My ex partner and I were together for 5 years and have a 4 year old son. Just last year we bought a house. Only his name is on the mortgage, and he is the only one who has contributed financially to the mortgage, as I have been a stay at home mom caring for our child. He says that since he is the only one who has contributed to the mortgage that the house is his. I know that this is true for a common law relationship without a child, but when a child is involved is it different?
he says the house is his????
- Thread starter lorriec
- Start date
- Status
NBDad
New member
You are considered common law married and therefore the home is 50% yours. If you were a stay at home Mom and he was the sole breadwinner, he's obligated for child support, and you can make a case for limited spousal support as well. (depending on the time you were actually living together, it tends to be 6 months to 1 year per year of the "marriage". You'll have to fight for this a bit harder, since you weren't actually married)
Get yourself to a family law attorney soonest. (As your income is effectively 0 I'm assuming, you should qualify for legal aid)
Get yourself to a family law attorney soonest. (As your income is effectively 0 I'm assuming, you should qualify for legal aid)
billiechic
New member
nope. Either he doesn't know squat or he is blowing steam at you. Don't worry, just talk to a lawyer.
I don't think this is true. There is a sticky thread in the Common Law Issues forum, that contains the following link Matrimonial Home in Common Law Separation, where it says:
"Possession of the matrimonial home means the right to stay in the matrimonial home, regardless of ownership. In Ontario, upon a marriage ending, both parties have the automatic right to say in the matrimonial home, even if it is not in their name. You have no such right in a common law relationship - if your name is not on the home, you could simply come home one day and find yourself locked out. Although theoretically when you separate you can ask the court for possession as part of spousal support, such requests are rarely successful."
Also, child support is not related to what happened before you split - it depends on who is currently raising the child (in terms of the time split), and your current incomes.
Having a child together only means that you are immediately considered common-law i.e there is no minimum period that you have to live together. it does not mean you are married, or 'common-law married' (whatever that is).
dadtotheend
New member
If you are common law and your name is not on title (as suggested by the fact that only he is on the mortgage), you do not have a claim on the home except as to any increase in value since it was purchased. That there is a child involved does not change that.
I'm going throught this right now.. I purchased a property 3 years ago, my girlfriend move in and it took me almost a year to sell my house and move into the new property. My name is on the title, I put up the down and made all the payments except one lump sum she had put in. My lawyer said I just need to give her a eviction notice as I do charge her rent and pay her back the lump sum, So its a grey area in the system but its to protect either party. You should be able to split any increase there is in the value of the property. If you have a financial intrest in the property, it works the other way as well if the value goes down due to the economy, you would take a loss percentage wise.
You don't have a right to possession of the home. You aren't married so this is not a matrimonial home. You do have a right to a claim of a constructive trust. What province are you in? If you file a claim of a contructive trust against your ex patner a judge would decide if you are entitled to a settlement regarding the property. (This is usually granted in a monetary award. Not in a Proprietary Interest (Ownership) in a short relationship.
The courts will put a value on your indirect contributions to the home in an equity claim that he has been unjustly enriched by your contributions. He can't have you removed from the home without a Judges order
The courts will put a value on your indirect contributions to the home in an equity claim that he has been unjustly enriched by your contributions. He can't have you removed from the home without a Judges order
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Probably because if the situation was exactly the same and they had a piece of paper saying they were married then she would be entitled to 50%.
well in her case I would think she is entitled to something , being a stay at home parent is tough work, and the child is 4 yrs old , regardless when the home was purchased, but with any relationship there is debt as well, so ....share the house share the debt....the house only being 1 yr old means no equity so prob not really worth the fight . She may in the end just get half the debt if theres no profit on the house.
The Supreme Court of Canada thought long and hard about this, and decided that when a couple decide to marry they have made a concious decision to live with the legal consequences, and people who decide not marry also make a decision. The Court refused to take away people's choices, which would be the effect of making common law and marriage the same.
Marriage is a legal and financial partnership. Common law means you are room-mates who have sex. The courts don't really care if you love each other or not. You can make your choice accordingly.
The CHILD has a right to CS.
And the poster MAY have a claim for SS, particularly if they put career on hold for 4 years.
But splitting assets/debts and marital home is only applicable to married couples.
- Status