# Buying a condo under my spouse's name and CF benefits



## MasterInstructor (19 Feb 2012)

We moved with a BOR administered move last year, sold our apartment that was under my name. Now we are looking to buy and I am aware of all the befits such as land transfer tax, CMHC fee etc. 

Question is, this time we want the apartment to be only on her name. Will CF still reimburse costs? She is my legal spouse and listed as such in my MPRR.

Thanks


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2012)

The CF might not care. The Treasury Board, which actually sets the financial regulations, might want the property to be at least jointly owned. As an aside, as much as you love and trust her, get joint ownership. I've seen too many CF relationships break down and get messy where single ownership is in play.


----------



## Scott (19 Feb 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The CF might not care. The Treasury Board, which actually sets the financial regulations, might want the property to be at least jointly owned. As an aside, as much as you love and trust her, get joint ownership. I've seen too many CF relationships break down and get messy where single ownership is in play.



 :nod:

Ain't worth it, IMO....


----------



## MasterInstructor (19 Feb 2012)

I was hoping this would not turn into an argument about ownership... We have many personal reasons for wanting that way and I would not even try to get any of it in the event of an separation. I have a lot more equity soley under my name than her and have contracts that limit her access in case of separation... Don't worry, I know what I am doing and I have seen a lot of examples my self...

Point of the question benefits that cf provide when moving in regards to property purchase and sale.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2012)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> Point of the question benefits that cf provide when moving in regards to property purchase and sale.



Are you posted this APS ?


----------



## MasterInstructor (19 Feb 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Are you posted this APS ?



No. I moved last fall. Sold my apartment. I have until sep 2012 to buy a place to get expenses covered. It was a BOR move not brokefield.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2012)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> It was a BOR move not brokefield.



Yeah i got that part in your first post. It's in the first sentence.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2012)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I know what I am doing...



Famous last words.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Feb 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Famous last words.



Yup

 :trainwreck:


----------



## Pusser (19 Feb 2012)

As a general rule, the answer to your question is no.  You have to be an owner of the property in order to be reimbursed for the costs associated with purchasing it.


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2012)

MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> I was hoping this would not turn into an argument about ownership... We have many personal reasons for wanting that way and I would not even try to get any of it in the event of an separation. I have a lot more equity soley under my name than her and have contracts that limit her access in case of separation... Don't worry, I know what I am doing and I have seen a lot of examples my self...
> 
> Point of the question benefits that cf provide when moving in regards to property purchase and sale.



You obviously don't know what you're doing. The second you and your spouse spend one night in the place, it becomes a matrimonial home (unless it's in Quebec, I'm not sure how it works there), and each spouse is legally entitled to half the equity. Regardless of what any contracts say. Period.


----------



## mariomike (19 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The second you and your spouse spend one night in the place, it becomes a matrimonial home (unless it's in Quebec, I'm not sure how it works there), and each spouse is legally entitled to half the equity. Regardless of what any contracts say. Period.



Best to ask a lawyer.
But, this may be of interest:

The Matrimonial Home
While the husband has a right to live in the matrimonial home after separtion, wives often use false allegations of abuse to get restraining orders effectively evicting the man from his own home. Beware.
The matrimonial home is treated differently from other property in two ways.

Regardless of who supplied the funds to buy and run the home, your wife gets a half interest in it even if she did not contribute a penny

You get no credit for the home when you separate even if you owned it on the date of marriage.

If you heve been married for less than 5 years, you can ask for an unequal division of net family properties.
http://www.canlaw.com/divorce/propertydivorce.htm


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2012)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If you heve been married for less than 5 years, you can ask for an unequal division of net family properties.
> http://www.canlaw.com/divorce/propertydivorce.htm



You can ask for it at any time if you can make a good case for it, but it's rare in marriages longer than five years. If there are children involved, it's rare even for "short" marriages of less than five years.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2012)

Hey, i just remembered something important......

The OP's orderly room opens up in the morning.


----------



## ballz (19 Feb 2012)

My understanding of prenuptial agreements is that matrimonial home provisions *can* be included... I assumed when MasterInstructor said



			
				MasterInstructor said:
			
		

> have contracts that limit her access in case of separation...



that he was talking about a prenuptial.

In any case, he said he doesn't want to go after half of this property in the event of a divorce (I would think twice of that of course, circumstances change...), so I'm not sure why everyone is warning him that she can take half his stuff... sounds like he would hand over his half...


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> My understanding of prenuptial agreements is that matrimonial home provisions *can* be included... I assumed when MasterInstructor said
> 
> that he was talking about a prenuptial.
> 
> In any case, he said he doesn't want to go after half of this property in the event of a divorce (I would think twice of that of course, circumstances change...), so I'm not sure why everyone is warning him that she can take half his stuff... sounds like he would hand over his half...



I'm not a lawyer, but learning about this stuff is a pretty important part of what I do (financial planning). Generally, courts will not enforce such provisions of prenups, as I understand it.


----------



## ballz (19 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer, but learning about this stuff is a pretty important part of what I do (financial planning). Generally, courts will not enforce such provisions of prenups, as I understand it.



Well most of the things I've read pretty much indicates that if a judge believes any part is "unconscionable" then (s)he does not have to enforce it (one of the reasons why it's important both parties have separate, non-conflicting legal counsel before the prenuptial), so perhaps in practice that is one of the things that generally gets picked out as unfair.

I'd love to hear from a lawyer how it really ends up playing out in practice, unfortunately not enough to pay $150/hr to listen though ;D. I've been reading a lot on it the last little bit but there is always that difference between the written law and how it actually plays out in real scenarios.


----------



## Redeye (19 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well most of the things I've read pretty much indicates that if a judge believes any part is "unconscionable" then (s)he does not have to enforce it (one of the reasons why it's important both parties have separate, non-conflicting legal counsel before the prenuptial), so perhaps in practice that is one of the things that generally gets picked out as unfair.
> 
> I'd love to hear from a lawyer how it really ends up playing out in practice, unfortunately not enough to pay $150/hr to listen though ;D. I've been reading a lot on it the last little bit but there is always that difference between the written law and how it actually plays out in real scenarios.



I know of one specific case where indeed that clause of a prenup was dismissed in court.


----------

