Question 3 In October 2015, Ms. Reiter was 29 years old. Hollub was 53. The parties met in the spring of 2006. The parties earned a similar salary…

Question 3

In October 2015, Ms. Reiter was 29 years old. Mr. Hollub was 53. The parties met in the spring of 2006. The parties earned a similar salary throughout the period of cohabitation. Before the parties started living together (cohabiting), Mr. Hollub used $150,000 from the proceeds of sale of another house he owned to purchase another property. The balance came from a first mortgage on the property. Mr. Hollub took possession on July 31, 2006. The parties lived together in the property in a conjugal relationship from September 1, 2008 to November 29, 2014.

Prior to moving in with Mr. Hollub, Ms. Reiter was paying more than $400 per month in rent. While the parties lived together, Ms. Reiter gave Mr. Hollub $400 monthly. Mr. Hollub had a monthly mortgage payment of $1,000. In 2013, Ms. Reiter gave Mr. Hollub $5,000 towards the mortgage. On September 1, 2008, the value of the property was $420,000 and the amount outstanding on the mortgage was $156,000. On November 1, 2014, the amount outstanding on the mortgage was $29,000. The increase in equity from September 1, 2008 to November 1, 2014 was $410,000. During the period of cohabitation, Ms. Reiter saved approximately $105,000, exclusive of her pension. In addition to the increase in equity of $410,000, Mr. Hollub saved approximately $112,000, excluding his pension. Ms. Reiter did not sacrifice her career in any way as a result of her relationship with Mr. Hollub. Ms. Reiter purchased the maximum amount of RRSPs each year during the relationship.

At the time she filed her case in court, Ms. Reiter was paying more than double the $400 per month for her current rental residence. In the court she argued that she had contributed to the $410,000 increase in the net value of the home over the course of the relationship. She relied on contributions she made to common living expenses and to the maintenance and repair of the residence.  She also relied on the fact that she had given Mr. Hollub a one-time payment of $5,000 toward the mortgage.

Discuss and apply the correct principles of law regarding how disputes as to matrimonial and cohabitational property outside of a statutory scheme are resolved. In your conclusion determine whether the arguments of Ms. Reiter are sustainable based on the principles of the law.