成熟的都坏，
天真幼稚的好
这样要求过分吗？
- 主题发起人 papa000
- 发布时间 2014-11-22
天真幼稚的好
最好全世界都天真幼稚，只有你一人成熟哈，这样你就可以为所欲为啦啦啦
我成熟的话， 大半夜的不睡觉瞎扯淡
你直接说为了房子你也付出了心血到更直接更可信.扯那些朋友关系便宜多少万,你觉得会有说服力吗?
同居如果没有同居协议写明了不分财产的话，同居三年共同居住的房子应该算事实婚姻的共同财产，可以提出来分割或者补偿的，具体的去问律师，这里找不到答案的。
我劝楼主， 还是算了吧， 伤心耗神，
回头大哥帮你介绍一个好的
体会你的心情，觉得委屈，抱抱。。。
前面大家已经说得很好很全了。我再来罗嗦两句，你要觉得不想听就当我没说，多年以后你再回首来看看可能会会心一笑。
人走茶凉，是让人心寒的。不过你是自己提出要走了，可能你没有想到茶会凉得这么快，可能你潜意识里希望他用双手捧着护着不要让它凉了，可事实是你给了他一个台阶下，他就势走了，头也不回了。
伤心是伤心，但不值得为这个人伤心，为这段情伤心，为人的薄情本性伤心吧。
看来你也不想索取太多，那几万块钱的事就不用太在意了，你若是提出来就提出来，拿不拿得到就随缘吧，用这几万块钱来看透这个人，免的日后还要惦记伤神。
就象有个网友说的，幸好你只是三年啊，不是十年！早看透这个人是你的福气。
无论如何，请你要活得快乐，活得精彩。
前面大家已经说得很好很全了。我再来罗嗦两句，你要觉得不想听就当我没说，多年以后你再回首来看看可能会会心一笑。
人走茶凉，是让人心寒的。不过你是自己提出要走了，可能你没有想到茶会凉得这么快，可能你潜意识里希望他用双手捧着护着不要让它凉了，可事实是你给了他一个台阶下，他就势走了，头也不回了。
伤心是伤心，但不值得为这个人伤心，为这段情伤心，为人的薄情本性伤心吧。
看来你也不想索取太多，那几万块钱的事就不用太在意了，你若是提出来就提出来，拿不拿得到就随缘吧，用这几万块钱来看透这个人，免的日后还要惦记伤神。
就象有个网友说的，幸好你只是三年啊，不是十年！早看透这个人是你的福气。
无论如何，请你要活得快乐，活得精彩。
直指人心，大赞！
我来贴点专业的：
Section 248 of the Income Tax Act defines a taxpayer’s “common-law partner” as follows:
“common-law partner”, …, means a person who cohabits at that time in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and
A common-law partner (including an adult interdependent partner or AIP) does not have rights under the Act. However, a common-law partner may instead be able to pursue alternate claims to property.
Even where common-law partners do not have a statutory right to a division of family property under the relevant provincial or territorial legislation, they may be entitled to seek other remedies, such as unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, resulting trust, and/or constructive trust.
However, keep in mind that where there is no statutory right to a division of family property, non-owning common-law partners could be more vulnerable in the event of relationship breakdown, and the legal costs to pursue alternate claims to property could be higher. Clients who are in common-law relationships should be strongly encouraged to speak to a family lawyer in order to understand their rights and obligations, and if recommended, to enter into a cohabitation agreement to clarify their understanding.
Unjust enrichment
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which requires 3 conditions to be satisfied:
Quantum meruit
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of "quantum meruit", which basically is a claim for "services", which could be in the form of household labour.
Resulting trust
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of resulting trust if he or she had transferred property under circumstances that implied that the recipient was not to hold a beneficial interest in the property (e.g. where the recipient did not offer consideration and a gift was not intended by the transferor).
Constructive trust
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of constructive trusts. For example, if an individual made mortgage payments or other contributions to property which is held in the name of his or her common-law partner, the individual could argue that the funds are being held in a constructive trust, and thereby attempt to recover the funds.
Constructive trust, joint ventures and unjust enrichment
A 2011 Supreme Court decision, Kerr v Baranow
, added another component to constructive trust claims made by common-law spouses. In the case of common-law couples engaged in “joint ventures”, such as a family business, a court may award a significant amount if one member of the couple appeared to use the joint venture to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of their partner.
Factors considered in evaluating this sort of unjust enrichment claim in the context of a joint venture include but are not necessarily limited to:
Section 248 of the Income Tax Act defines a taxpayer’s “common-law partner” as follows:
“common-law partner”, …, means a person who cohabits at that time in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer and
- has so cohabited throughout the 12-month period that ends at that time, or
- would be the parent of a child of whom the taxpayer is a parent, if this Act were read without reference to paragraphs 252(1)(c) and (e) of subparagraph 252(2)(a)(iii)
- and, for the purposes of this definition, where at any time the taxpayer and the person cohabit in a conjugal relationship, they are, at any particular time after that time, deemed to be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship unless they were living separate and apart at the particular time for a period of at least 90 days that includes the particular time because of a breakdown of their conjugal relationship.
A common-law partner (including an adult interdependent partner or AIP) does not have rights under the Act. However, a common-law partner may instead be able to pursue alternate claims to property.
Even where common-law partners do not have a statutory right to a division of family property under the relevant provincial or territorial legislation, they may be entitled to seek other remedies, such as unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, resulting trust, and/or constructive trust.
However, keep in mind that where there is no statutory right to a division of family property, non-owning common-law partners could be more vulnerable in the event of relationship breakdown, and the legal costs to pursue alternate claims to property could be higher. Clients who are in common-law relationships should be strongly encouraged to speak to a family lawyer in order to understand their rights and obligations, and if recommended, to enter into a cohabitation agreement to clarify their understanding.
Unjust enrichment
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which requires 3 conditions to be satisfied:
- There must be a benefit or enrichment of one party;
- There must be a corresponding deprivation of the other party; and
- There must be an absence of legal justification for the enrichment, such as a contract or gift.
Quantum meruit
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of "quantum meruit", which basically is a claim for "services", which could be in the form of household labour.
Resulting trust
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of resulting trust if he or she had transferred property under circumstances that implied that the recipient was not to hold a beneficial interest in the property (e.g. where the recipient did not offer consideration and a gift was not intended by the transferor).
Constructive trust
A common-law partner may be able to make a claim under the doctrine of constructive trusts. For example, if an individual made mortgage payments or other contributions to property which is held in the name of his or her common-law partner, the individual could argue that the funds are being held in a constructive trust, and thereby attempt to recover the funds.
Constructive trust, joint ventures and unjust enrichment
A 2011 Supreme Court decision, Kerr v Baranow
, added another component to constructive trust claims made by common-law spouses. In the case of common-law couples engaged in “joint ventures”, such as a family business, a court may award a significant amount if one member of the couple appeared to use the joint venture to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of their partner.Factors considered in evaluating this sort of unjust enrichment claim in the context of a joint venture include but are not necessarily limited to:
- Whether the couple made mutual efforts;
- Worked collaboratively towards common goals;
- The extent of the integration of their financial affairs;
- Their actual intentions to share (or not to share); and
- The priority they gave to the family in making their decisions.
觉得不甘心是很正常的。其实补偿并不能真正填补什么。愿赌服输吧，放了他就是解放了自己。感情里每个人都有付出，经济账是无法算清的。（就是你拿到钱也不会比现在开心。你付出的是能用钱结清的吗？）很多人也没有孩子不是照样在一起吗？你们不是有没有孩子的问题而是缺了感情。因为就算没有孩子也可以领养，生命一样完整，爱情一样灿烂。分开很痛，尤其是没有下家的一方，不过忍一时之痛，海阔天空。爱的时候认真的爱了，就够了，无怨无悔。还有啊，下次谈恋爱千万别没结婚就上床，女人这么做很吃亏。千万千万不要同居，走到哪一段做哪一段的事情，感情经不起透支的。
谢谢 “清风拂面”
说中我的哭点了。谢谢这么精准地点破。就是这么一回事。
在分手以后和他回来之前，其实我都过得好好的，很开心，也没想过再索取什么。
直到他回来那天这么一说我才受了刺激，就不停地在钻牛角尖，再加上想想自己的朋友们个个都圆圆满满，房子车子孩子都齐全，而自己真诚付出却得到这样的下场。然后人就彻底崩溃了，就开始算帐找平衡。今天整天埋头工作，心情调整得差不多了。
谢谢NEWLIFESTARTNOW的知识普及，虽然用不着。你的ID不看你注册日期，以为是为我改的。
蟹飞飞，他的好朋友也说我选错人了，我和他是两个方向的人。他太实际，我刚好相反。我们的发展当中发生了特殊情况，所以才同的居，具体是什么很抱歉不能说，说多了身份就会被爆光的。
再一次谢谢各位，陪了我几天，算是走出来了。
人真不能太闲，忙了就没心思和时间胡思乱想了。
1:40am，不能熬夜得睡觉去了，把这几天的憔悴都补回来。争取下去再去买649还被查ID。
说中我的哭点了。谢谢这么精准地点破。就是这么一回事。
在分手以后和他回来之前，其实我都过得好好的，很开心，也没想过再索取什么。
直到他回来那天这么一说我才受了刺激，就不停地在钻牛角尖，再加上想想自己的朋友们个个都圆圆满满，房子车子孩子都齐全，而自己真诚付出却得到这样的下场。然后人就彻底崩溃了，就开始算帐找平衡。今天整天埋头工作，心情调整得差不多了。
谢谢NEWLIFESTARTNOW的知识普及，虽然用不着。你的ID不看你注册日期，以为是为我改的。
蟹飞飞，他的好朋友也说我选错人了，我和他是两个方向的人。他太实际，我刚好相反。我们的发展当中发生了特殊情况，所以才同的居，具体是什么很抱歉不能说，说多了身份就会被爆光的。
再一次谢谢各位，陪了我几天，算是走出来了。
人真不能太闲，忙了就没心思和时间胡思乱想了。
1:40am，不能熬夜得睡觉去了，把这几天的憔悴都补回来。争取下去再去买649还被查ID。
楼主天蝎女？
楼主往前走，早脱身可以早开心。
你真该庆幸没有被这么自私的人拖老了。
你真该庆幸没有被这么自私的人拖老了。
委屈肯定会有，抱抱！
但楼主我要劝你一句，想开点儿，不就是钱吗？好歹他还算是有良心给了你一万五，我还知道有人让老婆净身出户的呢！你们在一起也有几年了，相信这几年在一起的时光你们还是有一些美好记忆的，既然走到了分手，好聚好散，别让自己这几年的付出成为心里的一道伤疤。我知道做为旁观者说这些话你可能会觉得轻飘飘，但能怎么样呢？你心里委屈不平衡日子还不得一天天过，何不让自己放手，翻过这一页，活自己，为自己活，总有适合你的男人会发现你的好。
但楼主我要劝你一句，想开点儿，不就是钱吗？好歹他还算是有良心给了你一万五，我还知道有人让老婆净身出户的呢！你们在一起也有几年了，相信这几年在一起的时光你们还是有一些美好记忆的，既然走到了分手，好聚好散，别让自己这几年的付出成为心里的一道伤疤。我知道做为旁观者说这些话你可能会觉得轻飘飘，但能怎么样呢？你心里委屈不平衡日子还不得一天天过，何不让自己放手，翻过这一页，活自己，为自己活，总有适合你的男人会发现你的好。
是个聪明的女子，赞一个！
我昨天还有句话没说，因为当时说了话的份量就不足了，现在可以说了，大家共勉：
一定要快乐，一定要精彩：刚开始装也要装出来，装着装着就是真的了
我昨天还有句话没说，因为当时说了话的份量就不足了，现在可以说了，大家共勉：
一定要快乐，一定要精彩：刚开始装也要装出来，装着装着就是真的了
各省法律不一样。大部分省，同居伴侣与夫妻关系的最大区别主要在共同财产的认定及财产的继承权上。其他权利相同或相似，比如无论婚内婚外子女赡养属于强制，同居一到三年（有无共同子女以及各省法律不同）分手后弱势方可以要求一定期限的抚养费。大部分省规定同居伴侣分手是没有权利分割房产的，但是共同生活期间的贡献，有足够证据的话，可以要求补偿。
对低收入者各省都有法律援助机构，楼主明天打个安省法律援助热线咨询一下：
1-800-668-8258 toll-free (or 416-979-1446 in Toronto) to get legal aid help in over 200 languages
Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m
楼主是个明智又善良的女人，应该会有很好的未来。你要的数目跟你通过法律手段可能得到的基本一致。不过即使通过法律援助免除了律师费，走法律程序劳心费神耗时间，退一步海阔天空还是坚持要个说法之间如何取舍？我觉得楼上好些建议都很明智，相信楼主充分权衡后会做出对自己最有利的选择。祝福你！
对低收入者各省都有法律援助机构，楼主明天打个安省法律援助热线咨询一下：
1-800-668-8258 toll-free (or 416-979-1446 in Toronto) to get legal aid help in over 200 languages
Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m
楼主是个明智又善良的女人，应该会有很好的未来。你要的数目跟你通过法律手段可能得到的基本一致。不过即使通过法律援助免除了律师费，走法律程序劳心费神耗时间，退一步海阔天空还是坚持要个说法之间如何取舍？我觉得楼上好些建议都很明智，相信楼主充分权衡后会做出对自己最有利的选择。祝福你！
每个男的都像你这么热心， 就不会有那么多单身女了， 问题是有的人根本就不懂得谈恋爱了， 人到了一定年纪如果没有结婚， 就觉得要找个合心意的有感觉的已经太难太难了， 还是包办婚姻好， 不用费事找人结婚
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
Similar threads
2024-09-28有新赞
全楼:0.04
xchn818
