Who owns the house in this case? Legal question for Dr Guzman

[Malibook]

I would think that she is free to do whatever she wants with the house and he has no say in the matter.

If he can show that he was at least an equal contributor to the relationship and the money for this purchase came from his sources, he can likely get some compensation from a Canadian judge.

 

[Malibook]

Why would he buy the house and put in her name?

Why wouldn't he want his name on there as well?

It sounds like he is an idiot and he will be lucky to get anything.

 

[mountainannie]

I'm sure Gloria Steinem will cover for Sr Guzman..... she who abdicated to a life of matrimonial bliss.. she who.................... led all those women over the cliff

ah yes, WW, we were so much better off when we could not read or write, were not allowed to go to school or vote or hold property in our own names_!

and prehaps even veiled.. right?

Really, is that what you want for your daughters? That they would be forever economically dependent on a man?

I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.
Gloria Steinem

Men should think twice before making widow hood woman's only path to power.
Gloria Steinem

Most American children suffer too much mother and too little father.

Pornography is about dominance. Erotica is about mutuality.
Gloria Steinem

Read more: Gloria Steinem Quotes - Page 2 - BrainyQuote

 

[william webster]

Now MA, don't tell me she didn't disappoint a lot of women.....

Yes, she did make changes for the better......

I'm very familiar with the movement..... I have a house full of women here ....... the only other male is the dog .. and they neutered him ) ( I hid in the closet and escaped the treatment )

 

[mountainannie]

Now MA, don't tell me she didn't disappoint a lot of women.....

Yes, she did make changes for the better......

I'm very familiar with the movement..... I have a house full of women here ....... the only other male is the dog .. and they neutered him ) ( I hid in the closet and escaped the treatment )

Well it was probably refreshing for most of us, to learn that even she could succumb to the charms of The Prince!

 

[windeguy]

Why would he buy the house and put in her name?

He is considerably older than her. If he died before her, there would be no inheritance taxes.

 

[Malibook]

He is considerably older than her. If he died before her, there would be no inheritance taxes.

So this was just a way to avoid Dominican taxes, with him being dead.
That is a chance he chose to take.
I think this makes it a gift and I don't see how he deserves anything.

 

[windeguy]

I agree, but let's see what Dr. Guzman has to say.

So this was just a way to avoid Dominican taxes, with him being dead.
That is a chance he chose to take.
I think this makes it a gift and I don't see how he deserves anything.

That is how I see it as well. But I am not an expert on Dominican law. So let's see what Dr. Guzman has to say.

 

[Fabio J. Guzman]

Art. 3 of the Dominican Civil Code states that "real estate is governed by Dominican law even when owned by foreigners." Under Dominican law, a property is owned by the person whose name appears in the title, if that person is single. (If the person is married, the property is assumed to be community property). In some instances (fraud, "simulation", etc.) it is possible to attack the ownership shown on the title, but it's not easy. Your Canadian friends should get Dominican legal counsel, since no judgment issued by a Canadian court applying Canadian law to a Dominican real estate issue will be enforceable in the D.R.

 

[windeguy]

Art. 3 of the Dominican Civil Code states that "real estate is governed by Dominican law even when owned by foreigners." Under Dominican law, a property is owned by the person whose name appears in the title, if that person is single. (If the person is married, the property is assumed to be community property). In some instances (fraud, "simulation", etc.) it is possible to attack the ownership shown on the title, but it's not easy. Your Canadian friends should get Dominican legal counsel, since no judgment issued by a Canadian court applying Canadian law to a Dominican real estate issue will be enforceable in the D.R.

Thank you Dr Guzman. That explains in this situation that the house belongs solely to the woman who's name is on the title since the couple were never married.

 

[Malibook]

Your Canadian friends should get Dominican legal counsel, since no judgment issued by a Canadian court applying Canadian law to a Dominican real estate issue will be enforceable in the D.R.

If she is free to do whatever she wants with the house, wouldn't this be a waste of time and money for him?

Obviously a Canadian court can't award him the house but it would seem that his only hope would be some compensation from a sympathetic Canadian judge for unjust enrichment.

 

[Hillbilly]

Like I said some 30 posts ago. It is hers. Her name is on the title, and she can do with it what she wants. Simple. He made a mistake in trying to cheat the Dominican inheritance laws. If he had formed a corporation and the house was part of the corporation and they were both shareholders of the corporation, THEN he would have a claim...See?]]\\#$%&&

Also, please note that the OP said that in their part of Canada common law marriages were not recognized...Just what he said...

HB

 

[Malibook]

Also, please note that the OP said that in their part of Canada common law marriages were not recognized...Just what he said...

He was wrong.

 

[windeguy]

All that matters is that her name only is on the title of the house in the DR...

He was wrong.

It turns out that whether there are common law marriages, unjust unrichment or whatever else there is in Canada it does not matter in the DR. The only thing that matters is her name is on the title of the house in the DR.

 

[Malibook]

It turns out that whether there are common law marriages, unjust unrichment or whatever else there is in Canada it does not matter in the DR. The only thing that matters is her name is on the title of the house in the DR.

Does not matter in the DR does not mean does not matter at all.
She is a Canadian living in Canada.

Property Division

The Appropriate Remedy
In a common law separation Canada, once a court has found that there has been an unjust enrichment, the court must decide what to do (the remedy). The court has two choices: it can award quantum meruit, or impose a constructive trust (both of these terms are explained below).

Quantum Meruit
Quantum meruit is an award of money to compensate a spouse for the contribution he or she has made that unjustly enriched the other spouse.

Constructive Trust
A constructive trust is a finding that although property is in one spouse's name, he or she is actually holding it for the benefit of the other spouse. He or she must then transfer the property to the other spouse. When a court imposes a constructive trust, it is effective from the date of separation.

 

[Malibook]

Even if he paid for the house and it was in his name, she could possibly make an unjust enrichment/trust claim for a slice of the pie.
The structure of their relationship is very relevant.
If he paid for the house and supported her or at least paid his share, I would think he has a case to make.

Property Division

Example Cases

Pettkus v Becker - Woman supported man for first 5 years of their common law relationship, so he could save to acquire a bee farm. The bee farm was purchased in his name. Woman then took a major role in running the bee farm. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that man was unjustly enriched, and imposed a constructive trust on half of all his assets, effective at the date of separation. Full Text.

Sorochan v Sorochan - During a 42-year common law relationship, woman performed all of the domestic duties, raised the 6 children, and worked long hours on the farm. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that man was unjustly enriched. The court imposed a constructive trust effective the date of separation on 1/3 of the farm, plus awarded a money payment that brought the total value of the award to almost half the value of the farm. Full Text.

Peter v Beblow - During a 12-year common law relationship, woman raised children from her previous relationship and from man’s previous relationship. After the first year, she worked outside the home, contributing financially, although never as much as man. She also worked in and around the house, improving it, and gardening. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the man had been unjustly enriched. It calculated the appropriate compensation on the basis of what the man would have had to pay a housekeeper, less the benefit the woman received from the accommodation. As the man did not have sufficient funds to pay this, woman was awarded a constructive trust interest in the entire matrimonial home effective on the date of separation. Full Text

http://www.common-law-separation-canada.com/example.htm

 

[Hillbilly]

My old Spanish teacher once used this phrase: That's not worth a row of pee pee holes in the snow.

What happens in Canada stays in Canada. What happens in the DR stays in the DR. In this case the house is hers.

I just repeated what the OP said, but no matter what in Canada, it is HERE that matters.

HB

 

[Reese]

Even if he paid for the house and it was in his name, she could possibly make an unjust enrichment/trust claim for a slice of the pie.
The structure of their relationship is very relevant.
If he paid for the house and supported her or at least paid his share, I would think he has a case to make.

Property Division

Example Cases

Pettkus v Becker - Woman supported man for first 5 years of their common law relationship, so he could save to acquire a bee farm. The bee farm was purchased in his name. Woman then took a major role in running the bee farm. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that man was unjustly enriched, and imposed a constructive trust on half of all his assets, effective at the date of separation. Full Text.

Sorochan v Sorochan - During a 42-year common law relationship, woman performed all of the domestic duties, raised the 6 children, and worked long hours on the farm. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that man was unjustly enriched. The court imposed a constructive trust effective the date of separation on 1/3 of the farm, plus awarded a money payment that brought the total value of the award to almost half the value of the farm. Full Text.

Peter v Beblow - During a 12-year common law relationship, woman raised children from her previous relationship and from man’s previous relationship. After the first year, she worked outside the home, contributing financially, although never as much as man. She also worked in and around the house, improving it, and gardening. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the man had been unjustly enriched. It calculated the appropriate compensation on the basis of what the man would have had to pay a housekeeper, less the benefit the woman received from the accommodation. As the man did not have sufficient funds to pay this, woman was awarded a constructive trust interest in the entire matrimonial home effective on the date of separation. Full Text

Property Division for Common Law Separation in Ontario[/QUOTE

And to add none of these compare to what the OP posted both parties stayed in the property only a few times. These are talking about time and money contributed and an equal partnership of sorts as far as the success of a lifestyle. The main question was will she need his signature to sell the property and the answer is NO. She could have sold the property before he finds out anything or the courts in Canada could do anything. Or she can just keep it for her and her new "common law relationship"

 

[Malibook]

And to add none of these compare to what the OP posted both parties stayed in the property only a few times. These are talking about time and money contributed and an equal partnership of sorts as far as the success of a lifestyle. The main question was will she need his signature to sell the property and the answer is NO. She could have sold the property before he finds out anything or the courts in Canada could do anything. Or she can just keep it for her and her new "common law relationship"

The circumstances in this case make it more likely that he could make such a claim, not less.

Even if she bought the house 100% and put it in her name, he could possibly make a claim for a piece of it if he contributed elsewhere in the relationship.
If he paid for it and supported her, his chances go up dramatically, not down.

 

[Malibook]

My old Spanish teacher once used this phrase: That's not worth a row of pee pee holes in the snow.

What happens in Canada stays in Canada. What happens in the DR stays in the DR. In this case the house is hers.

I just repeated what the OP said, but no matter what in Canada, it is HERE that matters.

HB

Of course the house is hers but as long as she is a Canadian living in Canada, what happens in Canada does matter.

Do you think Canadians can just move assets out of Canada and they are immune from Canadian divorce proceedings?


Quantum Meruit
Quantum meruit is an award of money to compensate a spouse for the contribution he or she has made that unjustly enriched the other spouse.