Posted by bs9999 on November 24, 2005, 3:04 pm
Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!
I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
(no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
name.
Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
her other expenses.
A few questions:
1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
2. He was paying mortgage for a couple years with the assistance of
her. Regardless of her assistance, does paying the monthly mortgage
on the house improve one's overall share contribution that was
initially invested in the house? So let's say his original
contribution was $27,000 but after a couple years mortgage payments
totalling $30,000, does this somehow affect his original share
holdings in the house improving it to a total of $57,000 or 57% share?
Or does the original amount invested remain fixed regardless of
mortgage payments made after the house purchase?
3. Now it was discovered that he is still married to another woman
throughout the 3 years of living together. It was also revealed that
he once had a home but due to failure to pay mortgage, the house was
seized from them. Could any of this information be useful during
separation negotiations or be beneficial if brought to the attention
of the possessions separation judge?
4. Finally, the home was appraised for a value significantly higher
than what any of the homes in the area have actually sold for. For
instance, a home nearby with similar area and specs was appraised at a
lower value and sold for much less. If one is able to gather
appraisal values and actual sold prices for similar homes in the area,
could the average selling price of similar homes be used as a more
accurate selling price for this home if negotiations came down to
purchasing back his shares of the home? Or is it a requirement to be
using unrealistic appraisal values? An additional 10% was also added
on top of the single, original appraisal value to compensate for real
estate agent/lawyer charges but the overall reason for the grossly
unrealistic price is so that a buyout of his percentage share on the
appraised + 10% value will be much more significant. If it is proper,
it would be nice if she could present a more realistic selling price.
That's it. Thank you for ANY answers to the above questions.
If it's possible, though not required, can you please email me
directly at: bs9999@gmail.com
Cheers.
Posted by Gini on November 24, 2005, 5:32 pm
> Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!
> I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
> separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
> involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
> purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
> agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
> all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
> groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
> agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
> (no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
> name.
> Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
> him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
> return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
> barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
> in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
> that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
> all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
> account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
> continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
> her other expenses.
> A few questions:
> 1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
> guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
> it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
> him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
> automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
> two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
> attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====
I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
did the woman
stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which makes
it *his* house)?
Why did he not have her evicted after she accused him of abuse? Why does the
woman think
the house should be hers or that she should live rent-free after she has
accused him of abuse (there is no contention
in the OP that the man actually commited any abuse toward the woman)?
Why has the woman continued to pay the mortgage (voluntarily) on a house
that is not hers?
Did the court give her possession of a house that is not hers? I can see no
connection between
his actions or previous relationships that indicate he has waived his
ownership of the property.
Is that how it's done in Canada? A man gets *accused* of abuse and the court
gives his (legal)
property to the accuser? In the US, there are two distinct legal
issues/processes here--domestic
abuse (accusation) and property rights and the two are decidedly different.
Absent "common law"
marriage and "community property state," these are two very different
matters of law. Precisely,
what case would "go before the judge?" Does the woman intend to try to get
the man's property by *accusing*
him of abuse just because he was accused of abuse in prior relationships?
There appears to be a lot left out of this picture. For instance, if a man
is
"barred" from his house (and the woman initiated the action so she is
responsible for his inability to come home, *not*
the "court system" as the OP contends), does that automatically convey
property rights?
Further, because the woman accused him of abuse, and he is prevented from
accessing his property, it is understandable that he would stop paying the
mortgage. Simply put (finally :), has *this* man ever abused *this* woman?
====
Posted by Banty on November 25, 2005, 8:14 am
>> Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!
>>
>> I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
>> separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
>> involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
>> purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
>> agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
>> all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
>> groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
>> agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
>> (no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
>> name.
>>
>> Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
>> him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
>> return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
>> barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
>> in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
>> that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
>> all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
>> account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
>> continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
>> her other expenses.
>>
>> A few questions:
>>
>> 1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
>> guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
>> it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
>> him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
>> automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
>> two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
>> attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
>====
>I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
>did the woman
>stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which makes
>it *his* house)?
?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it out by
quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your post.
By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where I am
this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to this
the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.
Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or witness
testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false allegations of
abuse.
Banty
Posted by Gini on November 25, 2005, 10:01 am
>>
>>
>>> Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!
>>>
>>> I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
>>> separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
>>> involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
>>> purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
>>> agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
>>> all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
>>> groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
>>> agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
>>> (no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
>>> name.
>>>
>>> Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
>>> him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
>>> return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
>>> barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
>>> in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
>>> that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
>>> all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
>>> account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
>>> continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
>>> her other expenses.
>>>
>>> A few questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
>>> guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
>>> it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
>>> him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
>>> automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
>>> two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
>>> attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
>>====
>>I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
>>did the woman
>>stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
>>makes
>>it *his* house)?
> ?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
> detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
> out by
> quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
> post.
> By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where
> I am
> this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to
> this
> the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.
> Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
> witness
> testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
> allegations of
> abuse.
===
The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
know
the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.
On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
based on allegation.
There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
OP. It is not as easy to get a
conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction with
allegation? The OP states
the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
*allegation.* That should concern
any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original post
was written with the
sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.
===
Posted by Banty on November 25, 2005, 11:25 am
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ontario Law - Separation Dispute Question. Please Help!
>>>>
>>>> I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
>>>> separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
>>>> involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
>>>> purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
>>>> agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
>>>> all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
>>>> groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
>>>> agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
>>>> (no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
>>>> name.
>>>>
>>>> Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
>>>> him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
>>>> return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
>>>> barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
>>>> in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
>>>> that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
>>>> all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
>>>> account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
>>>> continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
>>>> her other expenses.
>>>>
>>>> A few questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
>>>> guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
>>>> it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
>>>> him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
>>>> automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
>>>> two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
>>>> attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
>>>====
>>>I'm not an attorney and this isn't a law newsgroup, but I have to ask--Why
>>>did the woman
>>>stay in a house that was not hers (Her name is not on the title which
>>>makes
>>>it *his* house)?
>>
>> ?? I searched the original post for "title" because I did not recall this
>> detail, and did not find it. If I've missed something, please point it
>> out by
>> quoting it. You seem to rely heavily on this point in the rest of your
>> post.
>>
>> By my reading, she paid the majority of the house. As far as title, where
>> I am
>> this couple would have had a joint title. But, truly, to get an answer to
>> this
>> the poster should consult a property lawyer in Ontario.
>>
>> Where I am, abuse generally needs to be proven by medical records or
>> witness
>> testimony - it is not as easy as you seem to think to make false
>> allegations of
>> abuse.
>===
>The woman's name is not on the house. She states that in the OP. I do not
>know
>the specific term she used, but you can read her post again if you wish.
I read it again - I see nothing to that effect. Please point out the "specific
term" that suggests to you that the house is not in her name. Indeed, the
original post rather explicitly deals with proportional shares of a jointly
owned house.
>On the contrary--It is *very* easy to make an allegation and this case was
>based on allegation.
>There has been no statement or evidence claimed of actual abuse in/by the
>OP. It is not as easy to get a
>conviction on a false allegation. Perhaps you are confusing conviction with
>allegation? The OP states
>the court restricted the man's access to his home based on her
>*allegation.* That should concern
>any man (or woman with a sense of equal rights under law). The original post
>was written with the
>sense that the woman was a victim without stating any evidence of the man
>victimizing her. She states she voluntarily took on
>more of the financial obligations. Absent any evidence of harm, it appears
>on its face that the man was a victim of the woman
>and the court. The OP needs to fill in some basic defects in the story.
Alleged means there is no trial for conviction yet. There needs to be some
arrangment until the trial.
Look, there's a lot here not to have this guy look very good. Bad credit,
broken promises within the relationship with regards to paying the mortgage,
existing former marriages. If you're looking for a cause celebre, he ain't it.
But mainly, where do you get that the woman isn't co-owner of the house?
Exactly. Show where it says that.
Banty
XML site map
> I live in Ontario Canada and have some questions in regards to a
> separation case which also takes place here in Ontario. The case
> involves a man and woman who have been together for 3 years. They
> purchased a new home together, 73% her share and 27% his share. The
> agreement was that he would pay the monthly mortgage while she covered
> all other expenses such as utility bills, home/car insurance,
> groceries, etc. In actuality she not only covered her part of the
> agreement but assisted him with an additional $500 each month in cash
> (no receipt) towards mortgage. The mortgage bank account was in his
> name.
> Eventually, he was charged twice with domestic abuse and police took
> him away automatically issuing a restraining order that he may not
> return to the home for her safety. It was the court system which
> barred him from returning to the home, not her. She currently lives
> in the home while he has not returned for several months now. Earlier
> that year (back in April) he stopped payment of mortgage, withdrawing
> all funds she deposited into the bank account, then closing the
> account without her consent. She luckily discovered the problem and
> continued full payment of the mortgage on her own while incurring all
> her other expenses.
> A few questions:
> 1. Because he has not lived in the home for several months now, is he
> guaranteed "occupation rent" if this case goes before a judge? Does
> it make a difference that it wasn't an amicable separation that led to
> him being exiled from the home but Ontario domestic abuse law which
> automatically barred him from returning home for her safety due to the
> two previous domestic charges? Can this issue be brought to the
> attention of the judge to have the "occupation rent" nullified?
====