Moving in together

[Sheva #7]

Hello,

I have been dating my girlfriend for 2.5 years. I have my own apartment condo but she is currently renting, next month we are intending for her to move-in with me. Over the past year or so she staying over pretty much every weekend so it should be nothing new for me but still this is a big next step for our relationship.

We want to live together and see how it goes... if everything goes well will get married eventually. However, there is always a chance that it turns out that something isn't working and we'd have to separate.

Any advice from the point of view of common law in Alberta or any other things I should consider? In an unlikely scenario that things get messy, would she have a claim to any of my assets?

thanks,

[GGG]

You should sign pre-nups / cohabitation agreement. That can protect your assets you are bringing into the marriage

Even with one after six months you become common law and have all the liabilities of marriage.

Then you need to define things like rent. Even with a pre-nup if she is paying into the mortgage or paying bills in place of paying the mortgage she could be entitled to her share of the property she paid down and potentially appreciation of the property.

So if you do nothing and things go south she could be entitled to portions of your assets and even depending on length spousal support. Everyone should talk to a lawyer before moving in or getting married if they have assists.

[Locke]

[Sheva #7]

thanks, I was actually thinking more of a situation where we split before marriage but after moving-in together...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

You should sign pre-nups / cohabitation agreement. That can protect your assets you are bringing into the marriage

Even with one after six months you become common law and have all the liabilities of marriage.

Then you need to define things like rent. Even with a pre-nup if she is paying into the mortgage or paying bills in place of paying the mortgage she could be entitled to her share of the property she paid down and potentially appreciation of the property.

So if you do nothing and things go south she could be entitled to portions of your assets and even depending on length spousal support. Everyone should talk to a lawyer before moving in or getting married if they have assists.

I’m curious about this. If you own a place already and it’s fully furnished and everything and then she moves in, on what grounds would she be owed a part of your assets?

If she pays $500 a month to live with you, isn’t that way cheaper than she’d be able to pay for her own place? She needs to live somewhere and if she’s currently paying let’s say $1000 a month and she saves $500 a month living with you, why would she be entitled to an asset you owned before she ever moved in?

In any scenario she’s coming out way ahead of where she’d be on her own. Further ahead than you are by collecting such piddly rent from her.

Now if she helps pay for furniture, upgrades to the home etc, then yeah it makes sense. Otherwise it seems quite odd.

Does it depend on how much she pays in rent? If she’s getting a huge discount on market rate it seems quite odd.

All of this assumes there are no children and you’re both working adults.

And that’s not even getting into spousal support, which is a whole other can of worms.

[Bunk]

2 1/2 years together is a fair amount of time to really know your partner - any real reasons you’re not fully confident in the relationship that it might not withstand living with one another?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Bunk

2 1/2 years together is a fair amount of time to really know your partner - any real reasons you’re not fully confident in the relationship that it might not withstand living with one another?

Plan for the worst and hope for the best

Always have the proper paperwork in place.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’m curious about this. If you own a place already and it’s fully furnished and everything and then she moves in, on what grounds would she be owed a part of your assets?

I think the idea is the person moving in is giving up their opportunity to live in and gain from appreciation of a principal residence. Typically the other person would not own a house other than the one they are living in and certainly don't get to own two principals. So in that sense it's fair. The details of who pays what and how much one person is entitled to I'm sure varies and is likely negotiable.



As an example my friend in Toronto moved in with a woman in 2005. He's paid essentially rent and the house is by all accounts her's. But he should be able to gain from some of the huge appreciation...in the millions, they've gained from living there. You can't arbitrarily say oh no, your contribution was just rent, not a part of the ownership expenses...unless you state as much in a pre nup. And I'm also pretty sure any settlement takes into account the one person's capital output in buying the house and the appraised value at the time of the move in.

[DuffMan]

How old are you guys?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the idea is the person moving in is giving up their opportunity to live in and gain from appreciation of a principal residence. Typically the other person would not own a house other than the one they are living in and certainly don't get to own two principals. So in that sense it's fair. The details of who pays what and how much one person is entitled to I'm sure varies and is likely negotiable.



As an example my friend in Toronto moved in with a woman in 2005. He's paid essentially rent and the house is by all accounts her's. But he should be able to gain from some of the huge appreciation...in the millions, they've gained from living there. You can't arbitrarily say oh no, your contribution was just rent, not a part of the ownership expenses...unless you state as much in a pre nup. And I'm also pretty sure any settlement takes into account the one person's capital output in buying the house and the appraised value at the time of the move in.

No that still doesn’t seem right. Not unless the other person sold their residence to move in and gave up an opportunity. Even that doesn’t make sense. If property values tank can the woman in your example demand her partner cover her losses when she sells?

Unless the other partner was in a position to buy a home on their own and didn’t. But even still, they’re not responsible for the mortgage. They have no ownership of the property. Why would they get to benefit from an asset that The other person saved for and paid for years earlier?

I guess if your friend wanted to take advantage of the real estate market he should have invested in a property. Or put his name on title and the mortgage.

Benefiting from appreciation isn’t some inherent human right. It involves capital, timing, buying in the right area. All things this woman did on her own before she ever knew your friend. Why would he get to benefit from this?

[CaptainCrunch]

nm

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No that still doesn’t seem right. Not unless the other person sold their residence to move in and gave up an opportunity. Even that doesn’t make sense. If property values tank can the woman in your example demand her partner cover her losses when she sells?

Unless the other partner was in a position to buy a home on their own and didn’t. But even still, they’re not responsible for the mortgage. They have no ownership of the property. Why would they get to benefit from an asset that The other person saved for and paid for years earlier?

I guess if your friend wanted to take advantage of the real estate market he should have invested in a property. Or put his name on title and the mortgage.

Benefiting from appreciation isn’t some inherent human right. It involves capital, timing, buying in the right area. All things this woman did on her own before she ever knew your friend. Why would he get to benefit from this?

From what I understand the judge isn't there to determine if the person was in a position to own or not. They move in...they own. But definitely they take into account contributions to the home both monetary and otherwise...like care taking, maintenance work etc. Judges aren't about to say Sorry...it looks like you were a bum in 2005. No equity for you.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

This link has some info. Basically Alberta is unique and while property can be divided it is very different than marriage and matrimonial property. Lots of factors at play.

https://kahanelaw.com/common-law-pro...lberta-top-10/

While it doesn’t go into specifics, it does appear many things I mentioned are considered. It isn’t as simple as “be careful, she owns half now”.

Also that whole 6 months thing is BS.

[afc wimbledon]

here's what happens in reality, you guys break up, she goes to a lawyer and asks if she has a claim, they say yes, you then get a lawyer, he tells you 'you will win the case eventually as this is Alberta but it will costs you 30 or 40,000 for me to make it go away, my advise is pay her 20,000 to go away'.

The amounts vary, in Vancouver it's closer to 100,000 but the point still stands, assume that it will cost you a chunk to move on if you live together.

[DiracSpike]

There's also the Alberta adult interdependence act which is defined as three years of living together before you become common law unless you have a kid or have signed an agreement. That link from the law firm seems to be somewhat consistent with that, if you're less than that time you need to show that you hurt your prospects by moving in with someone or made financial sacrifices or contributed equity financial or otherwise to the property. If it's you allowing your gf in her 20s to move in with you at a decreased rate I'd have to think you're safe, there's no sacrifice on her part being made there. At least I'd hope so, that's basically the situation I'm in right now.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I’m curious about this. If you own a place already and it’s fully furnished and everything and then she moves in, on what grounds would she be owed a part of your assets?

If she pays $500 a month to live with you, isn’t that way cheaper than she’d be able to pay for her own place? She needs to live somewhere and if she’s currently paying let’s say $1000 a month and she saves $500 a month living with you, why would she be entitled to an asset you owned before she ever moved in?

In any scenario she’s coming out way ahead of where she’d be on her own. Further ahead than you are by collecting such piddly rent from her.

Now if she helps pay for furniture, upgrades to the home etc, then yeah it makes sense. Otherwise it seems quite odd.

Does it depend on how much she pays in rent? If she’s getting a huge discount on market rate it seems quite odd.

All of this assumes there are no children and you’re both working adults.

And that’s not even getting into spousal support, which is a whole other can of worms.

So this is anecdotal from a friends situation that went badly but she was entitled to half the appreciation of the Common assets plus a share of the capital that was paid into the mortgage. Effectively once common law all money put toward the mortgage was joint money regardless of if she paid for the mortgage or was just paying other bills.

Edit: reading your link I think this makes sense as one possible outcome. I was not aware that the 6 months thing did not apply in Alberta. Either way seeing a lawyer before moving in with someone is probably good advice.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

here's what happens in reality, you guys break up, she goes to a lawyer and asks if she has a claim, they say yes, you then get a lawyer, he tells you 'you will win the case eventually as this is Alberta but it will costs you 30 or 40,000 for me to make it go away, my advise is pay her 20,000 to go away'.

The amounts vary, in Vancouver it's closer to 100,000 but the point still stands, assume that it will cost you a chunk to move on if you live together.

This post says it all!

To the OP, it's awkward but get her to sign a pre-nup, if she gets mad about it then well..maybe she's not for you after all

[btimbit]

Can confirm pre-nup should be mandatory. Learn from my mistakes

[troutman]

Do a cohabitation agreement with independent legal advice.

Your homemade agreement witnessed by a commissioner is practically worthless.

[indes]

Well there's no denying we sure are jaded around here lol.

On that note in 17 days I will be giving my ex wife 100,000$ so I would probably listen to the advice.