Personal loan in her name only - civil dispute

[Montresor]

Hello and thanks for reading.

I have recently ended a common-law relationship with a woman wherein we lived together for over four years. Near the end of the relationship, we purchased a condo together, however it is entirely in her name. Although we initially agreed to continue to pay the condo 50:50 even post break-up, she has decided to exclude me from the deal and retain sole ownership.

Before splitting, she acquired an unsecured bank loan to consolidate debts, particularly to balance debts between her and I (which had accumulated through the duration of the relationship). The basic idea was that we were each responsible for a portion of the loan. This loan also accounts for the down payment, which was borrowed, although it has been amended so that she bears the full burden of the down payment.

There is an MS Excel document which highlights all of the particulars of the agreement with two separate amortization tables and a monthly payment tracker. Currently there is a regular monthly payment transfer between my checking account to hers. However, there are no formal documents bearing my signature and the loan is entirely in her name.

I have recently left Alberta and she does not know where to find me.

My question: what risks to I face if I stop paying her and avoid all contact? Will she be able to sue me for the amount which I owe, according to the Excel document? I am the author of the document and she claims it is legally binding.

 

[army judge]

You need to consult with a Canadian solicitor or barrister to be 100% informed.
In the US, however, without your signature on the mortgage, or any legal contract, you'd owe her nothing.
She's wearing all the risk and the debt.
She could try and sue you, but you haven't agreed to pay her a dime, according to your account of these events.
So, enjoy your new freedom, and don't do stupid stuff like this again.
Get your OWN place, and don't allow others to reside with you.

 

[Montresor]

Thanks, to be clear, it's not the mortgage itself that she has aim to collect on, as the mortgage is independent of the personal loan in question.

We used the loan as a means to balance personal debts between her and I, in addition to the condo stuff.

Informally, yes, I owe her the money. As far as the morality of my actions go, there is bitterness et cetera which I will not get into which alleviates me of any moral wrongdoing. Specifically, I just want to know what happens if I just stop paying her. I have interpreted from your response that nothing will happen, most likely. That is of course, the answer I wanted.

 

[army judge]

Thanks, to be clear, it's not the mortgage itself that she has aim to collect on, as the mortgage is independent of the personal loan in question.

We used the loan as a means to balance personal debts between her and I, in addition to the condo stuff.

Informally, yes, I owe her the money. As far as the morality of my actions go, there is bitterness et cetera which I will not get into which alleviates me of any moral wrongdoing. Specifically, I just want to know what happens if I just stop paying her. I have interpreted from your response that nothing will happen, most likely. That is of course, the answer I wanted.

I don't see where she could do anything but sue you.
The outcome for her is that you'd end up being no worse for wear, if you don't default. You defend, she loses. I see no hope for her, buddy.

My answer is based on US law.
If you were in any of the US states or territories, you'd have little to fear.
She'd be out of soap, without water to form suds.
You are, however, a denizen of our neighbor to the north.
That's why I suggested you see a solicitor or barrister in your country to be 100% assured of your invincibility.
Based on my US based response, there is no such security.
My GUESS would be the result is the same in the great white north as it is for your crime ridden neighbor to the south!!!!

 

[disagreeable]

From what I am reading there is enough evidence there to prove you had a contract. Since she can document your payment history on schedule as acceptance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_contract_law

 

[Betty3]

For more information, you can always ask your question on a Canadian law forum or talk to a "lawyer" in your area.

 

[Montresor]

From what I am reading there is enough evidence there to prove you had a contract. Since she can document your payment history on schedule as acceptance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_contract_law

Hi, thanks for this information.

I have read this article, and my interpretation is that since the agreement is domestic in nature, it does not qualify as a contract.

a contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration.

An offer must be some indication of the offeror to the offeree that he is prepared to form a binding legal agreement. Intention is measured objectively. Commercial deals are presumed to be of a legal nature while an agreement made between family members or in a social engagement is presumed not to be of a legal nature.*

*reference to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571 is a leading English contract law case. It held that there is a rebuttable presumption against an intention to create a legally enforceable agreement when the agreement is domestic in nature.

So, what do you make of this? My understanding of "rebuttable presumption" is that the onus of proof is simply on her, meaning intention could still be proven based on the payment history, as you have said.

In addition (and I recognize that I have been advised to ask my question elsewhere), I briefly spoke with a friend who is a legal assistant and she told me that in order for court proceedings to initiate I will need to be served in person. Since she does not know where I live or how to find me, perhaps I am still in the clear regardless of whether it is objectively reprehensible...?

 

[army judge]

Hi, thanks for this information.

I have read this article, and my interpretation is that since the agreement is domestic in nature, it does not qualify as a contract.





*reference to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_v_Balfour



So, what do you make of this? My understanding of "rebuttable presumption" is that the onus of proof is simply on her, meaning intention could still be proven based on the payment history, as you have said.

In addition (and I recognize that I have been advised to ask my question elsewhere), I briefly spoke with a friend who is a legal assistant and she told me that in order for court proceedings to initiate I will need to be served in person. Since she does not know where I live or how to find me, perhaps I am still in the clear regardless of whether it is objectively reprehensible...?

You need to talk to a Canadian solicitor or barrister.

We aren't being snooty, but none of us know Canadian law.
I'm a US licensed lawyer, and also admitted to practice in Australia, but I know very little about Canadian law, except it is somewhat like US law.
Somewhat alike can be a duck, a swan, and a goose, all waterfowl, but all very different.