My ex thinks he is entitled to half of the equity I received for the townhouse, although he paid nothing for it. Long story...

My question is what is the statute of limitations for filing a claim? I sold the property in March of 2007 and am moving back to BC in a couple of months.

Thank you!

It is very difficult to find the applicable law for Canada, but I did find this:


Section 3 (5) of the BC Limitation Act sets 6 years as the limit for debt.
Statute Of Limitations On Debts In Canada (http://www.consumerbadcreditguide.com/statuteoflimitationscanada.html)

Seems within the ballpark for a SOL.

It is very difficult to find the applicable law for Canada, but I did find this:


Statute Of Limitations On Debts In Canada (http://www.consumerbadcreditguide.com/statuteoflimitationscanada.html)

Seems within the ballpark for a SOL.



It's been posted before - it's on several different sites.
Limitations Acts -"Statute of Limitations" (http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/limitationacts.htm)

It seems like the Statute of Limitations Act is for Creditors and Bancruptcy. I suppose that could apply to civil matters as well.

Thanks you guys.

It's been posted before - it's on several different sites.
Limitations Acts -"Statute of Limitations" (http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/limitationacts.htm)

Very well, I suppose we should consult the actual text of the BC Limitations Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20L%20--/Limitation%20Act%20%20RSBC%201996%20%20c.%20266/00_96266_01.xml):



...
3 (5) Any other action not specifically provided for in this Act or any other Act may not be brought after the expiration of 6 years after the date on which the right to do so arose.
...

What did your divorce decree have to say about property? Did you get sole ownership of that condo ?

What did your divorce decree have to say about property? Did you get sole ownership of that condo ?

We weren't actually married, and it was in my name only. He put down the deposit, which I returned to him after we broke up. I solely paid the mortgage, strata fees, taxes, utilities, etc.

Like I said, it's a long story, but in a nutshell. I paid everything for the house and then some. He paid daycare and groceries. He only paid daycare for about a year and a half. I put the money in to make the improvements (redo the bathroom, etc.) AFTER he moved out at which time I paid even for her daycare. More financial stuff in between which is why it really irritates me. He was fine for us to move as long as I didn't file for child support. Which is why I think he may try to file.

You don't owe him any of the condo precedes unless you lived together so long that you qualify for a common law marriage. Your choice, I would not give a dime but he could try to sue you, it all boils down to those messy details.

We lived together for just over two years. With a daughter. I guess that could be considered common law although the house was really the only thing we shared. Our funds weren't co-mingled, we didn't have any joint bills or credit cards but... sigh.

... He put down the deposit, which I returned to him after we broke up. ...

When did you break up? I suspect the SOL runs from then.

I suspect that SOl will not play into this at all. He can sue anytime he wants, now or in 5 years. I don't see that Canuxfanin has a debt, the ex is just trying to make a claim, based on what we have heard so far. JudyKayTee, how do you read this?

We broke up October of 2006 and I didn't sell until March 2007. During this time is when I hired the handyman to fix the place and do improvements and of course continued to pay for things including my daughter's daycare.

Its not that I think he would win (a lawyer previously told me that his chances were unlikely given I gave him back his deposit as soon as he moved out which was his only contribution) I just don't want the hassle.

But after all this time, I will asking for child support which is the only time he ever mentions what he thinks I owe him and that that should be considered a lump sum payment for child support.

Hello C:

I think you owe him some money. You BOTH contributed to the household even though it wasn't equal. YOUR payments, however, went to equity while his went to expenses...

It ain't right.

I'd do TWO things... File for child support and treat him fairly.

excon

Excon: I can understand where you are coming from but like I mentioned there is a whole lot more to the story. He was treated more than fairly, I can assure you.

Judy: We didn't have a list of assets when we broke up. He brought nothing into the relationship (everything was mine before I met him) and we didn't buy anything jointly. Anything new that was purchased was what I paid for. And as I mentioned, we didn't have anything (debt or assets) together.

I did offer him all the furniture in the house when I moved, but he couldn't/wouldn't find the time to come get them. And as I mentioned, I gave him back his sole contribution to the house, his downpayment.

I continued to live in the house, and paid our daughter's daycare (what excon would consider his contribution) and made the improvements which allowed for me to get what I got from the sale.

So, in short are you saying that he can take me to court whenever, to claim what he thinks I owe him (which is half of the proceeds).

In the US - and, again, you are in Canada so I don't know how much of a help I am - you HAVE to list all assets, joint, individual, no matter what their source and no matter what the time frame.

But, yes, basically anyone can take anyone to Court. The question is whether he will win. It will be a question of proof and logic.

So, in short are you saying that he can take me to court whenever, to claim what he thinks I owe him (which is half of the proceeds).Hello C:

In short, yes. Do I think he'll win? No. This thing is headed there anyway. Why not let a judge decide?

Can you stop him from suing you? I don't know. It seems to me, that you, and your child will be better off in the long run getting child support from him. I can't imagine he'd be entitled to anywhere NEAR that amount, even if some judge says you own him.

Besides that, you owe your daughter a future that includes her father. It's a lot easier to give it to her if you give up some of the crap from your relationship.

excon

My ex thinks he is entitled to half of the equity I received for the townhouse, although he paid nothing for it.By 'ex', do you mean ex-husband? And were you married for at least 30 days? If so, then, at least in my state, he would be absolutely correct. The fact that he paid 'nothing' for it would have no bearing whatsoever.

We weren't actually married, and it was in my name only. He put down the deposit, which I returned to him after we broke up. I solely paid the mortgage, strata fees, taxes, utilities, etc.All right, I guess I should have read all the posts before responding. Now it's a little more fuzzy. Does your state/province recognize common-law marriages? If so, then his claim is probably still correct. If not, then he's probably most likely SOL (this doesn't refer to 'statute of limitations' but the other colloquialism for which this is a common abbreviation Lol!)

In BC, if you are not married, the relationship can be terminated without the legalities if we were married. Even if it is considered common law. I didn't even have to file anything for custody of my daughter.

I totally plan on getting child support from him, because like excon said, its in her best interest.

A lawyer I saw before I moved (her dad was going to rescind his permission to leave the country after having signed a letter for the border unless I gave him money) said with the information he had, he didn't think he would win and if he did once it was all said in done, he wouldn't have anything left anyway.

However, as I mentioned, its not the worry of whether he'll win, it's the hassle of it and trying to get my daughter settled (she's only five) and getting a new job, etc. not something I really want to deal with.

But if there is no statute of limitations, then I guess I will just have to.

Thanks everyone for your help!

Also, I just found this on Common Law Marriage in Canada:

In a common law relationship there is no presumption of joint ownership of assets, or automatic entitlement to a share in the other spouses assets. In certain circumstances, where one spouse makes a contribution to an asset owned by the other spouse, and that spouse is unjustly enriched by that contribution, it may be possible to establish a "constructive trust" under which some entitlement may exist. This is a very complex area of the law and you should seek legal advice concerning it.

Thanks to you all for bringing up the common law aspect which made me find my answer. I think he could have filed at the time of the sale, and prove to a judge that I was unjust "enriched" by his contribution. Since I, as I mentioned, I paid for everything including the improvements, there would be no way in hell he could prove that claim.

Thanks again! And if anyone else happens to come across this question again (assuming its common law) there is the answer!