If 2 people were living common law and during that common law…

The province is Alberta.

The spouse not on title was involved in searching for a house, paying monthly household bills as well as bills of the cohabiting spouse, who was on title.

The contributions that the spouse not on title made were monthly expenses towards the house and other bills.

It was the understanding that the house was initially purchased in the spouses name with the parents name as well on the title and that after the 5 year mortgage term, the house would be sold and both spouses would take the profit and purchase another home in both names. This was apparently not the case, and was only brought up this way to not create any animocity.

The 2 were common law from July 2006 until the one spouse was kicked out for May 1, 2009.

A contributed to household things like groceries, utility bills, taxes, and also paid a GREAT deal of B monthly bills, which there are statements to prove. The "living arrangement" for simplicity reasons was that B would pay for the mortgage as it came out of his account in one lump sum and A would pay for the groceries, cell phone bills, utility bills, A&B's car insurance, condo insurance and numerous credit card payments of credit cards ONLY in B's name. The reason for this was just so that money didnt have to be transferred here, there and everywhere.

The 2 spouses were together from March 2006 until April 2009 (just over 3 years) they practically lived together from day 1, but only made it "official" in July 2006. And I know that "practically" means nothing in law unfortunately :)

A has addressed this issue to a "legal advisor" right after the seperation but was told that because B parents were put on title of the home it made pursuing anything pretty much impossible because B's family could come back and say that the property was purchased as their own investment property.

A left the issue alone for some time, but has decided that they wanted to get a second opinion based on the fact that A helped pay off a portion of the home while cohabitating there, and also can be proven to have paid a majority of B's bills as well while cohabitating as common law partners. A just wants to be 110% sure that there is nothing they can do about being "tricked" into this situation initially by having good faith in a spouses family just to get "kicked out" with no financial help or aid.

A also had to take out $5000 loan immediately after in order to pay moving expenses, pay bills, find a place to live and survive on their own temporarily until things were figured out now on a single income.

Thank you for your help. I suspected that the last person I spoke to was just trying to pursuade me into forgetting about the whole thing because as they said "it would take up more of your time than what you would end up getting out of it" But to A, aka me

It assume it would have played out differently if the house was purchased under spouse B, and parent C and D and LATER on the conversation came up about putting A on the mortgage or other arrangement but initially that was never the conversation. If it was, A would have paid a FAIR rental amount that would be agreed upon by B (and C & D) and when the relationship ended, A would have had to treat it as an end of a "rental agreement" and moved on, but this is not the case.

A spent upwards of thousands of dollars contributing to the homes value, as well as to B debt so that A & B could have extra money, a future, etc.. Im know A would not have contributed to B's debt otherwise ... who would..

Yes, suggestions on an experienced lawyer in this department would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Again.