7,388
edits
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(b) prohibit a party from terminating specified utilities for a residence;</tt></blockquote></blockquote> | <blockquote><blockquote><tt>(b) prohibit a party from terminating specified utilities for a residence;</tt></blockquote></blockquote> | ||
Most of the time, people don't stop paying the mortgage or cut off the electricity to the former family home when they move out. However, it can be very tempting to do this when emotions are running high, when there's not enough money to pay rent at the new place plus rent for the old place, or when the BC Hydro <span class="noglossary">account</span> at the former family home is in the name of the person who needs to arrange for the electricity to be hooked up at | Most of the time, people don't stop paying the mortgage or cut off the electricity to the former family home when they move out. However, it can be very tempting to do this when emotions are running high, when there's not enough money to pay rent at the new place plus rent for the old place, or when the BC Hydro <span class="noglossary">account</span> at the former family home is in the name of the person who needs to arrange for the electricity to be hooked up at their new place. The court is not likely to make orders under s. 226 when there's not enough money to pay for everything, but it will step in where someone is acting out of spite or malice. | ||
==Financial restraining orders== | ==Financial restraining orders== | ||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
A couple of important points about this section deserve mention: | A couple of important points about this section deserve mention: | ||
*The order ''must'' be granted on a party's application, unless the other party can show that there are enough assets that the applicant's claim to the property won't be frustrated if | *The order ''must'' be granted on a party's application, unless the other party can show that there are enough assets that the applicant's claim to the property won't be frustrated if they happen to sell some of the assets. | ||
*The order can be made without the other party being given notice of the application. | *The order can be made without the other party being given notice of the application. | ||
*The order includes not just family property but all "property at issue," which might include excluded property. | *The order includes not just family property but all "property at issue," which might include excluded property. | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
#you have a reasonable claim against assets owned by your spouse, | #you have a reasonable claim against assets owned by your spouse, | ||
#your spouse has disposed of or encumbered | #your spouse has disposed of or encumbered their assets or is likely do so, and | ||
#the inconvenience that will be suffered by your spouse as a result of the injunction is less severe than the inconvenience you will suffer if the injunction isn't granted. | #the inconvenience that will be suffered by your spouse as a result of the injunction is less severe than the inconvenience you will suffer if the injunction isn't granted. | ||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
#you have a reasonable claim against assets owned by your spouse, | #you have a reasonable claim against assets owned by your spouse, | ||
#your spouse has disposed of or encumbered | #your spouse has disposed of or encumbered their assets or is likely do so, and | ||
#the inconvenience that will be suffered by your spouse as a result of the injunction is less severe than the inconvenience you will suffer if the injunction isn't granted. | #the inconvenience that will be suffered by your spouse as a result of the injunction is less severe than the inconvenience you will suffer if the injunction isn't granted. | ||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
#obtain a financial restraining order under one or more of s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act'', s. 39 of the ''Law and Equity Act'' or Rule 12-4 of the Supreme Court Family Rules. | #obtain a financial restraining order under one or more of s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act'', s. 39 of the ''Law and Equity Act'' or Rule 12-4 of the Supreme Court Family Rules. | ||
The problem here is that property that is owned only by your spouse, or by both of you as joint tenants, may be vulnerable to your spouse's creditors and in the event of | The problem here is that property that is owned only by your spouse, or by both of you as joint tenants, may be vulnerable to your spouse's creditors and in the event of their bankruptcy. Say, for example, your spouse has put up their car as collateral for a loan. You would normally be entitled to one-half the car's value as a family property, assuming the car was bought during your relationship. If your spouse defaults on the loan, the car can be seized and you could find, especially where there are few other assets, that you get no compensation for your interest in the car's value once the lender's default fees and legal fees are added on. | ||
Your spouse's creditors or trustee in bankruptcy will not usually be able to seize assets held only in your name, or your interest in property as a tenant in common, unless you are responsible for your spouse's debts for some reason, like having co-signed or guaranteed a loan, or having used a secondary credit card on your spouse's <span class="noglossary">account</span>. Although, under the ''Family Law Act'' both spouses are responsible for the debts incurred during their relationship, this obligation is only between spouses and doesn't give any extra rights to creditors. | Your spouse's creditors or trustee in bankruptcy will not usually be able to seize assets held only in your name, or your interest in property as a tenant in common, unless you are responsible for your spouse's debts for some reason, like having co-signed or guaranteed a loan, or having used a secondary credit card on your spouse's <span class="noglossary">account</span>. Although, under the ''Family Law Act'' both spouses are responsible for the debts incurred during their relationship, this obligation is only between spouses and doesn't give any extra rights to creditors. | ||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
===Third-party claims=== | ===Third-party claims=== | ||
Your spouse might be liable for damages or debt to someone in a court proceeding unrelated to your relationship. Your spouse may also have made a deal with someone outside the family that concerns the family property. These people may have a legitimate claim against the family property. The problem is that even though their claim or entitlement may be restricted to property owned by your spouse in | Your spouse might be liable for damages or debt to someone in a court proceeding unrelated to your relationship. Your spouse may also have made a deal with someone outside the family that concerns the family property. These people may have a legitimate claim against the family property. The problem is that even though their claim or entitlement may be restricted to property owned by your spouse in their name alone, your interest in that property may be lost if a third party gets there first. | ||
As we've discussed, both spouses have a presumptive interest in the family property, including property owned only by the other spouse, as long as it qualifies as family property. A third-party claim or entitlement can result in the loss of an asset or in the loss of the value of the property. By the time the family property is divided, without separation or a restraining order, the assets might very well be in the hands of someone else and no longer be available for division. | As we've discussed, both spouses have a presumptive interest in the family property, including property owned only by the other spouse, as long as it qualifies as family property. A third-party claim or entitlement can result in the loss of an asset or in the loss of the value of the property. By the time the family property is divided, without separation or a restraining order, the assets might very well be in the hands of someone else and no longer be available for division. | ||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
===Bankruptcy=== | ===Bankruptcy=== | ||
When someone declares bankruptcy, the ownership of | When someone declares bankruptcy, the ownership of their property is transferred to a trustee in bankruptcy. The trustee's job is to tally up the list of the bankrupt's debts and then sell as much of the bankrupt's property as is necessary to satisfy their creditors. This may include almost all property registered in the bankrupt's name, but will exclude a few specific assets like pensions, clothing, and work tools. | ||
If an asset is family property, the transfer of the asset to the trustee may deprive the other spouse of any interest | If an asset is family property, the transfer of the asset to the trustee may deprive the other spouse of any interest they might have in that asset and, since the owning spouse is bankrupt, they may not have any other financial resources from which to compensate the non-bankrupt spouse for the lost interest. | ||
A trustee in bankruptcy cannot take property that doesn't belong to the bankrupt. If the spouses separate before the bankruptcy, only the bankrupt's one-half interest in the family as a tenant in common will go to the trustee. | A trustee in bankruptcy cannot take property that doesn't belong to the bankrupt. If the spouses separate before the bankruptcy, only the bankrupt's one-half interest in the family as a tenant in common will go to the trustee. | ||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
*The Supreme Court of British Columbia can make an order requiring a person to do or not do something when that person accepts the authority of the court, even where that person lives outside the province. | *The Supreme Court of British Columbia can make an order requiring a person to do or not do something when that person accepts the authority of the court, even where that person lives outside the province. | ||
*A person is considered to have accepted the authority of the court by responding to a court proceeding. Once an out-of-province respondent files a Response to Family Claim in reply to the claimant's Notice of Family Claim, | *A person is considered to have accepted the authority of the court by responding to a court proceeding. Once an out-of-province respondent files a Response to Family Claim in reply to the claimant's Notice of Family Claim, they has accepted the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the litigation. This is called ''attorning to the jurisdiction''. | ||
*When someone attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of British Columbia, they submit to the court's authority. The court still may not have the authority to make orders about things located outside the province, but it does have the authority to make orders about the person located outside the province. This is called "''in personam'' jurisdiction." | *When someone attorns to the jurisdiction of the courts of British Columbia, they submit to the court's authority. The court still may not have the authority to make orders about things located outside the province, but it does have the authority to make orders about the person located outside the province. This is called "''in personam'' jurisdiction." | ||
*A court with ''in personam'' jurisdiction over a person can make orders requiring the person to do or not do things involving certain kinds of things located outside the province, such as assets like bank accounts, stocks, investment accounts, and similar assets that aren't real estate. These assets are called ''movable assets''. | *A court with ''in personam'' jurisdiction over a person can make orders requiring the person to do or not do things involving certain kinds of things located outside the province, such as assets like bank accounts, stocks, investment accounts, and similar assets that aren't real estate. These assets are called ''movable assets''. |