Inheritance

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

candlestick

New member
Newbie from Nova Scoita.
Divorcing after 19yrs.
I opened a 'stock' trading acct in Sept/08 and put 8k of my RSP money in it.
In Feb/09 we put 67k of my wifes inheritance in it. (Account in my name).
Now she wants it all back because it was an inheritance. I also made about 10k using some of my original investment and some of her inheritance.
Because she gave me the money to put in an account in my name, isn't that the same as saying, 'here, take the money, it's OURS, and go make us some more'?
Do you think she can get it all back?
Thanks
 
Do I have the numbers correct?

You put in 8000.00 dollars,
Wife put 67,000 dollars.

total = 75,000 + 10,000 (what you made)

Grand total of 85,000 dollars.

Amount left in Account = 34,000.00

Honestly I don't think you should play the stock market any longer. I would ask for the money back too!
 
If it was her inheritance, you should not be entitled to it.

Yes, she put it in an account under your name, trusting that you would invest it wisely and make money. It's not like she paid off joint debts or anything, it is still cash and should still be hers.

What did you spend the chunk on? Did you benefit from the things she purchased? You do know she had no obligation to share, but she did. Be happy with that and give her back what is left.
 
I'm not asking what you think I should do, I'm asking what is the law under my circumstance. If you don't know the law, I would appreciate your best legal guess. That's all I'm looking for.
Thanks in advance.
 
The law is very clear on insurance money...

It's hers.... and it is excluded from consideration when dividing marital assets.

There is no 50/50 for you.
 
So, I wonder what this guy is saying....

The Items That Are Not Included In Net Family Property Calculations

As mentioned above, there are certain items such as life insurance proceeds, gifts, inheritances, and personal injury awards that may not have to be included in your net family property. To exclude these from your net family property, you must have kept these items separate from your other property, and be able to trace these funds from the day you received them.

Not only was it not kept separate, it was kept in an account in my name.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
but it was kept separate. She did not add it to another account, she did not spend it on a joint asset. She can trace the money from the date it was put in the account, how it grew etc. Maybe it was in your name so that you could access it for investing.

If you want a straight answer you are best to ask a lawyer. You are looking for reasons to claim it as yours and they are weak. She probably intended for you to share it at some point, but the money was clearly hers, was invested and NOT Shared.

You still didn't say what the "chunk" you spent together was for. I am assuming it was a good amount of money and that you enjoyed the benefits. She choose to share that with you. The amount of money you spend trying to get every penny of what is yours is going to cost a LOT. Aren't you happy that she shared in the first place?
 
Last edited:
I think the letter of the law would state the she co-mingled this money in with yours in an account was not even in her name jointly and that it therefore lost it's special status as an excluded property. The fact that profits were withdrawn and spent by you (both?) would seem to further muddy the waters in your favour.

You know the rule about maintaining it's separate status since you quoted it. You also no doubt are reading b/w the lines of the posters who quite clearly think you are screwing her but haven't (yet) come right out and said it.

You're problem is going to be that she will be able to argue with it and turn it into a litigation issue. The law may be on your side, I'm not sure but I think so, but morally you could be in for a fight worth having in her eyes, and we all know who's going to win that fight ------> L A W Y E R S ! ! ! !

Make a reasonable offer to her to avoid having you both cut off your noses to spite your faces.
 
Last edited:
candlestick said:
That's funny. We spent a load of it. 10k was purely profit.
Click to expand...

Wow you both spent 50,000 dollars in a very short period of time, over and above your salaries. Hopefully you have something to see for the money.

Does your wife know that the money is now 34, 000? Obviously you can give her back what is no longer there and I believe that the finances were put together and it would now be split 50/50. I suspect you'll spent at least 30 grand on your legal fees to come up with a divorce agreement between the two of you.

Consider it money well wasted!
 
dadtotheend said:
I think the letter of the law would state the she co-mingled this money in with yours in an account was not even in her name jointly and that it therefore lost it's special status as an excluded property. The fact that profits were withdrawn and spent by you (both?) would seem to further muddy the waters in your favour.

You know the rule about maintaining it's separate status since you quoted it. You also no doubt are reading b/w the lines of the posters who quite clearly think you are screwing her but haven't (yet) come right out and said it.

You're problem is going to be that she will be able to argue with it and turn it into a litigation issue. The law may be on your side, I'm not sure but I think so, but morally you could be in for a fight worth having in her eyes, and we all know who's going to win that fight ------> L A W Y E R S ! ! ! !

Make a reasonable offer to her to avoid having you both cut off your noses to spite your faces.
Click to expand...
What he said.
 
The law is clear. The funds have been co-mingled. They will now be split.
No brainer.
Only an idiot would compromise on this.
Represent yourself on this issue if you think the lawyers will cost too much.

FN
 
Last edited:
FreeNow said:
The law is clear. The funds have been co-mingled...
Only an idiot would compromise on this.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that the law is clear that they have been co-mingled.

But only an idiot would fail to recognize that his spouse has a right (fueled by morality, rightly or wrongly) to drag out the argument and cause both of them to incur hefty legal bills that could piss away the remaining $34K quickly, and leave them both with nothing to argue about except their own stupidity for failing to compromise.

I've seen this happen before. The law is clear but unreasonable or naive litigants feed straight into the lawyer's bank accounts. And the lawyers will see them coming and squeeze them with their little con game, especially if the wife can either get those funds frozen by the court while they pile up the billable hours and/or she has other funds to finance the lawyer's "crusade" for her.
 
Last edited:
FreeNow said:
The law is clear. The funds have been co-mingled. They will now be split.
No brainer.
Only an idiot would compromise on this.
Represent yourself on this issue if you think the lawyers will cost too much.

FN
Click to expand...
I guess i am an idiot because I would compromise on it. Or maybe I just have a few more morals and personal ethics.
 
Idiot here too then.

She obviously shared the inheritance with him willingly and now he is looking to take half of the rest. Talk about being ungrateful. Yeah, the law may lean towards the sharing, but what kind of jerk is going to take it all the way to court and throw it all away on lawyers???

I'm so sure he would be willing to offer her half if it had been his inheritance:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top