Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
From staging 2024
(From staging 2024)
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = assets}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge
{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC|expanded = assets}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge
|CoAuthor = [[Trudy Hopman]]
|ChapterEditors = [[Helen Chiu]] and [[Matthew Ostrow]]
|ChapterEditors = [[Helen Chiu]] and [[Matthew Ostrow]]
}}{{LSSbadge
}}{{LSSbadge
Line 22: Line 23:
Once you've decided that your relationship can't continue, and you're sure that it can't continue, you need to separate. This doesn't mean that you and your spouse need to move into separate homes, but you need to announce your <span class="noglossary">decision</span> and you should probably do it in writing so that you have a record of the date of separation.  If you continue to live in the same home after you have separated, you must ensure that you live separate lives (i.e. you close joint accounts, you do not do laundry or cook dinner for your spouse, you do not go out as a couple or hold yourself out as a couple at social events) or your spouse may allege that you reconciled or you changed your mind after announcing the separation.
Once you've decided that your relationship can't continue, and you're sure that it can't continue, you need to separate. This doesn't mean that you and your spouse need to move into separate homes, but you need to announce your <span class="noglossary">decision</span> and you should probably do it in writing so that you have a record of the date of separation.  If you continue to live in the same home after you have separated, you must ensure that you live separate lives (i.e. you close joint accounts, you do not do laundry or cook dinner for your spouse, you do not go out as a couple or hold yourself out as a couple at social events) or your spouse may allege that you reconciled or you changed your mind after announcing the separation.


If you own your home in joint tenancy with your former spouse, there is no reason to sever the joint tenancy in order to protect your interest in the home. The reason for that is because under s. 81(b) of the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', when separation happens each spouse takes a one-half interest in all family property as tenants in common, regardless of how the property was owned before separation, and becomes responsible for one-half of all family debt.   
If you own your home in joint tenancy with your former spouse, there is no reason to sever the joint tenancy in order to protect your interest in the home. The reason for that is because under section 81(b) of the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'', when separation happens each spouse takes a one-half interest in all family property as tenants in common, regardless of how the property was owned before separation, and becomes responsible for one-half of all family debt.   


It can be critical to protect your share of the family property from creditors, your spouse's bankruptcy, or court orders made in other court proceedings. While it's always a good idea to consult with a lawyer if you have a family law problem, be especially sure to do so if you're not certain whether separating would be helpful or harmful.
It can be critical to protect your share of the family property from creditors, your spouse's bankruptcy, or court orders made in other court proceedings. While it's always a good idea to consult with a lawyer if you have a family law problem, be especially sure to do so if you're not certain whether separating would be helpful or harmful.
Line 50: Line 51:
====Notices and financing statements under the ''Family Law Act''====
====Notices and financing statements under the ''Family Law Act''====


Spouses who have made a cohabitation agreement, a marriage agreement, or a separation agreement dealing with real property can file a ''notice'' of the agreement against the title of the property with the Land Title and Survey Authority under s. 99 of the ''Family Law Act''. A notice can be filed whether court proceedings have started or not, and will prevent the other spouse from transferring, selling, leasing, or otherwise dealing with the property without the voluntary cancellation of the notice or a court order.
Spouses who have made a cohabitation agreement, a marriage agreement, or a separation agreement dealing with real property can file a ''notice'' of the agreement against the title of the property with the Land Title and Survey Authority under section 99 of the ''Family Law Act''. A notice can be filed whether court proceedings have started or not, and will prevent the other spouse from transferring, selling, leasing, or otherwise dealing with the property without the voluntary cancellation of the notice or a court order.


A ''financing statement'' can be filed in the [http://www.bcregistryservices.gov.bc.ca/bcreg/pprpg/ppinfo.page Personal Property Registry] against a manufactured home under s. 100. This will stop the manufactured home from being transferred, and any new debts registered against the manufactured home will come in second to the spouse's interest under the financing statement.
A ''financing statement'' can be filed in the [http://www.bcregistryservices.gov.bc.ca/bcreg/pprpg/ppinfo.page Personal Property Registry] against a manufactured home under section 100. A manufactured home is a structure like a mobile home or trailer home that is designed to be lived in but also towed or carried from one place to another. A filed financing statement will stop the manufactured home from being transferred, and any new debts registered against it will come in second in priority to the spouse's interest under the financing statement.


===Make sure the rent gets paid and the lights stay on===
===Make sure the rent gets paid and the lights stay on===
Line 62: Line 63:
<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 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.
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 section 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 76: Line 77:
===The ''Family Law Act''===
===The ''Family Law Act''===


The easiest way for married and unmarried spouses to obtain a financial restraining order is to apply for an order under s. 91(1) of the ''Family Law Act''. This section says that:
The easiest way for married and unmarried spouses to obtain a financial restraining order is to apply for an order under section 91(1) of the ''Family Law Act''. This section says that:


<blockquote><tt>(1) On application by a spouse, the Supreme Court must make an order restraining the other spouse from disposing of any property at issue under this Part or Part 6 until or unless the other spouse establishes that a claim made under this Part or Part 6 will not be defeated or adversely affected by the disposal of the property.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(1) On application by a spouse, the Supreme Court must make an order restraining the other spouse from disposing of any property at issue under this Part or Part 6 until or unless the other spouse establishes that a claim made under this Part or Part 6 will not be defeated or adversely affected by the disposal of the property.</tt></blockquote>
Line 90: Line 91:
===The Rules of Court===
===The Rules of Court===


Rule 12-4 of the [http://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules] gives the court the authority to make a general restraining order, also called an ''injunction'', to make someone to do something or not do something. The potential scope of these restraining orders is very broad, and can include, for example, a restraining order identical to that provided for in s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act'' as well as an order stopping someone from racking up debt by drawing on credit cards and lines of credit.
Rule 12-4 of the [http://canlii.ca/t/8mcr Supreme Court Family Rules] gives the court the authority to make a general restraining order, also called an ''injunction'', to make someone to do something or not do something. The potential scope of these restraining orders is very broad, and can include, for example, a restraining order identical to that provided for in section 91 of the ''Family Law Act'' as well as an order stopping someone from racking up debt by drawing on credit cards and lines of credit.


Rule 12-4 says little more, that "the court can issue an injunction." A 1986 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1q5c1 British Columbia v. Wale]'', 1986 CanLII 171 (BCCA), offers some guidance. In that case, the court held that someone applying for an injunction had to prove three things. In a family law context involving unmarried parties, these are that:
Rule 12-4 says little more, that "the court can issue an injunction." A 1986 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1q5c1 British Columbia v. Wale]'', 1986 CanLII 171 (BCCA), offers some guidance. In that case, the court held that someone applying for an injunction had to prove three things. In a family law context involving unmarried parties, these are that:
Line 108: Line 109:
This section gives the court a fairly broad authority to make an injunction where the injunction is justified. Much like injunctions under Rule 12-4, you will have to show that:
This section gives the court a fairly broad authority to make an injunction where the injunction is justified. Much like injunctions under Rule 12-4, you will have to show that:


#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 their assets or is likely do so, and
*your spouse has disposed of or encumbered their assets or is likely to 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.


===Applying for restraining orders without notice===
===Applying for restraining orders without notice===
Line 116: Line 117:
The court can only make orders, including restraining orders, when a court proceeding has been started. When there is an urgent problem, as might be the case if a spouse is threatening to sell or move an asset, applications for injunctions and restraining orders can be made with little or no notice to the spouse and sometimes before the spouse has even been notified of the court proceeding.
The court can only make orders, including restraining orders, when a court proceeding has been started. When there is an urgent problem, as might be the case if a spouse is threatening to sell or move an asset, applications for injunctions and restraining orders can be made with little or no notice to the spouse and sometimes before the spouse has even been notified of the court proceeding.


It's important to know that if you are applying for an injunction or restraining order without notice to the other spouse, the court will require that you make full and complete disclosure of ''all'' of the relevant facts, even of those facts that aren't in your favour. If it is discovered that you haven't made full disclosure, the court can set aside the injunction, make an award of costs against you, or make an award of damages to compensate the other party for any inconvenience caused by the injunction. In a 1986 Supreme Court case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/213m5 Morin v. Morin]'', 1986 CanLII 896 (BCSC), this resulted in a spouse having the injunction cancelled and getting awarded special court costs of the application.
It's important to know that if you are applying for an injunction or restraining order without notice to the other spouse, the court will require that you make full and complete disclosure of ''all'' of the relevant facts, even of those facts that aren't in your favour. If it is discovered that you haven't made full disclosure, the court can set aside the injunction, make an award of ''special costs'' against you (if your conduct was reprehensible), or make an award of damages to compensate the other party for any inconvenience caused by the injunction.


==Debts, bankruptcies and third-party claims==
==Debts, bankruptcies and third-party claims==


Apart from the possibility that your spouse will be less than forthright in dealing with the family property and family debt, you may also need to protect your interest in those assets from claims made by creditors and third parties, and against the possibility of your spouse's bankruptcy or your spouse racking up further debt. These issues can be dealt with, for the most part, by ensuring that you:
Apart from the possibility that your spouse will be less than forthright in dealing with the family property and family debt, you may also need to protect your interest in those assets from claims made by creditors and third parties. If your spouse is heading towards bankruptcy and racking up further debt, this is extra important. These issues can be dealt with, for the most part, by ensuring that you:


#separate from your spouse, to convert the ownership of all property to a shared ownership between you and your spouse as tenants in common,
#separate from your spouse, to convert the ownership of all property to a shared ownership between you and your spouse as tenants in common,
#register a CPL against all real property in which your spouse has an interest, and
#register a CPL against all real property in which your spouse has an interest, and
#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 section 91 of the ''Family Law Act'', section 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 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.
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.
For assets that are held only in your name, your spouse's creditors or trustee in bankruptcy will not usually be able to seize them. The same goes for your interest in property as a ''tenant in common'' (which the law would call a ''divided interest''), unless you are responsible for your spouse's debts for some reason (such as if you co-signed or guaranteed a loan, or used a secondary credit card on your spouse's <span class="noglossary">account</span>).  
 
When it comes to the ''Family Law Act'', both spouses are responsible to ''one another'' for debts incurred during the relationship, but the act itself doesn't give any extra rights to creditors to go after a spouse of the debtor.


===Creditors===
===Creditors===


Creditors have a wide range of remedies available to them when a debtor fails to live up to the conditions of a loan, a line of credit or a credit card. Among other things, a creditor can:
Creditors have a wide range of remedies available to them when a debtor fails to live up to the conditions of a loan, a line of credit, or a credit card. Among other things, a creditor can:


*seize any asset put up as collateral on the loan,
*seize any asset put up as collateral on the loan,
Line 155: Line 158:
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.
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 property as a tenant in common will go to the trustee.


==Protecting property outside British Columbia==
==Protecting property outside British Columbia==
Line 167: Line 170:
*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''.
*Whether a court has in personam jurisdiction or not, it usually won't have jurisdiction over real property located outside the province. This kind of jurisdiction is called "''in rem'' jurisdiction." Real property and things attached to real property like buildings are called ''immovable assets''.
*Whether a court has ''in personam'' jurisdiction or not, it usually won't have jurisdiction over real property located outside the province. This kind of jurisdiction is called "''in rem'' jurisdiction." Real property and things attached to real property like buildings are called ''immovable assets''.


The upshot of all of this is the following general rules:
The upshot of all of this is the following general rules:


*the courts of British Columbia generally cannot deal with real property located in other provinces or outside of Canada,
*the courts of British Columbia generally cannot deal with real property located in other provinces or outside of Canada,
*the Supreme Court of British Columbia can deal with out-of-province assets that are movable, like RRSPs, stocks, bank accounts, chattels and what not, as long as the owner has attorned to the court's jurisdiction, and
*the Supreme Court of British Columbia can deal with out-of-province assets that are movable, like RRSPs, stocks, bank accounts, chattel (i.e. items of tangible property such as cars, boats, artwork, etc.), and what not, as long as the owner agrees that the court has jurisdiction, and
*the Provincial Court cannot deal with out-of-province issues at all.
*the Provincial Court cannot deal with out-of-province issues at all.


Line 189: Line 192:
The courts of this province will, however, usually compensate a spouse for an interest in out-of-province property by reapportioning the property that the court can deal with, property located inside British Columbia, to compensate for the property that it can't deal with. Here's an example:
The courts of this province will, however, usually compensate a spouse for an interest in out-of-province property by reapportioning the property that the court can deal with, property located inside British Columbia, to compensate for the property that it can't deal with. Here's an example:


<blockquote>Zygmunt has a farm in Flin Flon, Manitoba worth $50,000. Zygmunt and Ivan both own the family home in Vernon, British Columbia worth $100,000. Assuming both properties were bought after the relationship began and that both are family property, under an equal division each of the spouses would be entitled to $25,000 for the farm in Manitoba and $50,000 for the family home in British Columbia.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Zygmunt has a farm in Flin Flon, Manitoba worth $50,000. Zygmunt and Ivan both own the family home in Vernon, British Columbia worth $100,000. Assuming both properties were bought after the relationship began and that both are family property, under an equal division, each of the spouses would be entitled to $25,000 for the farm in Manitoba and $50,000 for the family home in British Columbia.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Since the court can't normally make an order requiring the sale or transfer of the property in Flin Flon, an equal division of the assets in this jurisdiction would give each spouse $50,000, half the value of the family home, but this would short Ivan of his interest in the farm. To avoid this unfairness, the court could simply divide the family home in Vernon in favour of Ivan, and give him a $75,000 share rather than an equal share.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Since the court can't normally make an order requiring the sale or transfer of the property in Flin Flon, an equal division of the assets in this jurisdiction would give each spouse $50,000, half the value of the family home, but this would short Ivan of his interest in the farm. To avoid this unfairness, the court could simply divide the family home in Vernon in favour of Ivan, and give him a $75,000 share rather than an equal share.</blockquote>
<blockquote>This would reapportion the value of the property the court can deal with (the family home) to compensate Ivan for the interest he ought to have in the property the court can't deal with (the farm). Zygmunt is still left with half of the family property, as he remains the sole owner of the farm, $50,000, and gets a $25,000 share of the family home, for a total property interest of $75,000.</blockquote>
<blockquote>This would reapportion the value of the property the court can deal with (the family home) to compensate Ivan for the interest he ought to have in the property the court can't deal with (the farm). Zygmunt is still left with half of the family property, as he remains the sole owner of the farm, $50,000, and gets a $25,000 share of the family home, for a total property interest of $75,000.</blockquote>


In truly exceptional circumstances, it is possible to get an order stopping someone from disposing of real property located outside the province with something called a "''Mareva'' injunction." A ''Mareva'' injunction will stop someone from selling or encumbering assets outside of British Columbia, providing that certain conditions are met. (The name of this order comes from an old English case in which the relief was first granted, ''Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A.'', [1980] 1 All E.R. 213) To qualify for this order, you must:
In truly exceptional circumstances, it is possible to get an order stopping someone from disposing of real property located outside the province with something called a "''Mareva'' injunction." A ''Mareva'' injunction will stop someone from selling or encumbering assets outside of British Columbia, providing that certain conditions are met. (The name of this order comes from an old English case in which the relief was first granted, ''[https://perma.cc/WK3R-48XF Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A.]'', [1980] 1 All E.R. 213). To qualify for this order, you must:


#show a strong case for your entitlement to a share of those assets,
#show a strong case for your entitlement to a share of those assets,
Line 201: Line 204:
====The ''Family Law Act''====
====The ''Family Law Act''====


Under Division 6 of Part 5 of the ''Family Law Act'', the Supreme Court of British Columbia may, in certain circumstances, make orders about the ownership and division of property located outside British Columbia. If the court has the ability to make orders dividing property located outside the province, it may also make an order to preserve the property from being disposed of. Section 109(2)(b) says this:
Under Division 6 of Part 5 of the ''Family Law Act'', the Supreme Court of British Columbia may, in certain circumstances, make orders about the ownership and division of property located outside British Columbia. If the court has the ability to make orders dividing property located outside the province, it may also make an order to preserve the property from being disposed of. Section 109(2)(b) says the Supreme Court may make an order that will:


<blockquote><tt>(b) if the court is satisfied that it would be enforceable against a spouse in the jurisdiction in which the extraprovincial property is located,</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(b) if the court is satisfied that it would be enforceable against a spouse in the jurisdiction in which the extraprovincial property is located,</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(i) preserve the extraprovincial property ...</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(i) preserve the extraprovincial property,</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(iv) provide for any other matter in connection with the extraprovincial property;</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>[...]</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(iv) provide for any other matter in connection with the extraprovincial property</tt></blockquote></blockquote>


The first stumbling block is to figure out whether the court can divide the out-of-province property, and that requires a difficult analysis under ss. 106, 107 and 108 of the Act. Assuming the court can make such orders, the next step is to find out whether the order would "enforceable against a spouse" in the place where the property is located. If the <span class="noglossary">answer</span> to both questions is yes, then the court may make an order for the preservation of the foreign property.
The first stumbling block is to figure out whether the court can divide the out-of-province property, and that requires a difficult analysis under sections 106, 107, and 108 of the Act. Assuming the court can make such orders, the next step is to find out whether the order would be "enforceable against a spouse" in the place where the property is located. If the <span class="noglossary">answer</span> to both questions is yes, then the court may make an order for the preservation of the foreign property.


This part of the Act is extremely complicated and you should get advice from a lawyer whenever you may need to deal with movable and immovable property located outside of British Columbia.
This part of the Act is extremely complicated and you should get advice from a lawyer whenever you may need to deal with movable and immovable property located outside of British Columbia.
Line 215: Line 219:
Bank accounts, stocks, investment accounts, and similar assets that aren't real estate are called movable assets. The BC Supreme Court usually has jurisdiction over movable assets located outside of the province where the owner has attorned to the jurisdiction and accepted the court's authority.
Bank accounts, stocks, investment accounts, and similar assets that aren't real estate are called movable assets. The BC Supreme Court usually has jurisdiction over movable assets located outside of the province where the owner has attorned to the jurisdiction and accepted the court's authority.


Where a spouse has attorned, the court can make a restraining order stopping the spouse from disposing of movable property located outside of British Columbia under s. 91 of the ''Family Law Act''. Inside British Columbia, a s. 91 order will stop a spouse from dealing with everything that is family property or other "property at issue," including real property. Outside British Columbia, a s. 91 restraining order will only stop a spouse from dealing with movable assets.
Where a spouse has attorned, the court can make a restraining order stopping the spouse from disposing of movable property located outside of British Columbia under section 91 of the ''Family Law Act''. Inside British Columbia, a section 91 order will stop a spouse from dealing with everything that is family property or other ''property at issue'', including real property. Outside British Columbia, a section 91 restraining order will only stop a spouse from dealing with movable assets.


The court can be reluctant to issue a s. 91 order that is intended to deal with assets located outside the province, since in most cases the courts of British Columbia cannot make orders about things located outside the province. In a 2002 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/50dw Boyd v. Boyd]'', 2001 BCCA 535, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the court can make ''in personam'' restraining orders that are effective against movable assets located outside the province.
The court can be reluctant to issue a section 91 order that is intended to deal with assets located outside the province, since in most cases the courts of British Columbia cannot make orders about things located outside the province. In a 2002 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/50dw Boyd v. Boyd]'', 2001 BCCA 535, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the court can make ''in personam'' restraining orders that are effective against movable assets located outside the province.


It is important to remember that a section 91 order is an "in personam" order, which means that it is only effective against the person whom the order is being made.  Accordingly, if your spouse has a significant amount of money in a bank account,  investment account or similar type of savings vehicle, and you are concerned that your spouse will transfer the monies somewhere else even if there is an order in place, then you should ensure that the financial institution where the accounts are being held are named in the notice of application, the financial institution is served with your application and that you seek specific relief vis-à-vis the financial institution.  Otherwise, the financial institution does not have any legal obligation to prevent your spouse from transferring assets out of the financial institution.
It is important to remember that a section 91 order is an ''in personam order'', which means that it is only effective against the person to whom the order is being made.  Accordingly, if your spouse has a significant amount of money in a bank account,  investment account, or similar type of savings vehicle, and you are concerned that your spouse will transfer the monies somewhere else even if there is an order in place, then you should ensure that the financial institution where the accounts are being held are named in the notice of application, the financial institution is served with your application, and that you seek specific relief vis-à-vis the financial institution.  Otherwise, the financial institution does not have any legal obligation to prevent your spouse from transferring assets out of the financial institution.


If a s. 91 order is not available for some reason, a ''Mareva'' injunction will have the same effect. However, ''Mareva'' injunctions are not granted automatically and you must satisfy the test described just above.
If a section 91 order is not available for some reason, a ''Mareva'' injunction will have the same effect. However, ''Mareva'' injunctions are not granted automatically and you must satisfy the test described just above.


==Resources and links==
==Resources and links==
Line 234: Line 238:
===Links===
===Links===


*[http://www.bcregistryservices.gov.bc.ca/bcreg/pprpg/ppinfo.page BC Personal Property Registry Website]
*[http://www.bcregistryservices.gov.bc.ca/bcreg/pprpg/ppinfo.page BC Personal Property Registry website]
* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1240 Canadian Bar Association BC Branch: Dividing property and debts]
*[http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1240 Dial-A-Law Script "Dividing Property and Debts"]
* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1529 Justice Education Society: Workbook for parents separated with children on dealing with finances]
*[http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1529 Justice Education Society's handbook ''Parenting After Separation: Finances'']
* [http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1639 Legal Services Society’s Family Law Website: How to divide property and debts]
*[http://www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/4656 Legal Aid BC's Family Law website's information page "Property & debt"]
 
** See "Dividing property and debts"


{{REVIEWED | reviewer = [[Helen Chiu]], May 14, 2019}}
{{REVIEWED | reviewer = [[Trudy Hopman]], October 19, 2023}}


{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox|type=chapters}}
{{JP Boyd on Family Law Navbox|type=chapters}}