- Thread starter windeguy
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who owns the house in this case? Legal question for Dr Guzman
And with his lawyer advising him that she is entitled to 0% of his assets it gets even more interesting.
The courts will decide.
This does not sound like common law marriage is coming in to play in Canada...so again what will it matter in the DR it doesn't the house is hers.
This does not sound like common law marriage is coming in to play in Canada...so again what will it matter in the DR it doesn't the house is hers.
I think everyone has accepted this fellow has no right to the house but that doesn't mean the Canadian judge can't issue a judgement where the women needs to compensate the man for the value of the house in whole or in part.
I think everyone has accepted this fellow has no right to the house but that doesn't mean the Canadian judge can't issue a judgement where the women needs to compensate the man for the value of the house in whole or in part.
If the women was a stay at home mom until she sells the house she is going to compensate him with what? What will they garnish? If based on what his attorney is telling him she is not entitled to any of his assests at best she will get child support so are they going to take a portion of that?
If the women was a stay at home mom until she sells the house she is going to compensate him with what? What will they garnish? If based on what his attorney is telling him she is not entitled to any of his assests at best she will get child support so are they going to take a portion of that?
Is this the actual scenario or is this just a guess?
My point is merely that the lady owns the house here and furthermore the guy would be foolish to contest the house here in the DR as he already has recourse in Canada if in deed he is entitled to any compensation.
Is this the actual scenario or is this just a guess?
My point is merely that the lady owns the house here and furthermore the guy would be foolish to contest the house here in the DR as he already has recourse in Canada if in deed he is entitled to any compensation.
Based on what the OP has stated this is the case.
What part of "the courts will decide" do you not comprehend?This does not sound like common law marriage is coming in to play in Canada...so again what will it matter in the DR it doesn't the house is hers.
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.
Just a reminder of what the local legal opinion is...... seems pretty straightforward
It's possible that she is entitled to more than just the house in the DR.If the women was a stay at home mom until she sells the house she is going to compensate him with what? What will they garnish? If based on what his attorney is telling him she is not entitled to any of his assests at best she will get child support so are they going to take a portion of that?
It's possible that she is entitled to less than 100% of the value of the house in the DR.
The point is that the house in the DR is not necessarily irrelevant to the proceedings in the Canadian court.
What part of "the courts will decide" do you not comprehend?
The courts can decide what ever they want...fact still remains the house is hers. Now how and if he gets any compensation, unless or until she is working or sells the house is a whole different story.
The courts can decide what ever they want...fact still remains the house is hers. Now how and if he gets any compensation, unless or until she is working or sells the house is a whole different story.
I really think you are missing my and other's points; no one is doubting the house is hers but it is possible that the man could be awarded a judgement equal to the value or some portion. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether she sells the house because any other monies due her could be subtracted from the amount or in the event she is a net debtor even garnished from her wages if that is done in Canada.
Then why would he state that they should spend money on Dominican legal counsel?[/B]
Just a reminder of what the local legal opinion is...... seems pretty straightforward
The key words were, "enforceable in the DR".
We are talking about Canadians who live in Canada who are taking up the matter in a Canadian court.
Assets held abroad are not untouchable.
Then why would he state that they should spend money on Dominican legal counsel?
The key words were, "enforceable in the DR".
We are talking about Canadians who live in Canada who are taking up the matter in a Canadian court.
Assets held abroad are not untouchable.
Seems clear that the title will stay in the female's name...... I would guess that the reason for a local lawyer is to ensure it stays that way.
Lawyers are quick to suggest legal counsel for the slightest infraction..... necessary or not ?
Personal comfort level.
Many here use lawyers to renew cedulas/residencies...... many do not...... personal comfort level.
I really think you are missing my and other's points; no one is doubting the house is hers but it is possible that the man could be awarded a judgement equal to the value or some portion. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether she sells the house because any other monies due her could be subtracted from the amount or in the event she is a net debtor even garnished from her wages if that is done in Canada.
We can debate this all day. But based on what it seems like this man is trying to do which is make sure she gets nothing. She can't compensate him for something if she has nothing is all I am saying, yea..yea she can go to jail if she doesn't pay, again you can't pay what you don't have. And being a stay at home mom for however many years I some how doubt she is now making enough to compensate him, and take care of her household. Based on the examples you posted him filing the unjustly enriched would be more harm to him than to her if he took that angle in court just so he could have compensation for the house in the DR. I am sure as a house wife she did all of the cooking, cleaning, and primary care giving of their children. Is that not what one of your examples stated that ended in the result of one of the parties being awarded something. So again the ORIGINAL question does she need his signature to sell the house has been answered. He has contact an attorney in Canada to make sure she gets nothing, he contacted one here to make sure she gets nothing and based on what was told to him at that time by that attorney was wrong no she does not need his signature. That is my point! Not the hypotheticals...of course anything is possible that was not the question now was it...NO.
Suppose the Canadian judge considers all of the relevant factors and decides that the house was not a gift and she is entitled to a separation entitlement equal to around 50% of the fair market value of the house in the DR.Seems clear that the title will stay in the female's name.
Do you think she can say, 'screw you, I am keeping 100% and giving him nothing' without facing any consequences?
o% and his signature is required for her to sell?And with his lawyer advising him that she is entitled to 0% of his assets it gets even more interesting.
The courts will decide.
Sounds like his lawyer is an incompetent idiot.
I hope she has a good lawyer and gets what she deserves.
Suppose the Canadian judge considers all of the relevant factors and decides that the house was not a gift and she is entitled to a separation entitlement equal to around 50% of the fair market value of the house in the DR.
Do you think she can say, 'screw you, I am keeping 100% and giving him nothing' without facing any consequences?
That would be my salvo....... and then I 'd call Fabio Guzman.... from the airport, on the way to my casa in the islands.
Somewhere in this mess is a very good idea/framework to minimize taxes with the use of foreign assets......
DR law says the name on the title is sacred - regardless of foreign rulings..
DR property (and I assume other DR assets) are impervious to foreign decisions...
Somewhere here there's a hole --- of the "loop" variety
DR law says the name on the title is sacred - regardless of foreign rulings..
DR property (and I assume other DR assets) are impervious to foreign decisions...
Somewhere here there's a hole --- of the "loop" variety
I don't recall anybody here claim that his signature is required.We can debate this all day. But based on what it seems like this man is trying to do which is make sure she gets nothing. She can't compensate him for something if she has nothing is all I am saying, yea..yea she can go to jail if she doesn't pay, again you can't pay what you don't have. And being a stay at home mom for however many years I some how doubt she is now making enough to compensate him, and take care of her household. Based on the examples you posted him filing the unjustly enriched would be more harm to him than to her if he took that angle in court just so he could have compensation for the house in the DR. I am sure as a house wife she did all of the cooking, cleaning, and primary care giving of their children. Is that not what one of your examples stated that ended in the result of one of the parties being awarded something. So again the ORIGINAL question does she need his signature to sell the house has been answered. He has contact an attorney in Canada to make sure she gets nothing, he contacted one here to make sure she gets nothing and based on what was told to him at that time by that attorney was wrong no she does not need his signature. That is my point! Not the hypotheticals...of course anything is possible that was not the question now was it...NO.
We are way past that point so I don't see why you keep bringing it up.
I agree with you.
This guy sounds like a real a$$hole and I hope he gets taken to the cleaners and screwed good!
My point was that the claims that Canadian courts are irrelevant when dealing with assets held abroad by Canadians living in Canada are ridiculous, to say the least.