A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision might be of interest to those living common law. Michele Vanasse was a stay at home mom who cared for their two kids while David Sequin worked to build his business. David later sold the business for an $11 million profit. The Court ruled that Michele was entitled to half of David's assets.
Common Law Assets
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
Thanks for the clarification. It appears that the Court gave Vanassa equal credit in the creation of the wealth even though David built the business. (Sort of like saying that Elin was responsible for half of Tiger Woods' success on the golf course.)
Query: Is it possible to sign a "pre-nup" prior to entering into a common law relationship?
You can sign whatever you want. If you are wondering if the court will give a shit what you signed, the answer is no.
Are you saying that it is better to sign a real pre-nup and enter into a legal marriage rather than a common law relationship where you are at the mercy of the court in case of a breakup? Surely a court would recognize a real pre-nup signed prior to a legal marriage, yes?
Dangerously wrong and 100% untrue. See:
- Prenuptial agreements are enforceable in Canada.
- "By signing the Agreement, the (husband and wife) entered their marriage with certain expectations on which they were reasonably entitled to rely. If the respondent truly believed that the Agreement was unacceptable at that time, she should not have signed it. In this case, the intention of the parties, as expressed in the Agreement, was to leave with each party that which he or she had before the marriage.... The Agreement should be left intact."
- If you're thinking of taking the plunge for a second time, you should seriously consider having a prenuptial agreement or marriage contract in place before you walk down the aisle
Ok, let say you bring a $1MM house into the relationship and your GF brings nothing. 10 years later the relationship breaks up and the house has appreciated to $1.5 million. Is she entitled to half of the $500,000 increase in value?
Let say she marries Donald Trump when he was already a billionaire. They have two kids and she is a stay at home mom. They breakup. The Donald is now worth another billion dollars more. Is her contribution really worth $500 million?
Let's say Jane meets Joe, Jane moves in with Joe when Jane gets pregnant. They live together for 6 years when their relationship breaks down. The house is in Joes name and she's been staying at home looking after the kids ( she gave up her job to do so ). Under common law rules, she gets nothing ( not even a portion of the increase in market value )
obviously both extremes....the realities for the majority will fall somewhere in the middle.....
Steph
She created two mini trumps and made a home for the family enabling The Donald to do what he does best. That's worth a lot, it's easier to just say half.
If his net value went down, I think she should still get a chunk of what he already had. Why should she get nothing?
Then Jane becomes a single mom (the woman usually get the kids) and Joe has to pay child (and spousal?) support.
I think in this case she should get minus -500million. If you want to take it, then be ready to lose it.
Here is a true story. When the Donald divorced Marla Maples after roughly 5 years of marriage and 1 kid, I think she got a little more than what the pre-nup stipulated (maybe around $3million). The Donlad said that Marla did well for a two bit actress when they first met. When she was married she lived the life of a billionaire's wife and now she walks away with something like $3 million (more or less).
Did you mean "pretty much the same result if they had been married WITHOUT A PRE-NUP"?
Indeed doubtless the bottom line for Prenuptial and Antenuptial Agreements in Canada as in much of the rest of the Common Law would is inequity, short of that if it is an informed agreement you will be ok.
That sounds about right. Anything else and you are making it an unequal partnership. 50/50 on the growth in assets is fair. Any man who thinks its unfair is free to stay home and raise the kids for a few years, then get a divorce and walk away with nothing while the woman made millions.
