2,667
edits
Difference between revisions of "Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Protecting Property and Debt in Family Law Matters (view source)
Revision as of 05:12, 20 May 2013
, 05:12, 20 May 2013→Movable assets
| Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
===Movable assets=== | ===Movable assets=== | ||
Bank accounts, stocks, investment accounts, and similar assets that aren't real estate are called movable assets. The courts of British Columbia usually have jurisdiction over immovable assets located outside of the province where the owner has attorned to the jurisdiction and accepted the court's authority. | |||
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 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. | ||
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 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. | ||
