Am I the Asshole? James and Sara’s story
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
Looks like his intent was to help her with a much affordable rent than what she's going to get once her lease lapses...he has no intention on moving her in as a common law partner...but as a tenant (with benefits) She on the other h and wants to move in put some money with an intention to gain equity without all the trouble of putting in a down payment for the house and pass credit check...who really is the greedy one here?
Yes.
She is an asshole for expecting to not have to pay the owner of the dwelling for a roof over her head like she has been doing in the other places she has lived, simply because she is in a dating relationship with the owner of the dwelling.
He is an asshole for offering a place to live to the person he is in a relationship with, and expecting her to pay rent, when he never had anyone there paying rent before, so nothing has changed as far as his outlay of cash for his house expenses.
Not true-after a certain amount of time it automatically becomes a common law situation.
Definitely shorter than 5 years.
tough call, but talking to a lawyer would probably help clear up some issues.
common law becomes tricky.
however; in my opinion, she would be paying rent regardless where she lives since she needs a roof over her head. I would expect rent to be paid competitive with renting a room in the area per month.
I dont think she should have access to equity since its his house, and he has footed all the cost associated previously with the home.
I personally think its a bad idea not coming up with a cohabitational agreement. a relationship versus renting a room to a stranger raises some very complicated issues when shit hits the fan.
common law becomes tricky.
however; in my opinion, she would be paying rent regardless where she lives since she needs a roof over her head. I would expect rent to be paid competitive with renting a room in the area per month.
I dont think she should have access to equity since its his house, and he has footed all the cost associated previously with the home.
I personally think its a bad idea not coming up with a cohabitational agreement. a relationship versus renting a room to a stranger raises some very complicated issues when shit hits the fan.
Equity protection? She needs to live in the real world. Hes not her sugar daddy clearly. Pay a fair share of all. Having someone else live in your house isnt easy to deal with. She doesnt deserve any reimbursement if the relationship fails. She can easily stay there for 5 years..cheat on him and leave him and get rent back? The fuck??
Yes shes a bum. If a man did that..he would also be a loser and a bum.
Yes shes a bum. If a man did that..he would also be a loser and a bum.
If he became her landlord, their relationship would be over in 6 months or less.....
She put him in a tough spot. Shes basically saying she will be homeless if he doesnt help her. Having someone live with you is very difficult. He has lost all of his alone time. Shes now there and everywhere.
She is not a roommate. She is a partner. Would like living with a person who loves you and charges you rent to avoid giving you your fair share of equity in the home? You pay down half the mortgage for your partner and get nothing? That is cool with you?
No. You are making the wrong assumptions. They talked about living together as the next step In their relationship. Not her lease is up so she needs a place. Wrong assumption
So you would move in with someone, pay half their mortgage, help them gain equity in the home for 5 years and not except to be give your fair share of equity?
I need someone like you willing to pay down half my mortgage for free. Thanks
That is not at all what she is saying. They are planning to live together, that is the plan. It only makes sense to do it when the lease is up. It is not the other way, where her lease is up and she excepts him to let her move in. They equally discussed living together
For spousal support. Not for property claims, unless you make a constructive trust claim. But that's a month or so in a Family Law course to explain.
She pays the mortgage, she's going to get part of the equity. Probably nowhere near 1/2. But she's going to get something.
Is if she paid half the mortgage for three years she would get half the equity built from that three years.
The would have to get the house appraised before she move in so you had the starting point but if she paid half the mortgage, property taxes and insurance, why would she not get half the equity built during that time?
Common law differs per province. Quebec is very different. I won't even mention time.
Divorce Law
I can't find this in DVD so find out how to watch it. The synopsis is the court will try to make you poor and drag it for 8 years.
Divorce Law
I can't find this in DVD so find out how to watch it. The synopsis is the court will try to make you poor and drag it for 8 years.
Basically this question doesn't have enough information to make a real world judgment.
Who brought up the question of her paying to stay there? Did she bring it up because she is pushing for equity in a house that is not in her name, and she did not have to put any money down on, nor has to suffer the credit damage if payments aren't made?
If it was her then she is the asshole.
Or, did he bring up the question of her paying to stay there, because he wanted to offload some of the expense of his mortgage on to her in order to make money off her being there? If it was him then he is the asshole.
Here is how it would likely go. They decide to move in together because they love each other. He already owns a house which is why they choose his place. She agrees to pay for the added expense of her living there. Which is half the utilities, food, etc. Which is fair considering she will no longer be paying rent.
He would never consider her paying just to live there. Because her being there hasn't increased the mortgage, taxes etc. he would have had to pay regardless of her presence, plus they agreed to live together as a couple.
As such there is no issue of equity in the house until the relationship moves to a point where that becomes relevant.
So this whole scenario as described is an asshole scenario. And whomever was the one to bring up her paying just to be there and the motivations behind doing such, is the asshole.
Who brought up the question of her paying to stay there? Did she bring it up because she is pushing for equity in a house that is not in her name, and she did not have to put any money down on, nor has to suffer the credit damage if payments aren't made?
If it was her then she is the asshole.
Or, did he bring up the question of her paying to stay there, because he wanted to offload some of the expense of his mortgage on to her in order to make money off her being there? If it was him then he is the asshole.
Here is how it would likely go. They decide to move in together because they love each other. He already owns a house which is why they choose his place. She agrees to pay for the added expense of her living there. Which is half the utilities, food, etc. Which is fair considering she will no longer be paying rent.
He would never consider her paying just to live there. Because her being there hasn't increased the mortgage, taxes etc. he would have had to pay regardless of her presence, plus they agreed to live together as a couple.
As such there is no issue of equity in the house until the relationship moves to a point where that becomes relevant.
So this whole scenario as described is an asshole scenario. And whomever was the one to bring up her paying just to be there and the motivations behind doing such, is the asshole.
The best advice is for both of them to see a lawyer. Everything written here is speculation. There are differences in asset equalization between common-law and marriage (50/50 with marriage and 65/35 (?) with common-law). James has a whole lot more to lose than Sara.
That's the standard statutory equalization scheme in the Family Law Act.
But it gets complex. If a common law spouse contributes DIRECTLY to the acquisition or maintenance of the property, she gets a chunk of it based on "constructive trust" principles. That's the conversation I had with Jenesis. So if she pays the mortgage, pays the trades to renovate or re-tiles the kitchen herself, that's going to entitle her to a piece of the equity.
There are other constructive trust awards in egregious cases - i.e. a common law wife gets kicked out on her ass after 25 years without a nickel and the guy has a $1,000,000 home - where the judge is probably going to give the wife something because otherwise it's just grossly unfair.
