Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters - Revision history

Nate Russell at 22:49, 27 August 2024

2024-08-27T22:49:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 27 August 2024
Line 198:		Line 198:
	<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 $175,000 share of the family home, for a total property interest of $225,000.</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 $175,000 share of the family home, for a total property interest of $225,000.</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 Supreme Court judge would not rely on the authority of the ''Family Law Act'' to do this, and instead rely on the broader authority of ''inherent jurisdiction'' that all judges of Canada's superior courts possess. A ''Mareva'' injunction will stop someone from selling or encumbering assets even 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:		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 Supreme Court judge would not rely on the authority of the ''Family Law Act'' to do this, and instead rely on section 39 of the ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8459 Law and Equity Act]'' and the broader authority of ''inherent jurisdiction'' that all judges of Canada's superior courts possess. A ''Mareva'' injunction will stop someone from selling or encumbering assets even 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 223:		Line 223:
	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.		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 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 ''[https://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 2001 case called ''[https://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 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.		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.

Nate Russell: Clicklaw directory link edit

2024-08-27T22:28:10Z

Clicklaw directory link edit

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:28, 27 August 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:
	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.		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 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.		A ''financing statement'' can be filed in the [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/managing-a-business/bc-registry-services-personal-property-registry 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 194:		Line 194:
	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 $400,000. 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 $200,000 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 $200,000, 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 $225,000 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 $175,000 share of the family home, for a total property interest of $225,000.</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, ''[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:		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 Supreme Court judge would not rely on the authority of the ''Family Law Act'' to do this, and instead rely on the broader authority of ''inherent jurisdiction'' that all judges of Canada's superior courts possess. A ''Mareva'' injunction will stop someone from selling or encumbering assets even 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 223:		Line 223:
	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.		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 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.		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 ''[https://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 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.		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 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.		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.
Line 235:		Line 235:
	* ''[[Family Law Act]]''		* ''[[Family Law Act]]''
	* ''[[Divorce Act]]''		* ''[[Divorce Act]]''
	* ''[~~http~~://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982]''		* ''[https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/index.html Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982]''
	* ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/8451 Land (Spouse Protection) Act]''		* ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8456 Land Title Act]''
			* ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8451 Land (Spouse Protection) Act]''

			===Resources===
			* [https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/self-represented_litigants/sc_info_packages/cpl_package.pdf CPL information package] from BC Supreme Court

	===Links===		===Links===

	*[~~http~~://~~www.bcregistryservices~~.gov.bc.ca/~~bcreg~~/~~pprpg~~/~~ppinfo.page~~ BC Personal Property Registry website]		*[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/business/managing-a-business/bc-registry-services-personal-property-registry BC Personal Property Registry website]
	*[~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw.bc~~.ca/~~resource~~/~~1240~~ Dial-A-Law ~~Script "Dividing Property and Debts"]~~		*[https://dialalaw.peopleslawschool.ca/dividing-property-and-debts/ Dividing property and debts] from Dial-A-Law by the People's Law School
	*[~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw.bc.ca~~/~~resource/1529 Justice Education Society's handbook ''~~Parenting After Separation: Finances'']		*[https://perma.cc/PAF8-EULG Parenting After Separation Handbook: Finances] from the Justice Education Society of BC
	*[~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw~~.bc.ca/~~resource~~/~~4656~~ Legal Aid ~~BC's~~ Family Law website~~'s information page "Property & debt"]~~		*[https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/finances-support/property-debt Property & debt] from Legal Aid BC’s Family Law website
	** See "Dividing property and debts"

	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Trudy Hopman]], October 19, 2023}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Trudy Hopman]], October 19, 2023}}

Nate Russell at 19:52, 27 August 2024

2024-08-27T19:52:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 27 August 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:
	}}{{LSSbadge		}}{{LSSbadge
	\| resourcetype = a fact sheet on		\| resourcetype = a fact sheet on
	\| link = [~~http~~://~~www~~.~~clicklaw~~.bc.ca/~~resource~~/~~1639 How to divide~~ property ~~and debts~~]		\| link = [https://family.legalaid.bc.ca/finances-support/property-debt Property & debt]
	}}It's sometimes necessary to take steps to protect family property, family debt, and excluded property until a final agreement or order dividing assets is made. Failing to take these steps can sometimes result in property being sold, diminished in value, used as collateral for a loan, moved out of province, or being seized by a trustee in bankruptcy or by a creditor. Most of the time it only becomes important to protect property after a couple has separated.		}}It's sometimes necessary to take steps to protect family property, family debt, and excluded property until a final agreement or order dividing assets is made. Failing to take these steps can sometimes result in property being sold, diminished in value, used as collateral for a loan, moved out of province, or being seized by a trustee in bankruptcy or by a creditor. Most of the time it only becomes important to protect property after a couple has separated.

Line 33:		Line 33:
	===Register your interest in property===		===Register your interest in property===

	Registering an interest in real property will stop the property from being sold and may prevent the property from being borrowed against. The two most common ways to do this are by filing an entry under the ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/8451 Land (Spouse Protection) Act]'' with the Land Title and Survey Authority, or by filing a Certificate of Pending Litigation under the ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/8456 Land Title Act]'' with the Land Title and Survey Authority.		Registering an interest in real property will stop the property from being sold and may prevent the property from being borrowed against. The two most common ways to do this are by filing an entry under the ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8451 Land (Spouse Protection) Act]'' with the Land Title and Survey Authority, or by filing a Certificate of Pending Litigation under the ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8456 Land Title Act]'' with the Land Title and Survey Authority.

	====Entries under the ''Land (Spouse Protection) Act''====		====Entries under the ''Land (Spouse Protection) Act''====
Line 43:		Line 43:
	====Certificates of pending litigation under the ''Land Title Act''====		====Certificates of pending litigation under the ''Land Title Act''====

	Where a court proceeding has started in the Supreme Court, a ''Certificate of Pending Litigation'' (CPL), formerly called a ''lis pendens'', can be registered against the title of any property owned by you and your spouse or your spouse and a third party (such as a parent) at the Land Title and Survey Authority. As long as you have asked for a CPL in your Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim and made a claim for the division of family property, you will be entitled to register a CPL. If title to the property is registered in the name of your spouse and a third party, you must name the third party as a party in the Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim if you wish to seek relief against the third party vis-à-vis the property.		Where a court proceeding has started in the Supreme Court, a ''Certificate of Pending Litigation'' (CPL), formerly called a ''lis pendens'', can be registered against the title of any property owned by you and your spouse or your spouse and a third party (such as a parent) at the Land Title and Survey Authority. Section 215 of the ''[https://canlii.ca/t/8456 Land Title Act]'' deals with CPLs. As long as you have asked for a CPL in your Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim and made a claim for the division of family property under the ''[[Family Law Act]]'', you will be entitled to register a CPL. If title to the property is registered in the name of your spouse and a third party, you must name the third party as a party in the Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim if you wish to seek relief against the third party vis-à-vis the property.

	The effect of a CPL is to announce to anyone interested in the property, such as a mortgagee or a creditor or a potential buyer, that ownership of the property may change as a result of the litigation. This discourages and usually prevents the ~~sale of~~ the property or ~~its use as collateral~~.		The effect of a CPL is to announce to anyone interested in the property, such as a mortgagee or a creditor or a potential buyer, that ownership of the property may change as a result of the litigation. This discourages and usually prevents the registered owner's ability to sell the property or mortgage it.

	You can file your CPL at the same time as you file your Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim. The registry will stamp your CPL, ~~and you~~ must ~~take the stamped CPL and file it~~ with the Land Title and Survey Authority ~~together~~ with a copy of ~~your~~ Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim. The owner or owners of the property on which a CPL has been registered against title are given notice of the CPL by mail.		The BC Supreme Court offers a [https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/self-represented_litigants/sc_info_packages/cpl_package.pdf CPL information package] on its website. You can file your CPL at the same time as you file your Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim. The registry will stamp your CPL, but it must then be filed with the Land Title and Survey Authority (LTSA) along with a copy of the Notice of Family Claim or Counterclaim. Because a CPL is a ''charge'' against the title that has serious implications, and because the LTSA has now moved to requiring that almost all its filings need to be done online, there are restrictions on who the LTSA authorizes to certify the formal documents. Practically speaking, you will need a lawyer or notary public to help you actually file the CPL with the LTSA.

			The owner or owners of the property on which a CPL has been registered against title are given notice of the CPL by mail.

	====Notices and financing statements under the ''Family Law Act''====		====Notices and financing statements under the ''Family Law Act''====

Nate Russell: From staging 2024

2024-01-15T22:27:13Z

From staging 2024

Show changes

Nate Russell: From staging June 2022

2022-06-27T19:29:43Z

From staging June 2022

Show changes

Nate Russell: Nate Russell moved page Protecting Property & Debt in Family Law Matters to Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters: We're removing the ampersand from the page titles (Page Resource Names)

2022-06-27T19:22:11Z

Nate Russell moved page Protecting Property & Debt in Family Law Matters to Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters: We're removing the ampersand from the page titles (Page Resource Names)

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:22, 27 June 2022
(No difference)

Nate Russell at 22:57, 31 July 2019

2019-07-31T22:57:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 31 July 2019
Line 238:		Line 238:

	*[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 Services Society’s Family Law website's information page "Property & debt"]
			** See "Dividing property and debts"

	{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Helen Chiu]], May 14, 2019}}		{{REVIEWED \| reviewer = [[Helen Chiu]], May 14, 2019}}

Nate Russell: /* The Family Law Act */

2019-07-18T23:36:41Z

The Family Law Act

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 18 July 2019
Line 203:		Line 203:
	====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 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.		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.

Nate Russell: /* The general rule */

2019-07-18T23:27:36Z

The general rule

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 18 July 2019
Line 195:		Line 195:
	<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,

Nate Russell: /* Protecting property outside British Columbia */

2019-07-18T23:10:46Z

Protecting property outside British Columbia

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, 18 July 2019
Line 174:		Line 174:

	*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.