5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Assets of Couples (3:IX)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
added hyperlinks
(added italics) |
(added hyperlinks) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=== 2. Family Law Act [FLA] === | === 2. Family Law Act [FLA] === | ||
Section 81 of the ''FLA'' outlines that each spouse is entitled to an undivided, one half interest of family property and is equally responsible for debt upon separation (''Stonehouse v Stonehouse'', 2014 BCSC 1057; ''Joffres v Joffres'', 2014 BCSC 1778). However, the ''FLA'' substantially changes what is considered to be family property, essentially allowing spouses to keep property they bring into a relationship and share only in the increase in value of that property and the net value of new property obtained after cohabitation. | Section 81 of the ''FLA'' outlines that each spouse is entitled to an undivided, one half interest of family property and is equally responsible for debt upon separation ([http://canlii.ca/t/g7f6f ''Stonehouse v Stonehouse'', 2014 BCSC 1057]; [http://canlii.ca/t/gdpwf ''Joffres v Joffres'', 2014 BCSC 1778]). However, the ''FLA'' substantially changes what is considered to be family property, essentially allowing spouses to keep property they bring into a relationship and share only in the increase in value of that property and the net value of new property obtained after cohabitation. | ||
The ''FLA'' carves out a category of excluded property under section 85. | The ''FLA'' carves out a category of excluded property under section 85. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
''(g) property derived from property or the disposition of property referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f).'' | ''(g) property derived from property or the disposition of property referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f).'' | ||
Any increases in the value of the excluded property that occur during the relationship are considered family property and are not excluded from division. The spouse claiming that the property in question qualifies as excluded property is responsible for demonstrating that it fits the definition under s 85(1) (''Bressette v Henderson'', 2013 BCSC 1661). | Any increases in the value of the excluded property that occur during the relationship are considered family property and are not excluded from division. The spouse claiming that the property in question qualifies as excluded property is responsible for demonstrating that it fits the definition under s 85(1) ([http://canlii.ca/t/g0d8k ''Bressette v Henderson'', 2013 BCSC 1661]). | ||
This property division regime applies to all married spouses as well as all unmarried common law spouses who have lived in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. The date of separation will be the relevant date used to identify the pool of family property to be divided. However, it is the date of the hearing or agreement which determines the date of valuation of property. Spouses may choose to opt out of these property division rules but must make these different arrangements through an agreement. | This property division regime applies to all married spouses as well as all unmarried common law spouses who have lived in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years. The date of separation will be the relevant date used to identify the pool of family property to be divided. However, it is the date of the hearing or agreement which determines the date of valuation of property. Spouses may choose to opt out of these property division rules but must make these different arrangements through an agreement. | ||