Marriage vs Common Law

[GoinAllTheWay]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but was wondering if anyone can outline the key differences, if any, between the two.

The reason I ask is because of a conversation I overheard between two of my colleagues having a friendly "argument" about a clients breakup with his commonlaw g/f and the resulting aftermath.

Let me give you a scenario. Lets say a guy buys a condo, 6 years later he begins a relationship with a girl and they live together for 2 yrs and then split up. Would she be able to take him for half the condo even though it was purchased 6 yrs prior to them meeting?

[Slava]

I think that the only difference is the spelling! As far as I'm aware if you're common law you're basically married in the eyes of the law.

[oldschoolcalgary]

yeah...i've heard the same thing...really slimy thing to do, going for 50% split after living together for two years though...

paying back any contributions + valuation during the time period seems like its a more reasonable resolution...

[Claeren]

Except i believe it should only be for property gained during the 'marriage' period.

This guys problem may well be that housing prices are up like 150% in that time, so she can rightfuly make a strong claim for her share of 3/5ths of his house.

And FYI: If you move in with someone who has a child you are instantly 'married'!! No time period!!





Claeren.

[ZDogg]

Yup shes entitled to half of everything... including future spousal support. I guess the spousal support would depend on their incomes and whatnot.

Is he sure they were common law? I think you need to have lived together for 2 years and either share a bank account or house or children or some other asset.

[fredr123]

If you think the married vs. common law terminology is weird, try introducing your significant other as your AIP (Adult Interdependent Partner).

[fredr123]

Family Justice Services
Family Law Information Centre

[chummer]

Not in Alberta,if you buy a condo and she moves in for 2 years she is entitled to nothing as long as the condo remains in your name.

It is not the same as marriage in Alberta(I think it's different in other provinces).

This is one thing Alberts got right.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Claeren

And FYI: If you move in with someone who has a child you are instantly 'married'!! No time period!!

Okay, that's pretty freaky.

I recently broke up with a girl who has a child and was spending a ton of time at my place although we didn't "officially" live together (she still had her place, but she would sleep/wake up at my place probably 4 days of the week, and often 5).

She did mention something before casually about how if two people lived together for a year (I think?), that the girl could technically be compensated for half of the condo? What's the actual number?

[Winsor_Pilates]

My girlfriends parents just got married after over 30 years as common-law. It made no difference to them, but maybe if there's a breakup it makes a difference.

[ZDogg]

Women are evil. If they insist on moving in with you make them sign a rental agreement. Even if the rent is $0/month that should cover your butt from future instances like this.

[FlameCity]

There was a story in the SUN about this at the start of August . . . LINK

Well, it's time for a reality check. Five years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that a common-law union is not a marriage. It was a major news story at the time, but it bears repeating.


"To presume that common-law couples want to be bound by the same obligations as married couples is contrary to their choice to live in a common-law relationship," the court explained.


"If they have chosen not to marry, is it the state's task to impose a marriage-like regime on them retroactively?" the court asked pointedly.

Because common-law partners and married couples are treated equally in some respects, such as for spousal and child payments and survivor benefits, she thought getting half the assets would be automatic.

[Thunderball]

I believe its only a max of 50% of the increase in value of assets from when she moved it to when she left. In practice its more like 15-35%. Pretty disgusting at any rate, and why I would always insist on a pre-nup or rental agreement unless she buys 50% into the condo/house/etc.

[GreenLantern]

I believe we have some lawyers on this board who might be able to shed a little light on the subject?

It is my understanding that it is 50% of assets, but it can also be argued that one side owned far more than the other going into the relationship and thats where the 70/30 and 60/40 comes in.

[Mike F]

Not sure about Alberta, but in BC she wouldn't be automatically entitled to anything, but would have to make an argument under the law of unjust enrichment.

Basically, it would look to her contribution (monetarily, through unpaid houskeeping or childcare, etc.) and base her entitlement on that.

[urban1]

Do most of the guys on here make significantly more than their wives or girlfriends?

In my circle of friends, most couples have a pretty equal income between each spouse. But a lot of the couples work in the same profession or are both professionals in different fields.

In my case, I make more than my wife but its because Im a few years older than her and further along in my career. As time passes she is catching up in income.

I think it would be a different story if I was a single guy with a lot of equity in my home and a decent income. I like to worry a lot so it might be tough to let a woman move in especially is she wasnt financially secure on her own. Theres no way Id let a woman with no assets, a kid, and a job at Tim Hortons move into my house no matter how hot she was.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by urban1

Do most of the guys on here make significantly more than their wives or girlfriends?

My GF makes a fair amount more then me and buys me nice things to keep me happy

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fredr123

If you think the married vs. common law terminology is weird, try introducing your significant other as your AIP (Adult Interdependent Partner).

Planet of the Aips.

IIRC, the Matrimonial Property Act in Alberta requires married spouses to split all matrimonial property equally, excepting:

1) inheritances (not co-mingled)
2) injury settlements
3) gifts
4) property owned before marriage (not co-mingled)

A properly drafted Marriage Agreement (pre-nuptial) may allow you to contract out of the general 50/50 provisions.

Spousal Support in a marriage is governed by the Divorce Act. There are tables that show you roughly how much a person could expect to pay, based on the difference in incomes and length of the marriage.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub...idelines_e.pdf

Until recently, common-law spouses could have expected to keep everything in their own names seperate, and split only the increase in value of these assets (through the law of constructive trusts and unjust enrichment). The law is evolving, and we can expect common-law spouses to eventually share the same rights as married spouses (AIP is a step in this direction).

[suegate]

Originally Posted by ZDogg

Yup shes entitled to half of everything... including future spousal support. I guess the spousal support would depend on their incomes and whatnot.

Is he sure they were common law? I think you need to have lived together for 2 years and either share a bank account or house or children or some other asset.

Unfortunately for the guy, since the girl is such a cow, to be polite, you don't need to have any of that stuff to prove that you're common-law. All you need is ONE piece of mail being sent to that address and proof you're not roomates (a photo, witnesses that say you were a couple) and it will hold up in court. And it only takes 6 CONTINUOUS months to be CL.

In my opinion, if you're worried about your sh*t, don't get into a relationship in the first place where living together is the option because if you can't trust that your partner is NOT going to take you for everything you had before the two of you meet, she's probably not worth it. Real women who are worth more than just a good lay would not try and take equity that doesn't belong to them.

[ericschand]

I went through almost this exact scenario, short 2 year marriage, etc.
The rules for common-law (living together for 6 months are the same).
I'm using marriage and common-law interchangably.

In general...

The last thing you want is to appear in front of a judge.
They might be in a bad mood. They may not care about your
specific situation. They may arbitrairily decide in the others'
favour. Going to a judge is to be avoided if you can.

After 2 years, she is entitled to alimony, however, it won't be much,
and for a very short time. Most likely somewhere around the length
of the marriage, with bare minimum payments. It may not even follow
the legal guideline(s).

She is entitled to some property, mostly any appreciation in value
of the house and other property. So if your net worth was around $500k
when you married (or common-law), and now it is $600k, she is
entitled to about $50k, assuming she didn't accumulate any of her own.
She may not even get $50k, depending on the exact situation. She
can try to make you sell, but it's unlikely a judge would order that,
especially if it's your primary home, business, etc.

It's not worth her time to try to fight it, the rules are more or less
established. It's also not worth your time to try to fight over a few
thousand. They can try, but you can go after them for your
costs (if you want to keep on fighting) if it's found baseless arguments.
Most lawyers won't argue over minor established things, as it
puts them in a bad light. In Calgary, most lawyers know or have
heard of each other. As such, they are reluctant to fight over
minor, generally established issues.

The judges know them, they know each other, lawyers know
the judges, how they run their court, and so on.

Child support you MUST pay, there is no way out, even if you
decide not to see your child.

Child support is based upon a government chart, showing salary,
and "appropriate" payments. In general, this chart is used, up to a
60/40 time split, after which you are free to negotiate your own
payment amounts and so on. (The chart is per month, however,
if the child is spending only half a month at the other place, why
would you pay a full month of child support?)

You can find more about child support and amounts here:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/g...1_4/alta_b.pdf

ers