Back in June, Leona Lewis, the X-Factor winner and singer of “Bleeding
Love”, and her boyfriend of more than ten years split up because
her hectic work schedule had been interfering with their ability to spend
any quality time together. The two also lived together for an undisclosed
amount of time in a $900,000 London home.
The singer’s ex-boyfriend, Lou Al-Chamaa, is now requesting 1.5 million
pounds, which is roughly equivalent to $2.25 million dollars, as a settlement
for the role he played in her rise to stardom. He cites his encouragement
of Lewis to “fulfill her potential”, as well as the fact that
he filled out the X-Factor application for her, as proof of his entitlement
to the monetary settlement. Lewis has reportedly offered him their home
in London, however, he does not believe that it is enough as he believes
that he has the rights of a common-law husband.
How would this be dealt with if the two lived in Ontario?
Essentially there are two main issues that need to be dealt with in this
case. The first is whether the couple can be considered to be common law
partners. The second would be whether Lou could obtain the settlement
money that he is demanding.
Were Lou and Leona in a Common Law Relationship?
Lou has claimed that he believes he has the rights of a common-law husband.
However, this would have to be proven before his claim to the monetary
settlement would be dealt with.
With respect to common law relationships and support obligations, in Ontario
s. 29 of the
Family Law Act states that the definition of “spouse” (read: common law partner)
“includes either two persons who are not married to each other and
have cohabited,
- continuously for a period of not less than three years, or
- in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive
parents of a child.”
Since the couple did not have any children together, the second part of
the definition would not apply. In this situation the amount of time that
the couple cohabited has not been disclosed. If the two were not residing
together for at least three years, the fact that their relationship spanned
over 10 years would not change the fact that the two would not be considered
to be “spouses” and therefore, Lou would not be entitled to
any of the $2.25 million that he has claimed is rightfully his.
For the purposes of this blog, we will assume that the couple had, in fact,
cohabited for at least three years with their last place of residence
being the $900,000 home in London.
Would Lou obtain the $2.25 million which he has demanded?
Because we are assuming that Leona and Lou were common-law spouses, they
have an obligation to support one another in accordance with need and
to the extent of their ability to do so. In awarding
spousal support, which is really what Lou is seeking here, the Ontario courts will look to the
Family Law Act as well as relevant case law in order to make their final determination.
Whether a spouse is entitled to the support that they are seeking is an
important first step to overcome in any case. The courts will look at
factors such as whether there is need for the support or if the spouse
contributed to the partnership or marriage in some way and should be compensated
for that contribution. In this case, Lou is clearly arguing for a compensatory
form of spousal support in the form of one lump sum payment. He is essentially
claiming that if it weren’t for his contributions to the relationship
(i.e. his encouragement and filling out the X-Factor application) Leona
would not be where she is today in her music career.
Once entitlement to the support is determined, the court would focus on
the length support should be paid the amount payable by looking at:
- the means of payor;
- the need of the spouse receiving the support;
- the length of the marriage;
- the function performed by each spouse during the marriage.
Spousal support is a tricky area of the law as the courts have tended to
order (or not) support for strikingly different lengths and amounts. Therefore,
in this case, it’s difficult to say whether Lou would be awarded the
$2.25 million he is seeking. His actual contribution to Leona’s career
would likely be heavily scrutinized along with the fact that the two were
probably not cohabiting for any significant period of time. Had this case
been between a couple who had been together for a much longer amount of
time and the spouse was able to prove that he or she had made continuous
and significant contributions, by the way of sacrificing their own career
for example, then the court would be more likely to award the lump sum
support being sought.
Overall though, I suspect that if the court were to make a final determination
at all, as the parties will probably reach a settlement between themselves,
it would be for a lump sum payment of a drastically reduced dollar amount.
How would their home be dealt with?
Ontario’s
Family Law Act is split into 3 distinct parts and each part includes its own definition
section on when a couple will be considered to be “spouses.”
Part I deals with the Matrimonial Home and protects each spouse’s
rights to the home whether or not they have been placed on title. Couples
that are not legally married however, are not afforded the same rights.
Therefore, if Leona held title to their $900,000 home alone and had not
offered the home over to Lou as was reported, then in order to have access
to the home or its equity at all, Lou would be required to bring a claim
for either a Constructive or Resulting Trust.
Claims for Constructive and Resulting Trusts arose through case law as
a means for the courts to rectify situations that seemed to be unjust.
In a claim for a resulting trust, the individual who does not hold title
to the property attempts to prove that he or she paid or helped pay for
the property in question even though he or she had not been added to the
title. In this case, assuming that Lou was not on title, if he had assisted
with the payment for the home then he might think about bringing this
type of claim. If he was successful in proving his contribution, the court
could award Lou by making a determination that he has a beneficial interest
in the home and Leona be considered a Trustee for his beneficial interest.
Thus, Lou would be entitled to the home.
Lou might also bring a claim for a Constructive Trust as a way to share
in the value of the property instead of the physical property itself.
In order to obtain an order by the Court in this regard, Lou would have
to show that he had contributed to the value of the property through work
or money and that it would be unfair to allow Leona to obtain the home
without compensating him for the value of what he invested into it. The
Courts will look at the following factors to determine whether they would
award a Constructive Trust:
- There must have been an enrichment of one of the spouses (i.e. that the
non-title spouse worked on the land, put money into the house, did renovations,
etc. which ultimately benefitted the title-spouse; - The non-title spouse, through his or her contributions to the home suffered
some sort of deprivation (i.e. of money); - There is no legal or equitable reason for enriching the title-spouse.
If Lou were able to show the three aspects above, then he would have to
demonstrate that his contribution was sufficient and directly led to the
increased benefit to Leona. As you might imagine, even if Lou decided
that he would attempt to obtain the home or value in it through a claim
for Resulting or Constructive Trust, there is no certainty that he would
be granted this award, and failing this, unfortunately, he would have
no rights to the home that she shared with Leona or in any of her other assets.
Of course, if Lou and Leona were both on title to the home, he would have
rights to it upon their split and this would be much easier to resolve
with either Leona buying out Lou’s equity in the home or the home
being placed for sale with the proceeds being divided accordingly.