Marital home - legal advice

[Canehdianman]

Hi there,

lawyer here. The best advice I can give you in to call the lawyer referral service.

http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/lawyer_referral.aspx

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

It helps by telling him to get advice from someone that knows the laws not someone that thinks he does. Been through it twice and would still not give any more advice then see a lawer...

Mack

.

I have seen a lawyer mess up in divorce proceedings i.e. my ex's who finally got fired. I have a good lawyer but there are things we went after that I pressed him into and I won. A friend of mine did the same thing and had meps on his butt and won. Lawyers know the law, courts, and Judges but they still take their orders from the client. Be involved not just a ride along with your lawyer and it is good to listen to others on what worked and what did not for them. No matter what first thing is a lawyer and that's a no brainier but you are the one driving the bus the lawyer makes sure you do not crash. Like I said get involved and find out what happened to others and how it turned out, divorces are far from cookie cutter processes. Everyone has it's own issues and challenges.

I am hopefully gonna finish mine within a month, my ex stretch it for 4 years and threw everything imaginable at me. I don't regret having my lawyer from day one. However I looked up a lot of cases and comments from others who have gone through it, took what I felt could help myself and ran it past my counsel. He would tell me if it was worth going after or a waste of time. He in the end would ask me with his advise what path to take.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Dump everything into a trust and buy it through a trust in the future. They can't take from you what isn't yours. Even if it isn't yours, it's great to have the use of it...

My advise is don't follow this advise.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

My advise is don't follow this advise.

and why do you advise that??

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by amosfella

and why do you advise that??

Because it is poor advise. Do you really think that the law in Canada does not provide a remedy for someone trying to hide his assets to avoid a court order as to where it is to go? If the OP followed your advise it would be obvious what he was doing. You think judges are hard on men in separation matters, try dealing with a judge when it is clear you have tried some funny business with your assets.

[Sundancefisher]

I believe their is a cheaper way to use a joint lawyer if the parties are not contesting and are breaking up on "good terms".

Kids involved may make it more difficult.

http://www.programs.alberta.ca/Livin...spx?N=770+5249


Mediation services
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/fjs/adr.php

Sad...but happy you are moving on. Life is far too short as it is to be down for long. Sometimes things just don't work out. Great news is lifes problems will get better with time.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by oyster_777

Can you expand on this comment. Looking for more details.

A trust is a separate entity from you, the person. They can only come after you for property, maintenance, etc. The trust owns the property but lets you have use of it.
As the court can only take away property that is in your name in any kind of case, they cannot take away trust property of which you have use.

Friend of mine set this up before he got married. He was a rich character. He was earning in the high end of 6 figures a year as an operating systems architect. Because all the money went directly to the trust, he drew out of the trust $10000 a year for personal expenses, toothpaste, shampoo, that kind of stuff. The rest of the stuff he had was bought for him by the trust, and his name was nowhere on it.

After he got married, he kept buying things into the trust, not to his name. Wife divorced him, and tried taking everything. Judge treated it as an open and shut case. My friend kept everything. When she went on squawking that it wasn't fair, the judge told her that he cannot take from him property that wasn't his and give it to her, and that he didn't own the property, merely had the use of it. All she got out of that deal was $3000 a year.

Just an FYI, my friend didn't even get for a good lawyer. He had one that was laughed at by opposing counsel as being the bottom of the barrel and the worst lawyer in town. But all that poor laughingstock had to do was to keep filing motions stating that my friend didn't own any of the things being claimed but merely had the use of them. It was owned by trust xyz. That was it.

Trusts when set up right are extremely powerful entities. They have more rights than you and me as individuals. Trusts in their implied state are everywhere. There are in every transaction you make. It takes a while to understand, but it is very important understanding. I could say more, but I"m not qualified to give legal advice, and neither do I want to answer the barrage of questions that would come.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Because it is poor advise. Do you really think that the law in Canada does not provide a remedy for someone trying to hide his assets to avoid a court order as to where it is to go? If the OP followed your advise it would be obvious what he was doing. You think judges are hard on men in separation matters, try dealing with a judge when it is clear you have tried some funny business with your assets.

I'm talking about the future, not retroactive. While the legal system in Canada has a remedy in it, there is an exception to that remedy as well. Do you think that the lawyers, judges, etc., who write the statutes, and who use trusts to hide their own assets wouldn't leave an escape hatch for themselves??? I mean, do you really think that they would paint themselves into a corner?????? Really????????????

But as an aside, the divorce court can't just pierce a trust. They can give an order to pierce the trust, but a simple appeal to set aside that order will stop that cold. It has to go to federal court, and will become prohibitively expensive for her to fight it. Also, trusts can be set up retroactively. I've seen it happen. I've seen the paperwork.

Guy I know through friends who is from Red Deer lost nothing by setting up a trust retroactively. He hired a law/accounting firm from Chicago to set it up. Also, the trust is foreign to Canada, making it a multijurisdictional fight to get the assets. The judges here won't even touch the case to get assets, and the judges where the trust is located won't touch the case because the property isn't there. Interesting quandary...

[fish_e_o]

mine was supposed to sign the papers for me to buy her out today. but that hasn't happened yet....

i threatened to take her to mediation (after 3 years) the one posted previous and it would have worked out so expensive for everyone that it was finally the last straw to make her reasonable

best of luck i'm cheering for you so you can hopefully have a quick and fair resolution

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by amosfella

I'm talking about the future, not retroactive. While the legal system in Canada has a remedy in it, there is an exception to that remedy as well. Do you think that the lawyers, judges, etc., who write the statutes, and who use trusts to hide their own assets wouldn't leave an escape hatch for themselves??? I mean, do you really think that they would paint themselves into a corner?????? Really????????????

But as an aside, the divorce court can't just pierce a trust. They can give an order to pierce the trust, but a simple appeal to set aside that order will stop that cold. It has to go to federal court, and will become prohibitively expensive for her to fight it. Also, trusts can be set up retroactively. I've seen it happen. I've seen the paperwork.

Guy I know through friends who is from Red Deer lost nothing by setting up a trust retroactively. He hired a law/accounting firm from Chicago to set it up. Also, the trust is foreign to Canada, making it a multijurisdictional fight to get the assets. The judges here won't even touch the case to get assets, and the judges where the trust is located won't touch the case because the property isn't there. Interesting quandary...

Are you sure she didn't get any of his stuff in the trust because they were acquired prior to the marriage? I am for sure not a lawyer, but when it comes to tracking down assets that were acquired during the marriage, I don't think you can so easily put them in another name or "hide" them in plain site and not expect to have that value assigned to your spouse. Did they have kids together?

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by amosfella

A trust is a separate entity from you, the person. They can only come after you for property, maintenance, etc. The trust owns the property but lets you have use of it.
As the court can only take away property that is in your name in any kind of case, they cannot take away trust property of which you have use.

Friend of mine set this up before he got married. He was a rich character. He was earning in the high end of 6 figures a year as an operating systems architect. Because all the money went directly to the trust, he drew out of the trust $10000 a year for personal expenses, toothpaste, shampoo, that kind of stuff. The rest of the stuff he had was bought for him by the trust, and his name was nowhere on it.

After he got married, he kept buying things into the trust, not to his name. Wife divorced him, and tried taking everything. Judge treated it as an open and shut case. My friend kept everything. When she went on squawking that it wasn't fair, the judge told her that he cannot take from him property that wasn't his and give it to her, and that he didn't own the property, merely had the use of it. All she got out of that deal was $3000 a year.

Just an FYI, my friend didn't even get for a good lawyer. He had one that was laughed at by opposing counsel as being the bottom of the barrel and the worst lawyer in town. But all that poor laughingstock had to do was to keep filing motions stating that my friend didn't own any of the things being claimed but merely had the use of them. It was owned by trust xyz. That was it.

Trusts when set up right are extremely powerful entities. They have more rights than you and me as individuals. Trusts in their implied state are everywhere. There are in every transaction you make. It takes a while to understand, but it is very important understanding. I could say more, but I"m not qualified to give legal advice, and neither do I want to answer the barrage of questions that would come.

Guys, this is nonsence. That is my final comment on the matter.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Guys, this is nonsence. That is my final comment on the matter.

100% the guy would have to own the trust or part of the trust and she could go after that

[Flatlandliver]

There are things in life that you should bargain hunt for, divorce lawyers are not one of them. The only ao advise you should get is get legal advise asap.
There have been a number of good threads on this before, search em out, and good luck. Its can be a long crappy experience but you will be better off in the end.
You know why guys get divorced even though it costs a fortune?
Its worth every penny!

[Cement Bench]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Because it is poor advise. Do you really think that the law in Canada does not provide a remedy for someone trying to hide his assets to avoid a court order as to where it is to go? If the OP followed your advise it would be obvious what he was doing. You think judges are hard on men in separation matters, try dealing with a judge when it is clear you have tried some funny business with your assets.

WATERHAWK IS CORRECT IN HIS STATEMENTS,

AMOSFELLA IS A PUTZ OR A REAR END,

as a RETIRED FAMILY LAWYER IN ALBERTA, I make the folowing comments,

1. read the matrimonial property act of alberta,

2. study the equitable doctrine of tracing

3. read the matrimonial act of alberta (said twice for emphasis)

a-fella is a nut job, only the exemptions before marraige are not spilt up and yet they can be divided up to render a settlement by way of a court order,

unless one moves to chicago the trust can and will be broken and ordered wound up and an appeal will not work or will not try the hands of the lower court for long, and his suggestions about judges and lawyers leaving loopholes for them and their friends is just nutty,

a-fella needs to be in a home for long term care,

property law is simple and straightforward (give you a hint divide by 2 after the date of marraige is a great start)

this would be funny if not for the fact some folks believe what is written on the internet

thanks to waterhawk for trying to lend a hand well done my friend


Cement Bench

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by amosfella

A trust is a separate entity from you, the person. They can only come after you for property, maintenance, etc. The trust owns the property but lets you have use of it.
As the court can only take away property that is in your name in any kind of case, they cannot take away trust property of which you have use.

Friend of mine set this up before he got married. He was a rich character. He was earning in the high end of 6 figures a year as an operating systems architect. Because all the money went directly to the trust, he drew out of the trust $10000 a year for personal expenses, toothpaste, shampoo, that kind of stuff. The rest of the stuff he had was bought for him by the trust, and his name was nowhere on it.

After he got married, he kept buying things into the trust, not to his name. Wife divorced him, and tried taking everything. Judge treated it as an open and shut case. My friend kept everything. When she went on squawking that it wasn't fair, the judge told her that he cannot take from him property that wasn't his and give it to her, and that he didn't own the property, merely had the use of it. All she got out of that deal was $3000 a year.

Just an FYI, my friend didn't even get for a good lawyer. He had one that was laughed at by opposing counsel as being the bottom of the barrel and the worst lawyer in town. But all that poor laughingstock had to do was to keep filing motions stating that my friend didn't own any of the things being claimed but merely had the use of them. It was owned by trust xyz. That was it.

Trusts when set up right are extremely powerful entities. They have more rights than you and me as individuals. Trusts in their implied state are everywhere. There are in every transaction you make. It takes a while to understand, but it is very important understanding. I could say more, but I"m not qualified to give legal advice, and neither do I want to answer the barrage of questions that would come.

As stated earlier this advice should not be followed for a whole host of reasons. Canada has a variety of anti trust legislation and general avoidance laws. I use a number of trusts both corporately and personally but they can not be used as avoidance vehicles otherwise the courts will break them up. The lower courts that deal with divorce and family issues exercise a lot of discretionary authority but intend to find an equitable solution. Trying to dodge your legal obligations is more likely to frustrate the judge and get you into more problems.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by Cement Bench

WATERHAWK IS CORRECT IN HIS STATEMENTS,

AMOSFELLA IS A PUTZ OR A REAR END,

as a RETIRED FAMILY LAWYER IN ALBERTA, I make the folowing comments,

1. read the matrimonial property act of alberta,

2. study the equitable doctrine of tracing

3. read the matrimonial act of alberta (said twice for emphasis)

a-fella is a nut job, only the exemptions before marraige are not spilt up and yet they can be divided up to render a settlement by way of a court order,

unless one moves to chicago the trust can and will be broken and ordered wound up and an appeal will not work or will not try the hands of the lower court for long, and his suggestions about judges and lawyers leaving loopholes for them and their friends is just nutty,

a-fella needs to be in a home for long term care,

property law is simple and straightforward (give you a hint divide by 2 after the date of marraige is a great start)

this would be funny if not for the fact some folks believe what is written on the internet

thanks to waterhawk for trying to lend a hand well done my friend


Cement Bench

Did you specialize in trust law?? Oh, and are you giving legal advice?? Also, I understand that you have to protect your club even after you aren't a member.... You may want to read The Law of Trusts in Canada by Waters.

A improperly set up trust can easily be broken up. A properly set up one will be all but impossible to break.

And to those asking, about my friend, the trust was set up before the marriage, and assets were acquired into it during the marriage. There were kids. He had it set up properly. The trust was never breached. However, I"m deliberately leaving out details of the trust setup that factored into that decision.

[diggerrigger]

Amosfella did you get all the tinfoil hats in your divorce ?

Honestly man the original question on this thread is what interested us . This is a subject that sadly most families face . I am counciling my brother right now as he was abruptly served when he got home 12 days ago.
I speak from experience when I say the financial toll can be very difficult but the emotional toll can be crippling .

so please Amos don't ruin a thread like this.

[raab]

First for me I would go kick that SOB thats boning your wife out of YOUR house. What a POS, can't stand guys who steal another guys wife.

Second see if she'll go to counselling with you. Show that you want to make the relationship work. Most of the times with infidelity its because one person or the other is missing something in the relationship. If you can work it out and move on it'll be better for you, her and the kids moving forward.

Third if she wants a divorce I'd lawyer up, I'd rather pay a lawyer a hundred grand then pay my ex wife a hundred grand. Thats how you have to look at it. Also I'd put a retainer on the top 5 lawyers in the city just so she couldn't use them.

[Mackinaw]

Originally Posted by javlin101

I have seen a lawyer mess up in divorce proceedings i.e. my ex's who finally got fired. I have a good lawyer but there are things we went after that I pressed him into and I won. A friend of mine did the same thing and had meps on his butt and won. Lawyers know the law, courts, and Judges but they still take their orders from the client. Be involved not just a ride along with your lawyer and it is good to listen to others on what worked and what did not for them. No matter what first thing is a lawyer and that's a no brainier but you are the one driving the bus the lawyer makes sure you do not crash. Like I said get involved and find out what happened to others and how it turned out, divorces are far from cookie cutter processes. Everyone has it's own issues and challenges.

I am hopefully gonna finish mine within a month, my ex stretch it for 4 years and threw everything imaginable at me. I don't regret having my lawyer from day one. However I looked up a lot of cases and comments from others who have gone through it, took what I felt could help myself and ran it past my counsel. He would tell me if it was worth going after or a waste of time. He in the end would ask me with his advise what path to take.

So the best advice is still to seek advice from a lawyer..... Thank you for making my point ..AGAIN..

Mack

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by Mackinaw

So the best advice is still to seek advice from a lawyer..... Thank you for making my point ..AGAIN..

Mack

Your point was made by others including myself several times prior to your post so how did you help here????????????????????????

[Zip]

Originally Posted by Cement Bench

WATERHAWK IS CORRECT IN HIS STATEMENTS,

AMOSFELLA IS A PUTZ OR A REAR END,

as a RETIRED FAMILY LAWYER IN ALBERTA, I make the folowing comments,

1. read the matrimonial property act of alberta,

2. study the equitable doctrine of tracing

3. read the matrimonial act of alberta (said twice for emphasis)

a-fella is a nut job, only the exemptions before marraige are not spilt up and yet they can be divided up to render a settlement by way of a court order,

unless one moves to chicago the trust can and will be broken and ordered wound up and an appeal will not work or will not try the hands of the lower court for long, and his suggestions about judges and lawyers leaving loopholes for them and their friends is just nutty,

a-fella needs to be in a home for long term care,

property law is simple and straightforward (give you a hint divide by 2 after the date of marraige is a great start)

this would be funny if not for the fact some folks believe what is written on the internet

thanks to waterhawk for trying to lend a hand well done my friend


Cement Bench

Not that i am calling this advice of any sort at all...but i would be listening with both ears on this one!

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by diggerrigger

Amosfella did you get all the tinfoil hats in your divorce ?

Honestly man the original question on this thread is what interested us . This is a subject that sadly most families face . I am counciling my brother right now as he was abruptly served when he got home 12 days ago.
I speak from experience when I say the financial toll can be very difficult but the emotional toll can be crippling .

so please Amos don't ruin a thread like this.

mmm, nope. Never married, and no kids. Never saw the need to involve the state as a party in my relationships. Just saw what happened with many of my friends. All but two or three of them is divorced now at least once now.

To the OP, remember this, the first to file into a court is always considered the injured party. If you're not the one who files first, you have to defend from the idea that you're the one that caused the injury. Also forget being reasonable. Women are always encouraged to go after everything, while men are encouraged to be 'reasonable'. (This creates extended conflict with the woman as the aggressor trying to take everything, and the man trying to defend what he thinks is fair and reasonable, and this conflict is where lawyers make their money to drive those fancy cars, and buy the big houses, etc.) Go after everything first. Full custody, the house, the cars, etc. Also, remember, you can file for divorce, and never follow through with the case if you can work things out. But, BE THE FIRST TO FILE!!!! And file it as a fault divorce for infidelity. Don't go the no fault route.

I will not provide further comment on this thread as you wish.

[Redfrog]

If you want peace......prepare for war.

[Dacotensis]

Originally Posted by amosfella

mmm, nope. Never married, and no kids. Never saw the need to involve the state as a party in my relationships. Just saw what happened with many of my friends. All but two or three of them is divorced now at least once now.

To the OP, remember this, the first to file into a court is always considered the injured party. If you're not the one who files first, you have to defend from the idea that you're the one that caused the injury. Also forget being reasonable. Women are always encouraged to go after everything, while men are encouraged to be 'reasonable'. (This creates extended conflict with the woman as the aggressor trying to take everything, and the man trying to defend what he thinks is fair and reasonable, and this conflict is where lawyers make their money to drive those fancy cars, and buy the big houses, etc.) Go after everything first. Full custody, the house, the cars, etc. Also, remember, you can file for divorce, and never follow through with the case if you can work things out. But, BE THE FIRST TO FILE!!!! And file it as a fault divorce for infidelity. Don't go the no fault route.

I will not provide further comment on this thread as you wish.

Oh no. You're not done yet!

Please provide further comment on "at fault" divorce as it pertains to law in Alberta.
I'm anxious to see case law that has been tested in Alberta. I'll help you narrow down your search parameters to let's say the past 10 years.

Are you Mick Dodge? Living in a cave? Trying to avoid the State?
Good god fella.
Stop with your ramblings.

Experience comes at a cost.
Many of us have invested tens of thousands of dollars to get that experience.
Walk the talk. Live the life.
Then come back here and tell us what the law is.

[oyster_777]

http://divorce-canada.ca/legal-groun...orce-in-canada

The only way you will be granted a Divorce in Canada is if you can prove to the courts that your marriage has broken down and cannot be repaired. Currently, there are two ways you can legally prove a marriage breakdown. That is by completion of a one year separation from your spouse, or by providing valid proof that adultery or abuse occurred. Most divorces in Canada are granted based on the completion of a one year separation – this is called a “No Fault Divorce”.

[Mackinaw]

Originally Posted by javlin101

Your point was made by others including myself several times prior to your post so how did you help here????????????????????????

Prior to yours also I believe.as long as he get the help he needs from a professional I'm happy .good luck to the OP it can be not to bad if handled correctly..

Mack

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Because it is poor advise. Do you really think that the law in Canada does not provide a remedy for someone trying to hide his assets to avoid a court order as to where it is to go? If the OP followed your advise it would be obvious what he was doing. You think judges are hard on men in separation matters, try dealing with a judge when it is clear you have tried some funny business with your assets.

A good way to really **** off the court, and to ensure you will take a beating in the end. In fact the law in Alberta and Canada has a surfeit of statutory alternatives to defeat such schemes. Where did that come from?
Get a lawyer who specializes in "family law", and not one who just dabbles in it as a sideline.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by amosfella

A trust is a separate entity from you, the person. They can only come after you for property, maintenance, etc. The trust owns the property but lets you have use of it.
As the court can only take away property that is in your name in any kind of case, they cannot take away trust property of which you have use.

Friend of mine set this up before he got married. He was a rich character. He was earning in the high end of 6 figures a year as an operating systems architect. Because all the money went directly to the trust, he drew out of the trust $10000 a year for personal expenses, toothpaste, shampoo, that kind of stuff. The rest of the stuff he had was bought for him by the trust, and his name was nowhere on it.

After he got married, he kept buying things into the trust, not to his name. Wife divorced him, and tried taking everything. Judge treated it as an open and shut case. My friend kept everything. When she went on squawking that it wasn't fair, the judge told her that he cannot take from him property that wasn't his and give it to her, and that he didn't own the property, merely had the use of it. All she got out of that deal was $3000 a year.

Just an FYI, my friend didn't even get for a good lawyer. He had one that was laughed at by opposing counsel as being the bottom of the barrel and the worst lawyer in town. But all that poor laughingstock had to do was to keep filing motions stating that my friend didn't own any of the things being claimed but merely had the use of them. It was owned by trust xyz. That was it.

Trusts when set up right are extremely powerful entities. They have more rights than you and me as individuals. Trusts in their implied state are everywhere. There are in every transaction you make. It takes a while to understand, but it is very important understanding. I could say more, but I"m not qualified to give legal advice, and neither do I want to answer the barrage of questions that would come.

Sure, if it was set up BEFORE the matrimonial situation exists. But doing this as an afterthought, at the point of breakdown, is quite simply useless - it is a "fraudulent conveyance" in law, and is a complete waste of effort and substantial costs.

[Yycadm]

In case no one has mentioned it, GET A LAWYER!!! YESTERDAY! I guarantee you, she has.
The thing is about leaving the property, whether you are half owner or not; one side may see it as "leaving to be adult about it and protect the kids", the other side may see it as "abandonment of the marital home"...guess which side the courts like? Abandonment of the marital home is a double quick way of losing your rights to the home, both from an access standpoint, and from an investment standpoint. You can VERY easily be forced out on your proverbial A**, without a pot to P*** in, or a window to throw it out of.
Did I mention to GET A LAWYER??

[Joe Fehr]

Go talk to a reputable lawyer....

Mediation works if both parties are reasonable....
Make sure your credit doesn't take a huge hit, make sure she is paying half of everything right now or try and get it in writing that you are paying everything, as it will be split 50/50 unless you roll over.

Make sure you have your own bank account ASAP!! Makes for keeping records way easier and she can't touch it. If you have a joint account she can clean it out and there won't be much you can do about it.

Best advice here is go talk to a reputable lawyer!!!

It's tough man but it gets better!
My liver didn't like me for a long time after my divorce but it does get much better.