Our joint tenancy family home dispute lawyers deal with cases under the Family Law Act on whether joint tenancy alters the character of excluded property for married couples or those in a marriage like relationship. But what happens when parties don’t marry or live in a marriage like relationship and break up and then get embroiled in joint tenancy family home dispute? Call us at 1-877-602-9900 to get guidance in this big money high stakes disputes.
What Happens When Parties Pool Resources To Buy House in Joint Tenancy?
MacLean Law’s top rated joint tenancy family home dispute lawyers just reviewed a recent case on this more unusual situation. Given more parties in Vancouver’s exploding real estate market may pool monies to buy property we think joint tenancy family home dispute cases will become far more common. It may involve a parent and a child, it may involve two strangers, it may involve two lovers. Our Vancouver joint tenancy family home dispute lawyers will be pleased to meet with you before you buy a house in joint tenancy to ensure your rights are protected. Consider an agreement that sets pout a formula for ownership of the property based on contribution to avoid a joint tenancy family home dispute.
Joint Tenancy Family Home Dispute
A recent case decided how debt and unequal down-payments should affect the division of a house in joint tenancy and set out the rules to guide unwary co-purchasers.
[1] In 2006, the parties were engaged to be married. On May 28, 2008, together they purchased a home, which they intended to be their matrimonial home. It contained three bedrooms and three bathrooms, and was located in New Westminster, B.C. (the “home”). For reasons which do not require review, the planned marriage did not occur.
[2] The issue now before the Court is: what is the proper means to divide the proceeds of sale of the home, now that the parties have agreed to sell the home?
The Law Regarding Repartition and Sale
[16] There is a presumption that, where property is held in joint tenancy, the proceeds from the sale of the property should be divided equally. The presumption is subject to the principles of unjust enrichment: see Aleksich v. Konradson, [1995] 6 W.W.R. 286 at para. 27 (B.C.C.A.).
[17] In argument, the respondent focused on the issues of ouster and occupation rent being claimed by the petitioner. I do not agree that this is a proper characterization of the claims that were being advanced. Rather, simply put, the petitioner had advanced more funds at the time of the purchase of the property and wanted those funds returned.
[18] In keeping with Aleksich, the home was purchased with additional funds from the petitioner that she had borrowed; that benefit flowed to the respondent at the time of the purchase and has continued to flow to him thereafter. The parties are not married. There is no reason that the respondent should retain that benefit to the detriment of the petitioner.
[19] A further example of this treatment of parties who jointly invested in property is the case of Brewer v. Hanoski, 2015 BCSC 2186. There, the court found that dividing the proceeds from the sale of property prior to paying the unequal acquisition debt would be unjust. That case is not distinguishable on its conclusion from the case at bar.
[20] Therefore, this Court orders that upon the sale of the property, each of the parties will receive their initial investment so that from the proceeds of sale the petitioner will receive $131,722.86 and the respondent will receive $21,000. Thereafter, the balance of the proceeds of sale shall be divided equally between the parties.
