[Brenda]

The story said they had lived in the same house for 8 months. No marriage.

[Axeman]

Brenda wrote:

The story said they had lived in the same house for 8 months. No marriage.

Well, then it's his house. Her claim is going to be unsuccesful.

[SprCForr]

Common law comes into effect after 6 months IIRC. That might be one of the factors at play.

[Brenda]

Even if it was HIS house before that? Seems unfair to me...

[Yogi]

SprCForr wrote:

Common law comes into effect after 6 months IIRC. That might be one of the factors at play.

1.) What is the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act?

The Adult Interdependent Relationships Act was passed during the fall 2002 sitting of the provincial Legislature and becomes law on June 1, 2003.

This act amends several Alberta laws for people in unmarried relationships involving economic and emotional interdependency. These laws set out the financial and property benefits and responsibilities attached to these relationships.

The act covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of marriage, including committed platonic relationships where two people agree to share emotional and economic responsibilities.

2.) How do I know if I’m in an adult interdependent relationship?

There are two key elements that define an adult interdependent relationship.

First, an adult interdependent partner is a person who is involved with another person in an unmarried relationship of interdependence where they:

share one another’s lives
are emotionally committed to one another, and
function as an economic and domestic unit.
Second, to be considered adult interdependent partners, one of the following must apply to the relationship. The adult interdependent partners must be:

living in an interdependent relationship for a minimum of three years
living in an interdependent relationship of some permanence where there is a child by birth or adoption, or
living in or intend to live in an interdependent relationship and have entered into a written adult interdependent partner agreement.


More at: www.justice.gov.ab.ca/home/default.aspx?id=3550

[N_Fiddledog]

Freakinoldguy wrote:

N_Fiddledog wrote:

The first 9/10s of a modern news story is where they hype the story. The more pertinent information is usually in the last 2 paragraphs.

Quote:

The Crown told court the girlfriend has been paying bills and said she wants to remain in the home because she has two children and they go to a nearby elementary school.

Justice Stephen Hillier ruled the matter should go to civil court and adjourned the bail review to March 2.

Still...pretty crazy situation.

Given that warped logic, if I steal your car and fill it up with gas, when it needs it, I get to keep it.

I think it's more like if you're my border, and I try to kick you out, but you say not without my month's notice, so I try to physically manhandle you out, the cops are called, and you take out a restraining order against me. You see what I mean? Same thing, as the couple, only without the sex. That's the way the law saw it, I think.

I'm not saying it suddenly become right to keep a guy out of his house. I'm just saying the legal complexities become more evident when you look at it that way.

The boarder has the legal right to remain in the house where he rents. The restraining order keeps the guy at a certain physical distance from the boarder. I'm thinking maybe it's like that.

[Bibbi]

Why doesn't he charge her with trespassing?

[QBall]

travior wrote:

He messed up by asking her to move in under those circumstances. In SC, they would have been classified as common-law married after the first 24hrs of co-habitation as a couple. Even allowing girl-friend to receive mail at your address is enough grounds for her to claim common-law status.

Be careful what you ask for

In South carolina you're considered common-law after living together for 24 hours? Really? Your family court houses must be the size of stadiums to accomodate all the separations.

[Yogi]

Tue, March 3, 2009
Squatter out!
Judge rules woman must vacate ex-boyfriend's home
By TONY BLAIS, COURT BUREAU


An Edmonton man has won a court battle to regain possession of his own home after a judge ruled his ex-girlfriend - whom the man had told to get out - must leave.

And now, Todd Shandro is just hoping the woman doesn't trash the place in the two weeks she has before she has to go or try to leave with the $3,500 worth of purchases she racked up at Costco using a joint American Express card.

"I'm finally glad to be eventually going home," said Shandro, 36, yesterday, adding his happiness is tempered by the time and effort it took to get back his own property.

HARD LESSONS

"We don't have a justice system - it's a legal system," he said bitterly. "Life is certainly not fair and I have certainly learned a lot of lessons the hard way."

On Friday, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Donald Mandersheid ordered Cori-Anne Neuman, 29, and her two children to vacate Shandro's 11325 102 St. home within 15 days after ruling she was not a tenant and did not qualify under the law as a common-law spouse.

The judge also told Shandro that in the future he might want to consider the matter "more carefully" when choosing whether to allow someone to live in his home.

"I took it to heart," said Shandro yesterday.

While he waits for the March 14 deadline, Shandro is forbidden from going near the home and is worried Neuman will try to take things she bought on credit that he has since paid for, including a flat screen TV, a camcorder, a GPS unit, a microwave, an X-Box 360 and lots of games.

The problem began about eight months ago when Shandro invited Neuman to move into the home on a "trial" basis after dating her for more than a year.

In October Shandro realized he wanted to end the relationship with Neuman and asked her to leave, but, despite repeated requests, she refused to go.

On Dec. 5 he came home from work and found both Neuman and her mother there and asked them both to leave. When they refused, he went out to a pub.

He returned after having a couple of drinks and again asked them to go and the mother told him to go to the bedroom and lie down. He again left, but then quickly returned and demanded they leave immediately.

At that point, he allegedly tried to physically escort them out of the home. Police were called and Shandro was charged with two counts of assault.

After his arrest, a justice of the peace released Shandro on $500 bail and issued a no-contact order barring him from going within five blocks of his home.

The JP also told Shandro he could revisit the residence issue by bringing his ownership documents to court, but despite appearing before two judges, he was unsuccessful in having the bail condition amended.

Shandro said he was frustrated that the system allowed for someone who was "essentially a squatter" to prevail.

"I've always been the title holder to the house and she had no right whatsoever," he said.

[Brenda]

Good. Justice will be served. Let the bitch pay for all the damages she does.

[Yogi]

If he hasn't already, and I don't know why he wouldn't have' he can get a court=order limiting what she takes to only the stuff that she can prove sole ownership. She will be held liable for any damage to the house or any missing items.

[Akhenaten]

The lesson here is don't date bitches, especially those with bitchy mothers.