Can anyone tell me where a person would stand in this situation? If a man has been living with a woman in Quebec for over 20 years without marrying her, and has kids( kids over 18 years old ) a house and a cottage, and retirement savings. What will happen to him after the lawyes get through with him?
Quebec divorce law. ( not married, with kids )
- Thread starter J. Peterman
- Start date
J. Peterman said:
Raped and pillaged my friend....welcome to the anal probing of your life. I'll venture a guess that it will be a 50/50 split.
Of course somebody will tell you the exact info...all I can say to you is let the PAIN BEGIN.
She gonna clean you out
As far as I know, and this was checked out by an ex-gf who lived with someone for about 5 years, there is no common law marriage considerations in Quebec. I don't think the guy would be obligated for anything more than child support, and property belongs to the person who purchased it and has proof of purchase of course.
J. Peterman said:
There's been a few news reports on this. Apparently, Quebec is very different from the rest of Canada in that it follows the civil law code which until now does not recognize common-law marriage. I'm pretty sure that the female party has no inherent right to anything that is not in her name. For example, if the house and retirement savings are in the husband's name, he very likely will be able to keep one-hundred percent. Non-adult children, of course, are the product of both parents, so the usual custody arrangements have to be made.
To sum up, in Quebec unwed female partners are at a serious disadvantage.
Techman said:
This is actually also the law in most American jurisdictions. The child support obligation is imposed by state law irrespective or the existence of a marital contract because the alternative would be that the child becomes a ward of the state and, ultimately, the taxpayer. Unfortunately that de facto ends up being the case with many "common law marriages" in which a man and woman cohabitate as spouses without having been married, and the man takes off after the child is born.
The good news is that with the advent of the computer, State governments have become increasingly sophisticated in their ability to track down the assets of "deabeat dads." I once had a client whom I knew had a very large child support arrearage to 4 different past common law wives with whom he had sired 5 different children. He had a pretty good personal injury case, but I told him that if I filed suit in his name, the State would intervene and send me a lien letter and he would end up basically giving all of the settlement monies to the State. Therefore, I advised my client to settle his case more cheaply with the insurance company short of litigation, and he followed my advice. Although my contingency fee was less than what it would have been had I instituted suit, I put some money in my clients' pocket which he would not have received had the case gone into suit.
JP, I don't know much about family law in my own state let alone Quebec, but I do know that at least here, there is an increasing trend towards pro se or self representation due to the exorbitant costs of litigating a divorce using an attorney. The State courts here promulgate a "How To Do Your Own Divorce" guide which is sort of like a "Divorce Litigation For Dummies" that enables the pro se litigant to figure out what to do and what forms to use. I do know that here there is an increasing trend to using lots of forms for different things like financials and the like. You should inquire whether the Quebec courts have a "divorce for dummies" type publication, whether pro se representation is feasible under the particulars of this situation, and if so what forms are needed.
Last edited:
1) kids are over 18.
2) She claims to have contributed more because she worked when he was in school.
3) She recieved inheritances and wants the money back.
P.S. She levitates into the air and vomits grren stuff all over the place
2) She claims to have contributed more because she worked when he was in school.
3) She recieved inheritances and wants the money back.
P.S. She levitates into the air and vomits grren stuff all over the place
J. Peterman said:
If that is true, tell him to walk away and start over because the courts will be sympathetic to her.
By the way all government pension plan contributions are to be split 50/50 in the case on common law in Quebec (at least this was the case 5 years ago).
Contact McGill legal info, or the Montreal Information and Referral Center and and you will get the right time of day.
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
PRE-NUPS FOR SALE!!
GET YOUR PRE NUPS!!! BUY 1 GET 1 FREE!!!
WHO KNOWS MAYBE YOU CAN USE IT FOR YOUR 2ND WIFE AFTER YOU DIVORCE THE 1ST ONE!!!!
hehehe... so from what it sounds like right now... it might actually be a much better move to actually just get married and have a pre nup signed... instead of just thinking of... "i'm not married to her, i don't have to give her anything if ever we broke up 10 years down the road..." as from what it sounds like... she WILL be getting it even if you're not married....
this kind of encourages me to want to get married sooner so we are considered as comon-law in another year or two.....
GET YOUR PRE NUPS!!! BUY 1 GET 1 FREE!!!
WHO KNOWS MAYBE YOU CAN USE IT FOR YOUR 2ND WIFE AFTER YOU DIVORCE THE 1ST ONE!!!!
hehehe... so from what it sounds like right now... it might actually be a much better move to actually just get married and have a pre nup signed... instead of just thinking of... "i'm not married to her, i don't have to give her anything if ever we broke up 10 years down the road..." as from what it sounds like... she WILL be getting it even if you're not married....
this kind of encourages me to want to get married sooner so we are considered as comon-law in another year or two.....
johnhenrygalt said:
I'm not a member of the Law Society in Québec. However in many jurisdictions this would depend on whether the house was a pre-marital asset or a marital asset, and if the former were any significant improvements made to it with joint money. In most jurisdictions its important to keep pre-marital assets separate from marital assets to avoid just this sort of problem.
johnhenrygalt said:
The house itself can never be excluded from the patrimoine familial. It's value may be excluded. This is a technical distinction, which may have important effects sometimes.
johnhenrygalt said:
The idea is that what you had before you got married, you get to keep. What you earned during marriage as a couple, you have to split.
Your example is good, but most people will not have bought a house 'cash' before they got married. Most likely, they may have bought the house and put a down payment on it, of say 10%. That means that while married, the mortgage payments were made from their job's salary. This results in 10% going back straight to the house's buyer, and 90% of the value of the house being split 50/50 upon divorce.
But as has been mentioned, none of this applies to two people who just happen to live together, whether they have kids or not.
Similar threads
