Wendz wrote:For Sport wrote:quicksand wrote:If you fully owned the house you and your wife now live in before you got married, and she made no contribution to its payment, is there a legal recourse in law that protects you from being kicked to the kerb in case you divorce?
The thought of going from one who owns a home to a homeless guy makes one shudder. Most people can only afford one house a life time!!!!!!
The Constitution provides that parties to marriage are entitled to equal rights at the time of the marriage, during the marriage and at the dissolution of the marriage.
This does not mean that the parties are entitled to 50% or any percentage just by virtue of their marriage. It could mean that they have an equal right to acquire and deal with property. There were days (long gone I think) when a woman had to get her husband’s consent in order to transact in property matters. It may not have been in the law but banks would require a husband to “o.k” the transaction, even when he was not paying or making contributions towards the mortgage. In many cases, the property would have to be registered in joint names.
The constitutional provision simply tells us that this should no longer be the case. Both husband and wife have equal rights to acquire property. Independently. Each party must show their contribution towards the acquisition of that property.
However, you will only know the real position after someone’s wife goes to court to ask for an “equal” share of a house and the shirt. So let’s wait for the courts – they’ve been producing very whacky opinions on cases touching on the new constitution.
For property acquired during marriage, the entitlement is 50/50 even if one party does not have a receipt of the money they paid for it.... eg, the wife can say she was paying school fees for the kids while you paid for the land/house/whatever property and is also entitled.... or she washed your shirts when you went to sign the contracts... However, for property acquired before marriage, it remains the property of the person who acquired it and the other party will not be entitled to a share of it.(
if i understood one lawyer's explanation on one of the radio stations).
Question is, assuming what i understood is correct, what happens when the man acquires the land and the wife helps in building the house and they divorce? Will the worth of the house be calculated less the value of land? Apologies to digress but i think its an important question.
Here’s a more accurate rendition of the law as it stands:
http://www.businessdaily.../-/thmdc3z/-/index.html
Like I said earlier, I doubt that the constitution changes anything. Note the comments one of the one of the last cases that was decided on this issue (Echaria): upshot – it should be a DIRECT financial contribution. Not rearing babies. Not washing shirts. Not cooking. Not cleaning. You can see a summary of how the court would likely deal with those types of arguments (non-financial contributions) here:
http://www.law.utoronto....Echaria_v_Priscilla.pdf
Again, we’ll know for sure when another case goes to court OR if Parliament gets off its butt and makes clear rules about the position. Meanwhile, if you have serious concerns, see a lawyer.
@ Wendz & Jus blazin: in law, land is defined to include the developments on the land - the building is land :). Assuming the wife/husband contributed, the developments are valued before the court decides how to apportion. Hakuna story ya this is the plot and thisis the building. Reminds me of that Abunwasi story where he told a neighbour who was living upstairs "hold your part of this building, I'm moving away with my ownstairs home."