# Estate Claim to property



## mutzy (Jul 26, 2010)

A friend of mine passed away lately leaving the brunt of his estate to his Mother.
30 yr"s ago he purchased a house with his then girl friend, each putting down 2,000
Shortly after they broke up. Her name is not on the deed but is on the tax roll.
She has contacted a Lawyer who has sent a letter requesting half the value of the house.
She has not contributed anything in the form of taxes or payments in excess of the 2,000.
Also she has been married for at least the past 25 yr"s.
Is this just a money grab or does the claim have merit


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Disgusting.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

Absolutely disgusting. I'd hit up you tube, Facebook , twitter, etc and expose this woman for the cockroach she is. 

I'd mention the lawyer too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The executor of the estate should, through the estate lawyer if they have one, advise the other lawyer the estate will require documentation of the debt owing.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Tax rolls usually mirror the land registry information - are you sure her name isn't registered on the property? If it isn't, I wouldn't think there is any legal standing.

You should get a lawyer to look into it and respond.


----------



## Chris L (Nov 16, 2011)

Sick greedy woman. I'd get in touch with a men's rights group and expose the woman for what she is. This is a good place to start - you may find some knowledgeable people there: https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/?hc_location=stream


----------



## mutzy (Jul 26, 2010)

Thank you for your concerned replies. His mother is asking the estate lawyer to look into this. 
I will post the outcome of this matter.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

The only action that I would recommend is to obtain professional counsel. Say nothing, do nothing until you know exactly where you stand and have advice on how to proceed. It may be as simple as a letter...but you need to act quickly.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I bought out a partner on a property in 2011 and even today the tax bill has his name on it , even though legally he was removed and cashed his check.They told me i had to send in a paper to update the MAILING list even though on the docs they see the transaction.I think there needs to be a legal trail on when she was taken off the property.I know a person who died and his friend who cosigned got the house as they had right of survivor ship in the mortgage papers.Even though he left entire estate to his parents ,this happened about 9 years ago and even with lawyers the parents did not get the house.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

Marina are you sure your info is correct?

Mortage documents do not superseded wills. If both were listed on title as joint with rights of survivorship then yes the friend gets the house. 

Otherwise it should go to the parents.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

It's possible that if it was the matrimonial home, then the house would go to the partner not the parents.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

banks make you go on title when you co sign which is another reason nobody should cosign on mortgages and if you cannot afford it without a cosigner you need to wait.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

marina628 said:


> I bought out a partner on a property in 2011 and even today the tax bill has his name on it , even though legally he was removed and cashed his check.They told me i had to send in a paper to update the MAILING list even though on the docs they see the transaction.I think there needs to be a legal trail on when she was taken off the property.I know a person who died and his friend who cosigned got the house as they had right of survivor ship in the mortgage papers.Even though he left entire estate to his parents ,this happened about 9 years ago and even with lawyers the parents did not get the house.


I would almost guarantee title was taken as "joint tenants", rather than "tenants in common" (which is what they should have done). It has nothing to do with the mortgage papers, but rather how they took title on the deed.

Joint Tenancy: owners equally own an indivisible interest in the property. They do NOT each own half, for example. there is survivorship built in to joint tenancy. When one owner passes, their interest flows automatically to the surviving joint tenant(s), regardless of what their will says. 

Tenancy in Common: Owners each own their own share of the property, typically recited as a % ownership on the deed. That % share can be bought/sold. There is no survivorship provision in tenancy in common. When one owner passes, their % interest flows to their estate, where a will would indeed be relevant.

This is all distinct from the mortgage and has nothing to do with co-signing.

People can co-sign in two ways:

Co-Borrower: They are a full co-borrower on the mortgage, MUST go on title, and their income/debt is considered when qualifying the mortgage application. Typically, this is preferable to lenders (and CMHC/insurers). It is also the smart way to protect yourself if you are the co-signor. You can control over the property and can force its sale if the 'real' borrowers won't/can't pay. The disadvantage is that to remove the co-borrower, title (deed) needs to be amended, and a mortgage needs to be re-registered, both of which entail expense. The mortgage will appear on all borrowers' credit report, which can impact future lending capacity.

Guarantor: This is the traditional meaning of 'co-sign' to most people. The co-signor is 'guaranteeing' the mortgage, i.e. they agree to assume payments if the principal borrowers can't/won't pay. A Guarantor does NOT go on title, and typically their income is NOT used to help qualify a mortgage application. They are there to shore up some other deficiency, such as short job tenure, slightly sub-par credit, etc. of the primary borrower(s). The advantage here is that Guarantors can be released from their obligation without incurring any costs - Title does not need to be amended, and the bank internally adjusts the mortgage (they can register an amending agreement, if need be). A new Cost of Borrowing document typically supersedes what is registered on title under the old mortgage. I don't believe that the mortgage necessarily appears on Guarantors' credit report, but if it does it typically will specify their co-signor status.

FWIW, I would NEVER act as a Guarantor, though parents commonly do so for their kids. Too much risk, too little control over the situation.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This info is based on my understanding of the matter (and in Ontario...some things differ between provinces), from 10+ years in the business (but out for a couple of years now). I *highly* recommend that anyone seek advice from an experienced real estate lawyer regarding any title, mortgage, or estate matters.

edit: For the OP's example, I think it is a frivolous claim. I don't know how the gf was on the tax roll, because that typically matches title. Regardless, it is irrelevant from a legal ownership standpoint. If she was never on title, and the property isn't considered a matrimonial home, she has ZERO automatic claim. Sure, she can try to sue, but good luck if you broke up shortly thereafter. Even common law status does NOT automatically entitle someone to property claims (in Ontario). Common law status means very little in terms of property law, AFAIK.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

As MRT says, it is critical to get type of title correct. My 'late in life' partner and I have a 50/50 house as tenants-in-common to ensure each of our half of the house goes to our respective estates in event of death, and to prevent a capital grab by the other in such an event. We could have it as any other percentageship as well, e.g. 60/40, 90/10, etc. depending on how much capital/operations each party puts into it.

The only reason to use Joint Tenancy is when each of you want the right-of-survivorship to go to the other person(s) on title, typically married couples and/or common law couples who want the others to 'inherit' ownership.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MRT said:


> edit: For the OP's example, I think it is a frivolous claim. I don't know how the gf was on the tax roll, because that typically matches title. Regardless, it is irrelevant from a legal ownership standpoint. If she was never on title, and the property isn't considered a matrimonial home, she has ZERO automatic claim. Sure, she can try to sue, but good luck if you broke up shortly thereafter. Even common law status does NOT automatically entitle someone to property claims (in Ontario). Common law status means very little in terms of property law, AFAIK.


IANAL, but I agree the claim is frivolous IF cohabitation was for a shorter time than common law provisions in the appropriate Family Law Act and especially if the gf is not on title. Somehow I'd think though that with each of the 2 having contributed to the down payment, and the gf being named on the tax rolls, they may have signed a Joint Tenancy title and that title was never changed after breakup. In the OP's example, the guy would likely have to prove short cohabitation AND that the gf did not contribute to mortgage payments and the operation and maintenance of the home. I would have thought the gf would have insisted on having her money back when she left, or the guy would have insisted on it as well to break all ties, but if not, she may well have a partial (small) claim on the house. Clearly a case to be fought.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

Altared you are in BC. I would seriously check your situation. 

BC has some goofy estate laws. Your tenancy in common may not be honored


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

praire_guy said:


> Altared you are in BC. I would seriously check your situation.
> 
> BC has some goofy estate laws. Your tenancy in common may not be honored


One of which is to notify anyone who has been specifically excluded from a will. So the Executor had to hire a skip-tracer to find the estranged brother before competing probate.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

praire_guy said:


> Altared you are in BC. I would seriously check your situation.
> 
> BC has some goofy estate laws. Your tenancy in common may not be honored


It clearly is with a cohab agreement, and I am told, even without one. We also have life interests set up for the home, so that the surviving party can live there as long as s/he wants to, after which time the deceased's 50% reverts back to the estate. Been through all this with a family law lawyer.

P.S. you are clearly right that BC is about as goofy a place to be as one can imagine.a


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

As I said it was few years ago but they were just friends and not in a relationship ,the guy who died went through a divorce and was just sorting his life out but wanted to buy a house. He did the down payment and his friend cosigned with him ,the friend rented a room in the house for $500 a month but the deceased paid all the bills on house. I guess his income was a bit short to qualify so he got the friend involved. He had life insurance on the house as well so the friend got a paid off house and changed the locks within days of the car accident. Parents did get a life policy ,bank accounts etc but after two years they ran out of legal options on the house.I did not get to read documents but just know the outcome.


----------

