paid 50/50 for 7 years, until you fell ill.
This same guy quits working to take care of you fulltime when you became disabled. Dumped his inheritance into the house.
Reno'ed it for a couple months.
You make 3 times as much as him.
You dont feel spousal support is warranted.
You feel that you should have a larger stake in the asset split because of your disability?

Have I summed it up in a nutshell?
 
cashcow4ex said:
So if I understand correctly.

This guy worked and paid 50/50 for 7 years, until you fell ill.
This same guy quits working to take care of you fulltime when you became disabled. Dumped his inheritance into the house.
Reno'ed it for a couple months.
You make 3 times as much as him.
You dont feel spousal support is warranted.
You feel that you should have a larger stake in the asset split because of your disability?

Have I summed it up in a nutshell?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree it sounds like she is taking advantage,l but they were not married, so the house is not automatically split 50/50.

Here is an appropriate cite:
4 myths about common-law relationships - Canada - CBC News
In Ontario, “There’s no such thing as matrimonial property in these relationships,” said Justice Brownstone. “We use the law of constructed trust to protect people’s property rights, so if you’ve been living common law and you’ve been contributing to a home that the other party owns – either because you paid for renovations or because you were the one maintaining it – you can make a claim for property.”
Brownstone added that this is not in any way based on the same kind of principles as being married. Rather, he said, “It’s based on the law of resulting trust. We use trust law to protect common law property rights.”

I would suggest that she consider at a bare minimum giving him the $20,000 in cash, a fair amount for the sweat equity involved in the renovations, and a fair amount for the increase in value of the house due to his work. Seems to me the value of his time on the reno would be at least the same as the money he gave up from his job, so if he was making $1000 a week before he quit for her, then assess the labour at $1000 per week he worked on the renos.

As to spousal support, clearly more difficult since they aren't married, but this would be a case where clearly he sacrificed his income and career for her, so I would think a case could be made.


Same website:
According to Justice Brownstone, spousal support for Ontario common-law couples is possible if there were “economic consequences” to the break-up. If one person in the relationship supported the other person regularly – or, for example, one person had to give up their career in order to care for a child — then they could be entitled to spousal support.
“If you live together three years and don’t have kids, you are treated as a spouse for support purposes,” said Brownstone, but stressed that “spousal support is not that common.”

So there you go Phaydra.
 
Legally, if his name is on title, he's half owner, and it's half his. So yes, I think you do owe him half the value in exchange for getting his name off the title. As you are not married, and the down payment money came solely from you, there is wiggle room, but he also invested money and effort into the house, and deserves some return on his investment when he moves out.

Make him an offer of $30k or something so he recoups his investment and his labour, and see if he accepts.

Or you could get into some complicated math. You put $100k and he put $20k so offer him half the increase in value over the course of your marriage minus $120k, plus his $20k back. He might like that number better.

It's all about making offers to him that he might accept to avoid going to court where a judge will likely make you pay him his 50% share.

And yes, spousal support is a very real possibility, since he gave up his career for the relationship. His income, should he even find new employment, will not be what it should be had he not stopped working to look after you, and he is legally entitled to support from you to compensate for that. You should argue that it be limited to the same number of years as he was not working. You could negotiate him getting more equalization in the house in exchange for not paying him spousal support. Or the other way around.

Be flexible, but also be fair.
 
I got totally screwed - matrimonial property. Equalization did not take this into consideration. I live in Alberta.
 
arabian said:
I got totally screwed - matrimonial property. Equalization did not take this into consideration. I live in Alberta.
Click to expand...

he got half the house?? my mind is reeling! how could this happen! im sick he's not! if he went out and got more jobs he could up his income, but he's claiming only minimal earnings for last years taxes. i think he's hiding money.
 
You married a loser - join the club. Unless you have money for forensic accountant (potentially over 10k) and private detectives you'd better get used to the idea that you've been had. If he's self-employed you are even more screwed. Easy for them to hide money.

Before you pursue the matter ask yourself if it's worth years and years of your time and energy in court.
 
we weren't married though. I thought because we weren't married and my parents put up the down payment, that even though he is on the mortgage and title but didn't pay anything, the house is legally mine. i even have an order saying i have exclusive possession and use of the family home. it's not like i can go out and work. why should i have to pay for him to build his business?? also, I think he may be dating someone. if they were to move in together, would i still need to pay?
 
phaydra said:
I thought because we weren't married and my parents put up the down payment, that even though he is on the mortgage and title but didn't pay anything, the house is legally mine.
Click to expand...

You may not have been married, but he's on the title. He legally owns the house with you. It's a shared asset no matter where the purchase and upkeep money came from.

Even if he wasn't on title, he could have a good case to get some money back out of it, since he invested in it. It just wouldn't be 50-50.

As for spousal support, you are thinking of it backwards. You would not be paying for him to build his business in the future. You would be compensating him for the income he lost while he was looking after you instead of working in the past.

You think the fact that you broke up and he is now seeing someone else undoes the money and work he put into a house he is a half owner of? Makes his name vanish from the title? Or that his new relationship makes the fact that he quit his job to look after you vanish?

Step back from the emotions and think logically for a few minutes. You are going to have to negotiate with him or take him to court to try to convince a judge it's wrong to be fair with him. Make an offer to him somewhere between the zero you want to give him, and the 50% a court would likely give him. If he accepts, you've saved yourself a lot of time and stress and money.
 
Last edited:
i was thinking it was excluded property because it was bought with an early estate payout from my parents. section 85 of the bc family law act states that gifts or inheritances to a spouse are excluded from division.

he is using section 81 spouses are both entitled to family property regardless of their respective use or contribution. On separation each spouse has a right to an undivided half interest in all family property.

which one of us is right? and again im on disability, i can't work, he can! surely that entitles me to keep the house, i won't ever make anymore money than i do now, and losing the house, i could never hope to stand on my own two feet. he would have all his life to earn more money and to buy another house.
 
phaydra said:
i was thinking it was excluded property because it was bought with an early estate payout from my parents. section 85 of the bc family law act states that gifts or inheritances to a spouse are excluded from division.
Click to expand...

This only applies if you keep the funds separate (for your use only) and don't use them to buy joint property.
 
phaydra said:
and again im on disability, i can't work, he can! surely that entitles me to keep the house, i won't ever make anymore money than i do now,
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there is no link between equalization and earning power. BUT your disability would affect spousal support - some or all of which could be transformed into a lump-sum and traded against the property being equalized. But you have to get established the right to spousal support before you can do this sort of trading.
 
I'm really scared now. My lawyer has been telling me that i have rights to the whole house based on that section. i guess i just wasted a whole bunch of money for nothing. how am i going to get out of this and still keep the house. I can't afford to buy him out. if I do, the house will have to be sold...and that's what he wants! i refuse to play into his hands! he's a bastard! I'm also sure he cheated on me. based on that fact alone, he should not be entitled to any of the house.
 
I'm really sorry, I guess i seem selfish. There are other things going on I have not disclosed, but the house has been my main concern, and that said, it looks like from what i've read here, that the house will have to be sold. I'm heartsick over this, I planned to live out the rest of my life here, with a man who up until a few months ago I thought i would spend the rest of my days with. My world is collapsing around me, I have no one to care for me, and my own family doesn't care. everything i thought i was, was tied to my ex. I don't know how I can go on without him. He turned his back on me, and our love, and now i am left holding the pieces of an unfinished life.
 
phaydra said:
i was thinking it was excluded property because it was bought with an early estate payout from my parents. section 85 of the bc family law act states that gifts or inheritances to a spouse are excluded from division.
Click to expand...

He contributed some money of his own, and he did repairs, and he is on title. Your case for making this excluded is really really thin. I'm being polite here, I honestly don't see how you can exclude this at all, you'll be laughed out of court.

which one of us is right? and again im on disability, i can't work, he can! surely that entitles me to keep the house
Click to expand...

Your are confusing two issues:

1) Equalization
2) Ongoing support

Your disability can effect ongoing support, but it is unlikely to affect equalization. You don't get to keep the family property because you are disabled. You don't get to keep the family property because your ex has the potential to make more money 10 years from now.

i won't ever make anymore money than i do now, and losing the house, i could never hope to stand on my own two feet. he would have all his life to earn more money and to buy another house.
Click to expand...

You make more money than him, and by your own admission he hurt his career to take care of you. If all he gets is half the house, then you have probably lucked out. You need to settle fast, your ex has you over a barrel here. Potential payors are treated very badly in family law, you don't want to get involved in that mess.
 
phaydra said:
I'm also sure he cheated on me. based on that fact alone, he should not be entitled to any of the house.
Click to expand...

Minor addendum: His cheating is irrelevant, don't waste any time dwelling on that.

He could have a harem of girlfriends that he brought to the house on a nightly basis for 7 hours orgies, and he could provide you with the videotapes as proof, and you would not get a thing from it... except a slightly faster divorce.

I agree, adultery should void any spousal support obligations, but apparently when you sign a marriage contract, the only clause that sticks is the one that says that the person who makes less money gets to steal some cash from the harder working half of the couple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top