# Question about Common Law in Ontario



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

My girlfriend and I live together and do our income taxes together. What are the rules around separation? We have a very different financial position between each other. I have lots of saving and no debt while she has lots of debt and no saving. My job is stable, her job is part time. If a separation were to occur, would she have the rights to any of my assets? Would I have to pay spousal support? If she does have rights, how can I protect my self?

We have no plans to separate but this is good to know.


Thanks,


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

How long have you lived together?After three years common law she can get spousal support and seems to be after 3 years some sort of property rights are established.


----------



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

It will be two years in March, again I see no reason to break the relationship but I like to know how these things work.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Interested in this as well.

Can anyone confirm, assuming the OP's girlfriend had a son with another man, could the OP be responsible for payments to support said child?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ yes, a common law spouse could be on the hook for child support, especially if their common law parent has sole custody, and lives with them.

My girlfriend was living with her boyfriend and his daughter, he had custody, the baby momma was a dead beat. He was considering going after custody from her. It took some fancy negotiations, but there is a possibilities, and the courts will looks over the whole situations and what is best for the child.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Thank you, PA.

I don't agree with that law. But I guess it is what it is.

So you're saying that even if the girlfriend had shared custody and the real father paid child support, the common law spouse (non father) may still need to pay child support as well in the event of a separation? :hopelessness:

And if so, as mentioned in the OP's post, how can common law partners protect themselves?

Sign them as a tenant? :biggrin:


----------



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

I found this site which is very informative. It pretty much answers what I was looking for. 

http://www.nawl.ca/en/money/when-a-relationship-ends-know-your-rights-and-responsibilities


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Thank you for that site, LL.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

That link must have wrong info. At least I hope so. 

If I own a house free and clear, get married and divorced, she is entitled to half the value?
That has to be wrong. 
I thought everything you bring into a marriage was yours to keep? If the house went up 50k in value she would be entitled to 25 k?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I think the whole thing is so variable you can't really read into anything. Get a judge on a bad day, you lose everything. Even if you're just common law, no kids, the judge can screw you.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

After three years it seems anything accumulated in relationship is up for grabs even the 'matrimonial home equity'.As for child support my friend has paid child support for his ex girlfriends child because they were together from age 2-9 years old and she considered him her Dad.The bio dad paid support but no contact ,i believe the child support from biodad was factored into what my friend had to pay.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> Thank you, PA.
> 
> I don't agree with that law. But I guess it is what it is.
> 
> ...



The law isn't totally cut and dry. As my lawyer friend says, hats why they have lawyers and judges.

In terms of child support, they look at the relationship of the 'step child' and the role of the common law partner, length of the relationship, if one would consider the common law partner a parent, etc. how my friend explained it, was the intent is that the child would suffer if that the common law person split up and etc. in my friends case, she baby momma was extremely unstable, and her partner wasn't the most stable either (hence the break up). My friend ended up acting more like a parent than either of the bio parents. There are a lot of factors. My understanding was in the case of the child, a pre living arrangement contract would not work, as one cannot opt out of child support.

However, to protect oneself in a common law relationship, I suppose a pre living arrangement may work. 

You also cannot say you are roommates or tenants if you are not. We actually had a staff member who was audited by CRA to see if they were common law because she was receiving bebpnfits as being single. CRA called the office and nterviewed people and friend to see wha their relationship was like. They checked their bank statements, and even went as far as visiting their place to see if they shared a room or not.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Every province has their own laws - that's why there's so much confusion. I remember many years ago, a friend of mine was complaining that her second ex-husband, who was her children's stepfather was late with his child support payments. I was shocked because I knew her first husband (her children's father) was a wealthy medical specialist here in B.C. and I assumed that he would be responsible for the child support. She told me both men had to pay child support, both the real father and the stepfather. I think that's very wrong.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> We actually had a staff member who was audited by CRA to see if they were common law because she was receiving bebpnfits as being single. CRA called the office and nterviewed people and friend to see wha their relationship was like. They checked their bank statements, and even went as far as visiting their place to see if they shared a room or not.


... Wow! 

That's crazy


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Major changes were made to the family law act in ON in the last decade, so make sure you talk to a lawyer, who specializes in family law.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I wouldn't trust that source lifeliver and Kae. It's from the National Association of Women and the Law. You can be sure they don't have your interests or fairness as a priority.

Do some proper legal research (family law case studies, i.e. NOT media or interest group websites) or consult an experienced family lawyer on the issue.

I'm in a similar situation. Starting up a stable career with no debts and a super broke girlfriend. Make sure you have proper proof of your address separate from hers before you moved in together, otherwise how will you prove when you started living together? I'd suggest signing a relationship/cohabitation agreement (written by a lawyer and witnessed by a notary), and it's what I'll do if I ever move in with my girl.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

lifeliver said:


> how can I protect my self?
> Thanks,


Co-Habitation agreement. While everyone is still "friends"

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/whycommonlawcouplesshouldconsideracohabitationagreement.cfm


----------



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

I will look into getting this done before the third year starts. Whenever I bring up something like this she always tends to get pretty upset but it needs to be done.


----------



## longinvest (Sep 12, 2012)

lifeliver said:


> Whenever I bring up something like this she always tends to get pretty upset


That's not a good sign.


----------



## Compounding1 (May 13, 2012)

longinvest said:


> That's not a good sign.


You could say the same thing from her perspective that he doesn't trust her, thinks shes after his money etc. Just purely devils advocate on that 

But either way, I leant my gf some money before and made her sign an agreement to repay it and she didn't like that lol. If something happened I didn't want it being thought as a gift. It sucks to have to do but you gotta cover your arse.


----------



## Daenerys Targaryen (May 11, 2012)

praire_guy, yes if you own a home free and clear, than you marry a woman who moves into your home, if you get divorced she would be entitled to half the value of your home. Each spouse has an equal interest in the matrimonial home they live in together as a couple.

liveliver, what are you going to do? do you and your gf rent together? are you both on the lease? or do you live together in a place you own?


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

lifeliver said:


> I will look into getting this done before the third year starts. Whenever I bring up something like this she always tends to get pretty upset but it needs to be done.


Most women get upset about this type of thing. But you need to protect yourself.

Just tell her it's not personal.

"The person you marry isn't the person you divorce."


----------



## lifeliver (Aug 30, 2010)

We do rent together and both our names are on the lease. I have had many talks about this with the gf and she is ok with signing docs but thinks that I am paranoid and have a bad attitude about the relationship. In my line of work I see a lot of cases where people get "screwed" by divorce / separation so I would like to take the extra step to be safe. 

Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost to get a cohabitation agreement done?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Get it done with a will and powers of attorney for property and personal care; you are looking at under $1000 for all three. On its own it will be more expensive (because the legwork required to do a separate cohabitation agreement will be greater than if you are discussing all personal documents at one time), it should run you about $500-$600.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

MoneyGal, for a Co-Habitation agreement: each side needs it's own representation (a lawyer for each party). I don't think you can have a single lawyer draft and execute each side. Conflict of interest / Who exactly would the lawyer be representing? Would it even stand up in court if challenged?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Um, I meant for his costs; I should have made that more clear.


----------



## blin10 (Jun 27, 2011)

with a decent lawyer it will cost close to 2g's to make an agreement and for them to sign it after your gf goes to her own lawyer (another 400-500$) to sign ILA


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

It really depends on how complex the situation is. No previous relationships, no kids, no significant property and no joint property, no investments of any consequence, no businesses....in these circumstances, this can be pretty much boilerplate.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

In Toronto (with the lawyer hourly rates what they are), I think Blin10 is spot on. That is if there is no going back and forth on the details of the agreement.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

Go talk to your lawyer ... seriously ... I found out for example that spousal support doesn't necessarily apply.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

Daenerys Targaryen said:


> praire_guy, yes if you own a home free and clear, than you marry a woman who moves into your home, if you get divorced she would be entitled to half the value of your home. Each spouse has an equal interest in the matrimonial home they live in together as a couple.
> 
> liveliver, what are you going to do? do you and your gf rent together? are you both on the lease? or do you live together in a place you own?


I think that's incorrect. You keep what you bring into the marriage. What's to stop people from marrying and divorcing to get half a free house?


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Nothing... That's why it happens quite regularly...


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

praire_guy said:


> I think that's incorrect. You keep what you bring into the marriage. What's to stop people from marrying and divorcing to get half a free house?


that's what I was eluding to before. I think that prarie guy hit the nail on the head. The family law act changes in ON shook that all up. I think the woman would walk away empty handed, but as time goes on, some property rights kick in. 

bottom line: talk to a lawyer.

My CL spouse and I had an agreement done up for about $750. It simply lays out a timeline as to when she will have 50% ownership. It will go hand and hand with our wills when we get those done next month.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

praire_guy said:


> I think that's incorrect. You keep what you bring into the marriage. What's to stop people from marrying and divorcing to get half a free house?


Prenup should stop this BEFORE the marriage.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

[in response to hystat's post] Nope. The recent amendments to the Ontario FLA (Family Law Act) are in respect of how pensions are valued and there are some changes to how child support may be calculated. 

Link to the actual act for reference: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f03_e.htm 

Section 4(1)(b) provides that a matrimonial home (essentially an owned home in Ontario occupied by married spouses) is treated differently from other property when the net family property for each spouse is calculated. 

2011 position paper from the Ontario Bar Association calling for the abolition of the special status of the matrimonial home (provided for reference): http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_fam_jul11_a1_jamal_matrimonial.pdf

Excerpt from this position paper which confirms that each spouse is entitled to one-half the value in the matrimonial home, no matter who owned it prior to marriage: 

The Matrimonial Home

*A spouse cannot deduct the premarital value of a matrimonial home*. Therefore, the full value of a matrimonial home must be included in an owning spouse's net family property, while a spouse generally gets credit for the value of his or her other property at marriage. Moreover, a spouse cannot exclude the matrimonial home's value from their net family property even if it was acquired by gift or inheritance after the marriage or even if the value of other excluded property can be traced into it. 

The special treatment of the matrimonial home is unfair and leads to inconsistent results in arguably similar circumstances. The inability to deduct the value of a matrimonial home brought into the marriage is arbitrary, particularly as money brought into the marriage that is subsequently used to buy a matrimonial home would be deductible.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

I divorced 3 years ago in manitoba. Our lawyers said what you brought into the marriage is yours. Only my pension accumulated during the marriage was on the table. 
That's fair. 
If I owned a million dollar home free and clear, got married and divorced, it's not fair she gets half a million. 

If you bought the house together, paid it off over several years, of course 50/50 applies.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah, family law is provincial - you can't generalize from one province to another easily. Manitoba has a "family home" defined in law, not a "matrimonial home," and I don't think the exclusions I outlined for Ontario apply in Manitoba. Of course, a judge can always override whatever is provided by statute, and a cohabitation/marriage agreement can also allow spouses to opt out of the default legislative provisions.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> So you're saying that even if the girlfriend had shared custody and the real father paid child support, the common law spouse (non father) may still need to pay child support as well in the event of a separation? :hopelessness:
> 
> And if so, as mentioned in the OP's post, *how can common law partners protect themselves*?


Best way is to NOT act in a parental capacity towards the child. Child support is not awarded based on your relationship with the child's parent, but your relationship with the child. Ontario family law defines a "parent" as someone who "*has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family*." You can (theoretically) have a child support responsibility to a child who is not your biological child even if you have no spousal support obligations to that child's biological parent. 

Way more detail: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResourc...urvival-Guide-to-the-Law-Post-Separation.aspx


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Thank you, MG.

I would assume there are lawyers who specialize in that exact type of family law, ie; proving that a "non-father" did not demonstrate a settled intention to tread the child as his own?

Are these Canadian laws specifically, or do most countries have some sort of law like this (with regards to paying child support to a child that is not your own)?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

praire_guy said:


> That link must have wrong info. At least I hope so.
> 
> If I own a house free and clear, get married and divorced, she is entitled to half the value?...


Unfortunately, it is correct. Several friends have divorced & in the more bitter cases, he gave up *more* than half the value.

Or worse - the one guy I worked with was lucky his ex let him come up with alternate means to pay for half of his pension. According to him, she could have demanded payment immediately - which would have required converting the future pension to current cash value & splitting the proceeds.


The only way I've heard of being able to set what the splitup amounts will be is to sign a pre-nuptial agreement *before* the marriage.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> I think the whole thing is so variable you can't really read into anything...
> 
> Even if you're just common law, no kids, the judge can screw you.


Most of my friends who have divorced have said that the court was biased to assume the woman was being short changed. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

marina628 said:


> After three years it seems anything accumulated in relationship is up for grabs even the 'matrimonial home equity'...


Up for grabs is a good way to put it. 

My friend was bewildered when his amicable divorce resulted in her demanding the dog she fought against getting and hated.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

peterk said:


> I wouldn't trust that source lifeliver and Kae. It's from the National Association of Women and the Law. You can be sure they don't have your interests or fairness as a priority.
> 
> ... Make sure you have proper proof of your address separate from hers before you moved in together, otherwise how will you prove when you started living together?
> 
> I'd suggest signing a relationship/cohabitation agreement (written by a lawyer and witnessed by a notary), and it's what I'll do if I ever move in with my girl.


*shrug* - Having proof she had little and he brought a successful business where she never did anything in the business made no difference in having to split the business 50/50 when a friend was divorced.

Bottom line is that the only effective protection my friends have talked about is the prenuptial agreement. I'd think the agreement you are talking about would work the same way but none of my divorced friends so far have had one. *grin*


Cheers


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> 1. proving that a "non-father" did not demonstrate a settled intention to tread the child as his own?
> 2. Are these Canadian laws specifically, or do most countries have some sort of law like this (with regards to paying child support to a child that is not your own)?


*1.* Be prepared for the fact that, if you fall in love with the mother, there is a good chance you might fall in love with her child as well [especially a baby or small child], so what would you do & how would you feel in that case, if let's say you were ordered some amount of child-support? 

I don't think there is anything loco [crazy] about the 'loco parentis' laws, as after all, isn't that what a step common-law/spouse becomes, ie: takes the place of the biological father/mother? Such a scenario does come with responsibilities, as children are part of the package & need to be taken care of emotionally & financially as well. For those not wanting such a potential responsibility [and can't really blame them], it's best to date/live/marry, men/women without children.

*2.* Why do you care about other countries; are you planning to move when you just bought a home?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

hystat said:


> ...I think that prarie guy hit the nail on the head. The family law act changes in ON shook that all up. I think the woman would walk away empty handed, but as time goes on, some property rights kick in...


I'm not sure the ON changes made much of a difference. When were they made?

The unfair splits I alluded to are from fifteen + years ago. So the problem may have existed for a lot longer than you seem to think.


Then too - I can recall a separated father in Edmonton about twenty years ago complaining in the newspaper that he thought it was reasonable to pay for internet access for his daughter but was offended the mother/judge felt that dialup was too slow so that he should pay for cable internet access.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

praire_guy said:


> I think that's incorrect. You keep what you bring into the marriage.
> 
> What's to stop people from marrying and divorcing to get half a free house?





Dmoney said:


> Nothing... That's why it happens quite regularly...


.... and that's why there's lots of references to "gold diggers" etc. and lots of plot material for some of the movies/tv shows ...


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

This thread is depressing.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

So why read? Or better, why not add something that is a little less depressing and/or informative then. 

Life is not a bowl of roses, unfortunately!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

YYC said:


> This thread is depressing.


 ... a lot less depressing than the after-the-fact


> ... if only I'd known when I could do something about it ...



Cheers


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

In case of a business-If a party brought in a business could they not ''shelter" everything?Maybe only draw low amts for the needs that are needed(budget a amt close to what is needed for the mth,draw mthly)

When/if the realtionship breaks down(the one without the business)Is meet with a iron wall of a ltd company(she is not a shareholder ect)

There has to be a special place in hell for a women that would not only want the assets that were accumulated(i get that to some extent)but to cripple a business also(and effect all employees in the business ect)She would take automatic 50% equity?of future vaule also?or fixed(ie:as the business grows she gets more?)

Even if you had non reg assets held personally-set-up a mngmt co---she can't touch?(do all this without mentioning it,just you and your lawyer?)Equality my ***-this is why i dont want to get married.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

You should probably use the word "spouses," there are female business owners who have faced this situation. Some even right here on this forum. 

A 50% split is by no means automatic. I actually went to mediation with my ex-spouse over his claim on some of the assets of my business. Mediator turned the claim down; there was no evidence my ex-spouse contributed to the value of my business in any way. 

There's a lot of misinformation in these kinds of forums about what is legal, what is possible, and what is likely. In general, the best way to protect your assets from an ex-spouse, whether common-law or legal, is through a pre-nup. However, any pre-nup can be both challenged and overturned. Just know that the courts view marriage as an economic partnership, whether you personally do or not.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I just use ''male" because i was thinking it from my point-wasnt implying anything.
I would imagine the game changes with corprate law(the business owner would not be using a ''family" law lawyer,though i guess he/she could)

A good point would be who (between both parties)could hire the best legal council-If the the business owner hires a "A" team vs a appointed lawyer-no contest?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

1. Family law even though corporate assets are on the table. 
2. No one gets counsel "appointed" to them in family court except children and dependent adults.


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

And what about debt? If someone brings debt into the relationship or maybe they've co-signed a loan etc, is then 50/50 even if it is attributable to only 1 individual?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Generally, debt acquired by one partner (whether brought into the relationship or acquired in the relationship) is retained by that partner (husband's student loans, wife's back taxes to CRA). Joint debt is split equally, even if it is not "acquired" equally (husband spending on joint line of credit, wife spending on joint credit cards).


----------



## Young&Ambitious (Aug 11, 2010)

Good to know! Would one way around that be (here is an example with fake numbers): 

Bob and Sally get a $500k mortgage for their house, equity split equally. If they both were named on the mortgage then they together would be liable for the $500k debt. But, what if Bob got a $250k mortgage in his name and Sally got a $250k mortgage in her name. This would then not count as "joint debt", correct? Including any LOC's attached to their individual mortgages. And the asset, the house, would be split 50/50? 

Ps. I hope I'm not hijacking-this is within the topic range I am thinking..


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

My spelling is bad(need spell check)I Wonder how the ''law" would even be able to assess the value of a business(does a family lawyer have to hire a accountant?)Just seems like they are 2 completely different things.Or is it the judge?Do they comb over a business in the same way as say the c.r.a would(audit).
(i know nothing of how family law works obviously)
Its pretty difficult to get a clear # of exactly what the cost of a business is,equity(not hard assets)but say ''uneven'' income.
(what if the business had a range of investments,that the investments changed year by year)


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Depends. Family law varies by province. 

If Bob and Sally live in Ontario, and they live together in this home as their "matrimonial residence," and they are legally married, then the equity in the house is split equally. 

In the scenario you outlined, there an equal split by default, because of the way you structured your example. But if Bob paid off his share of the mortgage more rapidly, such that his share of the equity in the house increased at a faster rate than Sally's, and then they split, the additional equity that Bob held in the house would be split with Sally. 

Note that there are many reasons for a judge to split property other than equally between the spouses, here is the relevant section from the Ontario Family Law Act: 

*Variation of share*

(6) The court may award a spouse an amount that is more or less than half the difference between the net family properties if the court is of the opinion that equalizing the net family properties would be unconscionable, having regard to,

(a) a spouse’s failure to disclose to the other spouse debts or other liabilities existing at the date of the marriage;

(b) the fact that debts or other liabilities claimed in reduction of a spouse’s net family property were incurred recklessly or in bad faith;

(c) the part of a spouse’s net family property that consists of gifts made by the other spouse;

(d) a spouse’s intentional or reckless depletion of his or her net family property;

(e) the fact that the amount a spouse would otherwise receive under subsection (1), (2) or (3) is disproportionately large in relation to a period of cohabitation that is less than five years;

(f) the fact that one spouse has incurred a disproportionately larger amount of debts or other liabilities than the other spouse for the support of the family;

(g) a written agreement between the spouses that is not a domestic contract; or

(h) any other circumstance relating to the acquisition, disposition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of property. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 5 (6).


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

donald said:


> My spelling is bad(need spell check)I Wonder how the ''law" would even be able to assess the value of a business(does a family lawyer have to hire a accountant?)Just seems like they are 2 completely different things.Or is it the judge?Do they comb over a business in the same way as say the c.r.a would(audit).
> (i know nothing of how family law works obviously)
> Its pretty difficult to get a clear # of exactly what the cost of a business is,equity(not hard assets)but say ''uneven'' income.
> (what if the business had a range of investments,that the investments changed year by year)


It's the fair market value at the date of separation, not a value over some period of time.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

So if a business owner held real estate(ie commercial property)in a falling market(say like vancouver)You could wind up with a double wammy.The spouse would be entitled to hard assets(operations)even the vaule of say a ''fleet" of commercial trucks that lose vaule?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Well, it's negotiated. We're driving you farther and farther away from marriage, eh?


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Lol,i just never thought about the assets of a business in a seperation(esp.a common-law)
I was just thinking a business owner would have to be real careful!!
A business could survive but all of a sudden maybe some longtime employees have to be let go(other lives affected)If the other is spouse is entitled to half equity(without taking out a loan/debt/credit)Liquidation of hard assets have to be sold(which would harm operations)


----------



## tombiosis (Dec 18, 2010)

This thread topic is very near yet not so dear to me...the only solution I can see to this age old problem is this: *Never, ever get involved with someone who has less money than you. Simple.*:tongue-new:
Kidding aside though, this whole area of law is really confusing. I've already been through a common law separation (twice:stupid and my present partner, who wants to shack up, has no rrsp, rents, big CC debt, while I own a house(not paid off yet though) smallish rrsp, cottage property, and no debt other than the house. While shacking up makes total sense financially, I am still very learry about the lob sided assetts going in. I don't trust a co-hab agreement either, even though my partner has no problem signing one.
I would love to hear from anyone who has had a co-hab agreement put to the test in court...MG, you seem to be a wealth of knowledge on this...do you have any case examples of a co-hab being overthrown? how solid are these things? are they worth the money? (I know my sep. agreement that I paid dearly for wasn't worth the paper it was printed on when push came to shove)
Sigh
:hopelessness:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

How come your separation agreement didn't hold up, tombiosis? Details please.


----------



## tombiosis (Dec 18, 2010)

peterk said:


> How come your separation agreement didn't hold up, tombiosis? Details please.


I had a clause in it to do with mobility...my common law spouse was not supposed to be able to move out of our child's school district, yet they planned to do just that. After consulting a second lawyer, I was advised that fighting the move would be futile...apparently the move wouldn't be considered far enough (like 1 hour away)
Despite the clause, the move took place. Happily, it resulted in my gaining primary caregiver status, as I lived nearer the child's school, doctor, hockey team etc....all is great now, but at the time I was freaking.
I am very leary of drafting a co-hab now...I just don't trust legal docs...


----------

