Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this12:49 pm
October 27, 2013
Offline
It is the latter by default for tax purposes but family law is provincial jurisdiction and handling of estates will vary.
6:00 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Loonie said
… Bill seems to take your word at face value without attribution. I am unclear how we should understand your comments.…
I would not presume that. Bill may have fact checked what I said with his reliable sources, found no inconsistencies, and continued the discussion.
I think one should see my comments as starting points for a discussion with a practising lawyer from the appropriate province.
If anyone wishes to actually do some of the things I mentioned, he or she really should see a lawyer. There are more nuances in the family, real estate, and property laws of each province than can be explained in just a few sentences here.
Just because it is possible to do something in an estate doesn't mean that is the best way to do it. A lawyer can also give advice on how best to do some of those things. For example, an estate could pay some $50K a year for the rest of the beneficiary's life as Bill mentioned. Maybe it would be better instead for the estate to buy a $50K per year life annuity for the beneficiary from a life insurance company. That way, the estate does not have to be send out cheques for years.
6:24 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Saver-Mom said
Norman, nice theory but no, there was no estate or trust.
He owned house 1 which he inherited while married.
Bought house 2 with money from sale of house 1.
House 2 doubled in value during marriage.
Wife filed for divorce thinking she would get half, but no, the house was solely property of husband due to Quebec inheritance laws.
Voila, la belle province
https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/dividing-family-patrimony
Very interesting about family patrimony under Quebec family law.
It is not only inheritances but also gifts during marriage and what is now family patrimony but was owned before the marriage. Such are subtracted from the family patrimony to be divided:
Subtract Other Amounts.
You can subtract other amounts from the value of the family property. This is possible in the following four situations:
1. Family property that belonged to you before you got married.
For example, your spouse moved into your house after you got married.2. Family property that belonged to you before you got married and was used to buy or improve other property included in the family patrimony.
For example, your spouse moved into your house after you got married. Then, you sold your house and used the money to buy a new one. Your family has been living in it ever since.3. You inherited property or received property as a gift. During your marriage, you used this property to buy or improve property included in the family patrimony.
For example, during your marriage, you used money you inherited from Aunt Matilda to buy your family home.4. You inherited property or received property as a gift. During your marriage, you used this property to buy or improve other property. Then, you used this other property to buy or improve property included in the family patrimony.
For example, during your marriage, you used your inheritance from Aunt Matilda to buy a rental property. Then, you sold the rental property and used the money from the sale to buy your family home.
Even if none of the above applies, there's provision to reduce the equal division when it is unfair, according to Unequal Division of the Family Patrimony:
The spouse who wants the family property to be divided unequally must do the following:
- Ask the judge in the divorce papers.
- Convince the judge that dividing the property equally would be very unfair.
Here are examples of when an equal division could be unfair:
- The marriage didn't last very long.
- One spouse lost, wasted or got rid of property in an unacceptable way (e.g., by gambling or on drugs or alcohol).
- One spouse did nothing for the family and "got a free ride" at the expense of the other spouse, who did everything.
…
I like those last two examples.
8:13 pm
December 12, 2015
Offline
What fun!
Even more interesting is that QC which has the most common-law relationships does not afford any protection to unmarried spouses. This was confirmed by the sensational case of Lola vs Eric.
8:47 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
For the seven years and three kids, Lola was asking Eric for $50-million lump-sum plus $56,000 a month alimony plus child support! 
Did she help increase the family net worth by $100 million during those seven years and boost the annual family income permanently by $112,000?
Maybe the Quebec system is not that unfair in practice.
9:07 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
In case one thinks Lola got thrown under a bus by Quebec family law, one should have a look at Maclean article A billionaire, the law, his Brazilian ex to get the context.
She may not have got the $50 million or $56,000/month alimony she was seeking. But, according to the Maclean article, she is receiving child support of $35,000 a month from Eric. That's $420,000 a year!
Not only is she doing much better than most single mothers with three kids, she is doing much better than most people.
4:21 pm
March 17, 2018
Offline
Norman1 said
Never mind the relationship. Your partner can actually call the police and have you and your Mom forcibly removed immediately after your Mom's name is no longer on the property's records.
Interesting discussion. I wonder if having mom get forced out by vindictive ex partner could be considered elder abuse. Not providing proper care to an elder can be considered a criminal offense potentially even resulting in jail time.
5:04 pm
September 11, 2013
Offline
Briguy, I'm pretty sure if you own a house you're not required to let somebody else (aside from your spouse) live in it, even if they are a senior.
5:25 pm
March 17, 2018
Offline
Bill said
Briguy, I'm pretty sure if you own a house you're not required to let somebody else (aside from your spouse) live in it, even if they are a senior.
But this would be an extreme case of ex girlfriend kicking out the elderly mom who gave her title, potentially resulting in her being on street or in a shelter. I bet the mom would have recourse to call the police.
7:32 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
I don't think so.
It would be seen as a case where a former owner refuses to leave after legally transferring ownership to a new owner.
The mother should retain a life interest in the property or sign a lease on closing if she wished to continue living there after the transaction.
That's is how one friend evicted her mouching boyfriend. Police were called. Police confirmed that the apartment was rented solely out to her. Didn't matter he had been staying there for months. Police officers gave the boyfriend a choice: Walk out under his own power or backup would be called and be dragged out!
Please write your comments in the forum.