My lawyer:I get share of the house.Common-law's lawyer:I get nothing.True?

@co

@co

@cowcash4ex - I hear what you are saying, but this lawyer really attempted to discourage me from going to court. She said it would cost thousands of dollars and that it would be significantly cheaper to settle out of court. This is the same lawyer who said that I would have a share of the house - NOT 50% as other posters on here have been saying. I don't want 50% of his house. I just want what's fair, meaning the amount the house has increased in value since I moved in here, divided by 2. That's all, and I think a lot of people would say that's fair. I gave 12 years of my life to this man. I moved in here because I thought we were a family. Now he wants me and my child (our child) to leave with the clothes on our backs, essentially. Not happening.
 
On the other end, your ex lawyers is most likely telling him not to settle and take it to court as Common Law doesn't usually include splitting assets. If you qualify for Legal Aid would give you an advantage as you wont have to pay legal fees. But if he wins you could have to pay his legal fees. Its almost a roll of the dice what could happen.
 
as far as I understand, your common law. His house is his. You have a clear case for c/s and s/s. But its his house. you would be wasting money on lawyers fighting that.
 
I don’t think you will get 1/2 of the increased equity of the house either. You didn’t pay into it.

You could qualify for compensatory support if he has increased his standing at work while you cared for the baby.

Don’t forget it was your decision to stay home too (and live with a man and have a child without marrying).
 
SadAndTired said:
I don’t think you will get 1/2 of the increased equity of the house either. You didn’t pay into it.
Click to expand...

If they lived together for 12 years, an argument could certainly be made that there was a commingling of financial assets. This would imply that she did in fact pay into the house in some fashion.

The difference of course is that it is not automatic. Belle was wrong in thinking that the courts would try to make everything "fair", courts don't care about fair very much at all. But I think other posters are wrong when they say that she has no chance. It is all about risk and reward. If the house went up in value by $400,000.... it would certainly be worth trying to get a piece of that.

Don’t forget it was your decision to stay home too (and live with a man and have a child without marrying).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. There is no blame. Marriage is a game with a winner and a loser. In this case, marriage would have helped Belle, but her failure to get married doesn't make her more or less deserving of money, it just makes her less entitled to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top