- Thread starter windeguy
- Start date
Who owns the house in this case? Legal question for Dr Guzman
How on earth can you 'unjustly enriche' the other spouse?
Sorry but this is a very stupid law!
I would think that point of the question is what happens to the cash.
If the guy didn't care about the cash, why would he care that she can sell?
So you think that the women in these examples should have gotten nothing?
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
Really how is he going to know when she sells it. If she waits 10 years or more what is the statue for the law will it still apply more than likely not. And if she decides to sell it to a family member for $1 then what. Still nothing he can do at this point, but to look at it as a lose.
Malibook. What HB said and Dr. Guzman confirmed is that Canadian law does not reach the DR with respect to real estate ownership. Canadian law cannot change the name on the title of a house in the DR no matter what the rulings you have mentioned in Canada say.
As I mentioned before, they were living together, never married, in Ontario, Canada where even the "matrimonial home" does not come into play because it was in his name so he gets that. He paid for the house in the DR and put the title in only her name so it will stay that way unless she chooses to change it for her own reasons. Unjust enrichment is used very rarely in extreme cases and even if it did apply the Canadian court cannot force something to be done in the DR.
As I mentioned before, they were living together, never married, in Ontario, Canada where even the "matrimonial home" does not come into play because it was in his name so he gets that. He paid for the house in the DR and put the title in only her name so it will stay that way unless she chooses to change it for her own reasons. Unjust enrichment is used very rarely in extreme cases and even if it did apply the Canadian court cannot force something to be done in the DR.
Last edited:
As long as she is a Canadian living in Canada, she is subject to Canadian laws, and that covers assets held outside of Canada.
If he gets a judgment, he doesn't have to wait until she sells.
He can get a few appraisals to determine the size of the award.
She could be ordered to pay, garnish wages, seize assets, sell or sign over the title, etc........
She could be jailed for contempt.
We don't know the details of their lives.
It's possible that she is entitled to more than just the house in the DR.
It's possible that he deserves 0%, 50%, or 100%.
If they can't work it out, their lawyers will be happy and the matter will be resolved in a Canadian court.
If he gets a judgment, he doesn't have to wait until she sells.
He can get a few appraisals to determine the size of the award.
She could be ordered to pay, garnish wages, seize assets, sell or sign over the title, etc........
She could be jailed for contempt.
We don't know the details of their lives.
It's possible that she is entitled to more than just the house in the DR.
It's possible that he deserves 0%, 50%, or 100%.
If they can't work it out, their lawyers will be happy and the matter will be resolved in a Canadian court.
Last edited:
The Canadian court can order her to sell or sign over the title.
And she wouldn't get away with selling it for $1 to a relative.
No, they can't force her to do it but they can throw her in jail for contempt of court until she does as ordered.
Now if she doesn't want to live in Canada anymore, then I agree that there is not much he can do.
To add to what I said in post 47, in this case she was the stay at home mom raising the children. If there were any unjust enrichment awarded it would go to her within Canada.
It is incredulous that the court would order her to either sell the DR house or give the title to her ex while facing jail time if she refuses after what appeared to be gift has been given.
It is incredulous that the court would order her to either sell the DR house or give the title to her ex while facing jail time if she refuses after what appeared to be gift has been given.
Last edited:
Anyway...I am not going to argue over this one since I have a total different view on those kind of matters. Being adults and being aware of each other, respect and self confidence, a good sense of balance even when things should go wrong, more looking in every situation where the 'quite eye of the storm' is instead of searching for the rough bounderies so instead of yelling there is still the change to talk and come to an understanding AND a healthy understanding that you need to forsee - write down before you engage - helps a lot.
If she was Dominican and this was a house that he bought for her and her family to use, then I would agree that it is a gift.
If it was for their use, then I think the onus is on her to prove why this should be considered a gift and thus 100% hers.
Fascinating that it would make a difference if she was Canadian or Dominican and also that the title being in her name only is not sufficient in Ontario, Canada to make her the sole owner.
If the guy has absolutely no possible recourse, why did Mr. Guzman state that they should seek Dominican legal counsel for this matter?
If it is the end of story as you claim, that would not make sense.
Now that more details are known, she obviously deserves some significant settlement and this house may or may not be a part of the package depending on the proceedings in a Canadian court.
Repeatedly claiming that Canadian laws are irrelevant regarding Canadians' assets outside of Canada is ludicrous.
Correct met if I'm wrong but it is apparent to me that in the DR the owns the house but in Canada if the judge rules that the women has been unjustly enriched by the man by the gift of the house(as well as other things) he could be awarded a judgement equal to the estimated value of the house.Therefore it appears superfluous that the house is in DR or any other country for that matter because the end result will be the same; the lady will have to provide compensation equal to value of aforementioned.
It's not like giving a spouse a house for a present that is to be solely hers/his is a common practice and it's not a given that a single signature equates sole ownership and automatically excludes it from any possible consideration of being marital property.
If she were to sell the house to her sister for $1, would it make sense for the Canadian judge to pretend that it never existed as far as her separation entitlement is concerned?
I doubt it, especially if this house represents a significant chunk of his net worth.
The first five years I lived together with a partner and together we made the decision to buy a house together. At that time, he earned a great deal more then me so we calculated what would be in prospective be a reasonable contribution of me would be in paying of the loan and then of course we had other common payments to do but we were both in agreement that the cost of the down payment of the loan would be greater for him for the first years so that I would not loose my independency regarding having enough money left of my own income to do my things and vice versa he had enough assets to do the same. Letting each other free in doing with the rest of the money that was not required for any fixed payments, it was just an adult understanding between the two of us because its a shown of respect. During the divorce it didn't even come on the table that he paid the first years more for the house then I did and after our marriage, the house was even brought into the marriage agreement.
Acira
Acira
The big question is was this house intended to be a gift that was to be completely hers and hers alone and exempt from any potential separation entitlement or was the single signature just a part of their estate planning process?
I suspect that it is the latter and if so, this house should be treated just like a house in any other country, or a Swiss bank account, or US treasuries, or shares in an Australian gold miner or Chinese chop stick manufacturer etc.........
A 15 year stay at home mom/wife deserves a considerable separation entitlement and perhaps support.
This Dominican house could be a small part of it, a big part of it, the whole thing, or more than the whole package, but I don't see why it shouldn't be a part of the equation.
Suppose this house represented around half of his net worth and suppose she is awarded 50% of his assets.
They could simply agree that she keeps this house and they are even.
If this house were exempt from this process, her 50% would give her another 25% and she would end up with 75% compared to his 25%.
Would it be fair that she ends up with 3 times as much as him?