We have been commonlaw 8 years. 2 kids; 6 and 7. House in my name with my large down payment. i saved for years for it. Have only worked part time since the kids were born. No daycare in the neighbourhood except unaffordable private daycare. He wouldn't look after them so I could return to work. We have been barely scraping by for ages, with lots of gaps where he is unemployed. We both want out and he wants money from the house for haphazardly supporting the family. I am not asking for spousal support and I'd rather he leaves the house alone than pay child support. Is their a formula for unjust enrichment to what he is entitled to from the house? I don't want to sell the house. And I don't know if I can make ends meet if I have to give him 50,000. I'm in Ontario. Should have had a cohab agreement. I thought that the house was in my name. period.
my house, he wants money from it
- Thread starter whatnext
- Start date
- Status
dadtotheend
New member
She is concerned about unjust enrichment. Do a search on "unjust enrichment" in this forum. The search link is at the top of the page. There are 159 hits on that search term as of today.
The house has also increased in value considerably in the Ontario market in the last 8 years and the mortgage has presumably been paid down somewhat over 8 years. When equalizing family property the STBX will have a claim on the increased equity of the house, especially if he can sucessfully argue unjust enrichment.
The house has also increased in value considerably in the Ontario market in the last 8 years and the mortgage has presumably been paid down somewhat over 8 years. When equalizing family property the STBX will have a claim on the increased equity of the house, especially if he can sucessfully argue unjust enrichment.
There is no equalization with common law relationships.
There is no way to give you a clear answer with the information given. You put down a large down payment, but then only worked part time. Where were the mortgage payments coming from? He "haphazardly" supported the family, but how did you manage to live when he was unemployed?
The answer won't come from vague statements, it will come from dollars and cents. Did he pay into the mortgage? Did he pay for any maintainence? Did he do any repairs to the house? If you were (perhaps) putting all of your part-time salary into the mortgage, who was paying the groceries, property tax, insurance and utilities? All of these questions will have to be answered.
For unjust enrichment, from the few cases I've read about, the judges are happies when they can be presented with receipts or specific amounts that a cl spouse put into the house.
There is no way to give you a clear answer with the information given. You put down a large down payment, but then only worked part time. Where were the mortgage payments coming from? He "haphazardly" supported the family, but how did you manage to live when he was unemployed?
The answer won't come from vague statements, it will come from dollars and cents. Did he pay into the mortgage? Did he pay for any maintainence? Did he do any repairs to the house? If you were (perhaps) putting all of your part-time salary into the mortgage, who was paying the groceries, property tax, insurance and utilities? All of these questions will have to be answered.
For unjust enrichment, from the few cases I've read about, the judges are happies when they can be presented with receipts or specific amounts that a cl spouse put into the house.
I see what you mean. For me "equalization" meant automatically splitting the value regardless who put what in it, and it seems to me that mostly this is the process when people were married. The process you described calculates who put what in the property, no automatic splitting.
From the initial story it seems the husband wants to follow the simple equalization, while in their case the calculation will be able to say more or less who can get what it seems.
From the initial story it seems the husband wants to follow the simple equalization, while in their case the calculation will be able to say more or less who can get what it seems.
dadtotheend
New member
If there is no equalization in common-law relationships why does a common law spouse get half of the other spouse's pension? That's equalization.
I could be wrong here, but I think there is equalization of net family property in common law.
I could be wrong here, but I think there is equalization of net family property in common law.
dadtotheend
New member
Are you saying that a common law does not participate in pension entitlements?
From what I've seen, only certain pensions are split, basically municipal pensions like OMERS. I'm trying to find cases where private company pensions are split, but I haven't so far, though I haven't spent a lot of time on it.
dadtotheend
New member
Just because yours is bigger than hers doesn't necessarily mean anything.
It's the growth from cohab date to separation date that is equalized. Your RRSP may not have grown much and/or you bargained it away.
It's the growth from cohab date to separation date that is equalized. Your RRSP may not have grown much and/or you bargained it away.
dadtotheend
New member
Please provide link to thread.
dadtotheend
New member
Thanks for that. It would appear that a claim for unjust enrichment will be a concern for whatnext because he was the breadwinner while she took care of the children.
That's true. Unjust enrichment is very different from equalization. If someone claims unjust enrichment, it must be proved how much it is, and this can be the case in common law, but there is no automatic equalization. And this is the answer to the original question. He/she can't just get automatically half of the house, she/she doesn't get anything, until "unjust enrichment" in not proved.
Commonlaw prop unjust enrichment
Commonlaw prop unjust enrichment
Division of property from commonlaw relationships using unjust enrichment is very open to interpretation. One partners lawyer will say fight to keep it all, the other partner's lawyer will say fight to get as much as you can. One judge will decide this way, another will decide another way. The family lawyer in mediation will say it's a trust law issue; so see a trust lawyer to get a better answer than someone specializing in family law because it's not their specialty. (Though the family law lawyer will still try to suck you in for 10 sessions of mediation at 300.00/ hour that won't even resolve the issue that you walked in the door to solve. Do yourself a favour and download an online separation agreement. If you don't have big disputes why are you paying top dollar for mediation?) Mediation will result in finding a compromise amongst yourselves, which you could have done yourselves. All in all, if you can get along, stop lining the pockets of the well-heeled professionals and try to come up with a reasonable amount yourselves. Because that is all they will do at your expense.
Commonlaw prop unjust enrichment
Division of property from commonlaw relationships using unjust enrichment is very open to interpretation. One partners lawyer will say fight to keep it all, the other partner's lawyer will say fight to get as much as you can. One judge will decide this way, another will decide another way. The family lawyer in mediation will say it's a trust law issue; so see a trust lawyer to get a better answer than someone specializing in family law because it's not their specialty. (Though the family law lawyer will still try to suck you in for 10 sessions of mediation at 300.00/ hour that won't even resolve the issue that you walked in the door to solve. Do yourself a favour and download an online separation agreement. If you don't have big disputes why are you paying top dollar for mediation?) Mediation will result in finding a compromise amongst yourselves, which you could have done yourselves. All in all, if you can get along, stop lining the pockets of the well-heeled professionals and try to come up with a reasonable amount yourselves. Because that is all they will do at your expense.
- Status