Quick question re: Equity in my home

[goosie77]

Short and sweet -

The house was mine when we married. I owned it for 5 years prior to marriage.

I have about 120K in equity today.

Is he entitled to half of the equity, or half of the equity increase since the date of our marriage?

If I had to guess, about 60K of the equity I have was built up by myself alone prior to our marriage date.

And is an MPAC assessment from 2009 (when we were married) good enough to prove the value of the home back then?

I'm hoping to pressure him into a separation agreement and buy out without getting lawyers involved, but it may not be that easy.

 

[OhMy]

Short and sweet -

The house was mine when we married. I owned it for 5 years prior to marriage.

I have about 120K in equity today.

Is he entitled to half of the equity, or half of the equity increase since the date of our marriage?

If I had to guess, about 60K of the equity I have was built up by myself alone prior to our marriage date.

And is an MPAC assessment from 2009 (when we were married) good enough to prove the value of the home back then?

I'm hoping to pressure him into a separation agreement and buy out without getting lawyers involved, but it may not be that easy.

The matrimonial home value becomes a joint asset upon marriage. It's entire value would show on you asset list and it's value at marriage is not considered.

http://www.cleo.on.ca/en/publications/propertydiv/equalization

The only way around this is to either get his consent to an unequal division or a court order re same.

MPAC values do no accurately reflect true market value. They would not be sufficient for division in court, however if he is agreeable to it- then perhaps.

 

[goosie77]

Yeah, I didnt think the MPAC would hold any value in court, but I was hoping I could show the assessments to him and get him to agree to that valuation.

 

[DowntroddenDad]

MPAC usually lags behind current market value. A real estateagent can come up with "similar" listings and show what they sold for, but no two homes are alike. At least MPAC is a somewhat consistent methodology.

 

[Rioe]

The house was mine when we married. I owned it for 5 years prior to marriage.

I have about 120K in equity today.

Is he entitled to half of the equity, or half of the equity increase since the date of our marriage?

If I had to guess, about 60K of the equity I have was built up by myself alone prior to our marriage date.

It's incredibly unfair, and nobody warns you about this little aspect of divorce law before you get married, but as soon as you signed that marriage license, you gave him half your house.

It doesn't matter who owned it prior to the wedding, or how much equity was in it. He is legally entitled to half the total value (asset minus mortgage) on separation date.

Though maybe you can negotiate with him and get lucky that he recognizes how unfair this is in modern relationships and will accept less.

 

[goosie77]

That is total BS... I'm going to a lawyer today and asking him about unequal division of the house, since I had built that equity myself prior to our short marriage. I read that for under 5 year marriages, you may be able to apply for unequal division. I'm hoping that the fact that my loser ex didn't work for a large portion of our marriage, forcing me to support him, would help with that claim

 

[Janus]

Well, a "fair" split would be:

You: 90k
Ex: 30k

The typical "family law" split would be

You: 60k
Ex: 60k

I would say something along the lines of "well, if this were fair, I would pay you $30,000... but in the interests of keeping thing civil, and to help settle this matter, how about I give you $40,000 for the equity in the house". Or, offer him the $30,000 upfront in cash (well, not cash, gotta be trackable) for the house, people like getting money.

Yes, he deserves absolutely nothing, but family law is not based on merit.

 

[goosie77]

I made him two offers... the first was 10K cash and then 'stuff' that adds up to 25K, second offer was $25K cash... he came back wanting $60K cash. He's being a total douchbag, which is not surprising since he's been a sponge for our entire relationship.

Family law is BS.

 

[OrleansLawyer]

The matrimonial home value becomes a joint asset upon marriage.

This is imprecise. It remains owned by whosoever is on title. The other person has a personal claim to occupation of it again the owner on title.

It's entire value would show on you asset list and it's value at marriage is not considered.

This is correct, notwithstanding arguments made during a short (<5yr) marriage.

It's incredibly unfair

The history behind the unique treatment of the matrimonial home is to be a move against the feminization of poverty, particularly following divorce, in the 80's.

I read that for under 5 year marriages, you may be able to apply for unequal division.

For how long were you married?

I'm hoping that the fact that my loser ex didn't work for a large portion of our marriage, forcing me to support him, would help with that claim

Your support of him during the marriage leads to an inference that his level of employment, or lack thereof, was acceptable to you.

For how many years were you married?

 

[billm]

He's being a total douchbag

Family law is BS.

He is only asking for what most people ask for I believe - half the value of the matrimonial home.

I don't recall seeing any mention of unequal division of the matrimonial home in this forum - there are probably some cases mentioned in this forum, but I have not seen it.

I do agree with you though that the concept is not fair.

Especially considering that the two couples who have the exact same financial situation can result in a different equalization depending simply on how and when the matrimonial home was purchased.

For example, one couple has 100K each in assets when they meet, they get married and then buy a house. They both walk away with the same amount after equalization.

Or that same couple meets after one of them buys a house (and puts their 100K as a down payment), and then move into that house. The home owner walks away with less.

This is obviously not reasonable.

 

[goosie77]

We were married 3 years.

I was never satisfied with his level of employment. He was fired from a job, laid off from another. Throughout all of this I asked him to give me money for bills, etc and he did not. It was a major issue in our marriage. He also was off work for a little over 1 year due to a back injury, and I supported him through that too, I had no choice. My lack of accepting his financial support is partly why I'm divorcing him now, enough is enough.

 

[billm]

We were married 3 years.

...

Did you live together before you got married? If so, how long?

 

[goosie77]

We lived together for 2 years before we got married.

 

[OrleansLawyer]

We lived together for 2 years before we got married.

Not relevant for division of property in Ontario.

We were married 3 years.

This was a short term marriage and therefore you may wish to plead for an unequal division of property. Hire a lawyer unless you are very confident in your writing skills and oratory abilities.

My lack of accepting his financial support is partly why I'm divorcing him now, enough is enough.

You may wish to make that clear in your pleadings.

 

[Janus]

We were married 3 years.

I was never satisfied with his level of employment.

Many people are/were married to people who were stay-at-home parents. Often, that unwillingness to work creates much of the tension that leads to the divorce, but the party that was working beforehand is still considered to have "accepted" it.

Honestly, you are so lucky to be getting out of this thing before being hit with the nonsense of SS. Yeah, you're getting screwed a bit on the house, but at least you can pay the guy off and run away.

I would happily pay $40k now to never talk to or pay my ex any money ever again.

 

[goosie77]

This is imprecise. It remains owned by whosoever is on title. The other person has a personal claim to occupation of it again the owner on title.


This is correct, notwithstanding arguments made during a short (<5yr) marriage.


The history behind the unique treatment of the matrimonial home is to be a move against the feminization of poverty, particularly following divorce, in the 80's.


For how long were you married?


Your support of him during the marriage leads to an inference that his level of employment, or lack thereof, was acceptable to you.

For how many years were you married?

We were married a little over 3 years, assuming he'll agree to a separation date in November.

I saw a lawyer and the lawyer claimed that the courts will consider the time we lived together before marriage when considering his claim for exactly half, ie. if I request an unequal division. SO that would add up to a little over 5 years... so I couldnt ask for unequal division. Is my lawyer incorrect?? He suggested I get a second opinion, and said if I wanted to go after that, to choose a different and more aggressive lawyer.

I offered him 30K cash, he said he'll speak to his 'lawyer'. He's claimed he's retained one, I'm not sure he has. He's insinuating that I provide financial disclosure to him, I don't want to do that unless I'm forced.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to request retro payment of half of the household bills and mortgage that he NEVER paid, and ask that that be subtracted from his 'half'. I could prove he never paid squat as our banking is completely separate and ALL bills have been paid from my account. I can't see how it's fathomable that he requests half when he never ever paid half, despite my asking.

 

[DowntroddenDad]

My ex was a stay at home mom, though our verbal agreement was that she return to work when the kids were in school. When that time came, she claimed to be disabled due to a diagnosed illness, which later I learned she never had (multiple sources). So other than some help her family provided for the downpayment(which was roughly the same as my family) she contributed zero to the house. She received 50% of the equity when the house was sold.

The only thing you have in your favour is the short term. Who paid the bills (I paid 100% of them) matters not in isolation. He is assuming 50/50 and the onus is on you to provide a compelling case for unequal based on the length of the marriage. I believe and I'm sure that others here will confirm that the premarriage cohabitation may count for SS or CS but for the property division it is the actual marriage date that is important - this was an issue for me with pension money I had accrued before marriage but while co-habitating.

 

[mcdreamy]

My ex was a stay at home mom, though our verbal agreement was that she return to work when the kids were in school. When that time came, she claimed to be disabled due to a diagnosed illness, which later I learned she never had (multiple sources). So other than some help her family provided for the downpayment(which was roughly the same as my family) she contributed zero to the house. She received 50% of the equity when the house was sold.

Let me connect the dots - you are in your early 50's, have 3 teenagers, she was a stay at home mom during their early years, and she contributed zero to the house? You did it all, right?

^^
this, OP, is why the rules when it comes to the matrimonial home are the way they are.

 

[Rioe]

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to request retro payment of half of the household bills and mortgage that he NEVER paid, and ask that that be subtracted from his 'half'. I could prove he never paid squat as our banking is completely separate and ALL bills have been paid from my account. I can't see how it's fathomable that he requests half when he never ever paid half, despite my asking.

No. You were married. Marriage is a legal, financial partnership. It doesn't matter who did what or who paid what. It might lead to the marriage breakdown, but it doesn't affect the equalization. You agreed to support him, and to share the home, when you signed that marriage license.

The splitting of the matrimonial home is based on traditional historical marriages, where the mother wasn't expected to work, and stayed home and didn't contribute financially at all. To ensure that they didn't live in poverty afterwards, the law developed that the largest asset, the home, was always divided equally.

Now that marriages are shorter, and gender contributions far more equal, I expect that someday that will change. But it hasn't happened yet, so you'll have to pay out.