2,443
edits
Difference between revisions of "Dividing Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Dividing Property and Debt in Family Law Matters (view source)
Revision as of 00:11, 3 May 2013
, 00:11, 3 May 2013→Putting the plan into action
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Gayla Reid (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
'''Step Seven''' | '''Step Seven''' | ||
<blockquote>Now that you've got the numbers worked out, you have to think about whether an ''equal division'' of family property and family debt would be "significantly unfair" | <blockquote>Now that you've got the numbers worked out, you have to think about whether an ''equal division'' of family property and family debt would be "significantly unfair," bearing in mind the factors listed in s. 95(2). If it wouldn't be significantly unfair, then split the family property and family debt equally and go on with your life. If it would be significantly unfair, then you've got to figure out what a fair split looks like and I wish you the best of luck sorting this out in a speedy manner.</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>Finally, you have to think about whether there's a reason to share in some or all of the ''excluded property''. Excluded property can be divided if there's property outside of British Columbia that ought to be family property but can't easily be divided, or if it would be "significantly unfair" not to share excluded property, bearing in mind the factors listed in s. 96(b). If there's no reason to share excluded property, carry on. If it there is a reason to share that property, then you've got to figure out what a fair division looks like; good luck.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Finally, you have to think about whether there's a reason to share in some or all of the ''excluded property''. Excluded property can be divided if there's property outside of British Columbia that ought to be family property but can't easily be divided, or if it would be "significantly unfair" not to share excluded property, bearing in mind the factors listed in s. 96(b). If there's no reason to share excluded property, carry on. If it there is a reason to share that property, then you've got to figure out what a fair division looks like; good luck.</blockquote> | ||