Difference between revisions of "Basic Principles of Property and Debt in Family Law"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 33: Line 33:
===Period of entitlement===
===Period of entitlement===


Under s. 81(a) of the ''Family Law Act'', spouses are presumed to each be entitled to an equal share in ''family property''. Family property is defined at s. 84(1) as:
Under section 81(a) of the ''Family Law Act'', spouses are presumed to each be entitled to an equal share in ''family property''. Family property is defined at section 84(1) as:


<blockquote><tt>(a) on the date the spouses separate, property</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(a) on the date the spouses separate, property</tt></blockquote>
Line 39: Line 39:
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(ii) in which at least one spouse has a beneficial interest</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(ii) in which at least one spouse has a beneficial interest</tt></blockquote></blockquote>


The ''end date'' for the accumulation of family property is presumed to be the date of separation. The ''start date'' is the date the spouses' relationship begins, and is found in the definition of ''excluded property'' at s. 85:
The ''end date'' for the accumulation of family property is presumed to be the date of separation. The ''start date'' is the date the spouses' relationship begins, and is found in the definition of ''excluded property'' at section 85:


<blockquote><tt>(1) The following is excluded from family property:</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(1) The following is excluded from family property:</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(a) property acquired by a spouse before the relationship between the spouses began</tt></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(a) property acquired by a spouse before the relationship between the spouses began</tt></blockquote></blockquote>


The start date and the end date with respect to the accumulation of ''family debt'' is stated more simply in s. 86:
The start date and the end date with respect to the accumulation of ''family debt'' is stated more simply in section 86:


<blockquote><tt>Family debt includes all financial obligations incurred by a spouse</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>Family debt includes all financial obligations incurred by a spouse</tt></blockquote>
Line 86: Line 86:
#unmarried spouses must bring their claim within two years of the date of ''separation''.
#unmarried spouses must bring their claim within two years of the date of ''separation''.


Under s. 198(5), however, the running of this time limit is considered to be suspended while the parties are engaged in ''family dispute resolution'' with a ''family dispute resolution professional''. Both of these terms are defined in s. 1, and the running of the time limit will not stop if their dispute resolution process doesn't fall within the definition of "family dispute resolution" or if the spouses are not using the services of someone who falls within the definition of "family dispute resolution professional."
Under section 198(5), however, the running of this time limit is considered to be suspended while the parties are engaged in ''family dispute resolution'' with a ''family dispute resolution professional''. Both of these terms are defined in section 1, and the running of the time limit will not stop if their dispute resolution process doesn't fall within the definition of "family dispute resolution" or if the spouses are not using the services of someone who falls within the definition of "family dispute resolution professional."


===A partnership of acquests===
===A partnership of acquests===
Line 96: Line 96:
Under the ''Family Relations Act'', married spouses shared in all property that was "ordinarily used for a family purpose." This meant that you didn't need to look at who owned something on paper, how something was acquired, or whether property was acquired before or during the relationship; what mattered was how the property was ''used''. For most couples, ''everything'' they had wound up being ordinarily used for a family purpose in one way or another.
Under the ''Family Relations Act'', married spouses shared in all property that was "ordinarily used for a family purpose." This meant that you didn't need to look at who owned something on paper, how something was acquired, or whether property was acquired before or during the relationship; what mattered was how the property was ''used''. For most couples, ''everything'' they had wound up being ordinarily used for a family purpose in one way or another.


Under the ''Family Law Act'', use is irrelevant. In fact that's exactly what s. 81(a) says:
Under the ''Family Law Act'', use is irrelevant. In fact that's exactly what section 81(a) says:


<blockquote><tt>spouses are both entitled to family property and responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>spouses are both entitled to family property and responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution</tt></blockquote>
Line 104: Line 104:
====Transition provisions====
====Transition provisions====


The ''Family Law Act'' became law in British Columbia on 18 March 2013. All of the parts of the act about children and support applied to everyone right away, including people who were in the middle of a court proceeding. However, under s. 252(2), married spouses who had started a court proceeding about the division of property or had an agreement about the division of property must continue under the old ''Family Relations Act'' as if it hadn't been cancelled, unless the spouses agree otherwise:
The ''Family Law Act'' became law in British Columbia on 18 March 2013. All of the parts of the act about children and support applied to everyone right away, including people who were in the middle of a court proceeding. However, under section 252(2), married spouses who had started a court proceeding about the division of property or had an agreement about the division of property must continue under the old ''Family Relations Act'' as if it hadn't been cancelled, unless the spouses agree otherwise:


<blockquote><tt>(2) Unless the spouses agree otherwise, </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(2) Unless the spouses agree otherwise, </tt></blockquote>
Line 117: Line 117:
==Who gets what under the ''Family Law Act''==
==Who gets what under the ''Family Law Act''==


The general rule about how property and debt are divided under the ''Family Law Act'' is found in s. 81:
Property division is covered under Part 5 of the ''Family Law Act''. The general rule for how property and debt get divided up is found under section 81:


<blockquote><tt>Subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise and except as set out in this Part and Part 6 [Pension Division],</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>Subject to an agreement or order that provides otherwise and except as set out in this Part and Part 6 [Pension Division],</tt></blockquote>
Line 132: Line 132:
===Family property and family debt===
===Family property and family debt===


Family property is defined at s. 84(1) as all of the property owned by either or both spouses ''on the date of their separation''. Family property includes property that is bought ''after separation'' with family property, for example if a spouse uses money from a joint bank account to buy a new car, after separation, the new car will be family property.  Simply stated, if the original source of the funds used to purchase a new asset after separation is from family property (i.e. use tracing provisions), the new asset will also be found to be family property even though the new asset was purchased after separation.  As well, if a spouse owns real property with a third party(i.e. with a parent) that portion of the real property that is registered in the spouse's name may be found to be family property, subject always to trust claims made by the third party.
Family property is defined at section 84(1) as all of the property owned by either or both spouses ''on the date of their separation''. Family property includes property that is bought ''after separation'' with family property, for example if a spouse uses money from a joint bank account to buy a new car, after separation, the new car will be family property.  Simply stated, if the original source of the funds used to purchase a new asset after separation is from family property (i.e. use tracing provisions), the new asset will also be found to be family property even though the new asset was purchased after separation.  As well, if a spouse owns real property with a third party(i.e. with a parent) that portion of the real property that is registered in the spouse's name may be found to be family property, subject always to trust claims made by the third party.


Section 84(2) gets into the specifics of the sorts of things that might be family property:
Section 84(2) gets into the specifics of the sorts of things that might be family property:
Line 161: Line 161:
*property in a trust that the spouse created and can get back.
*property in a trust that the spouse created and can get back.


Perhaps most importantly, under s. 84(2)(g), family property includes the increase in value of a spouse's ''excluded property'' after it was received or brought into the relationship.
Perhaps most importantly, under section 84(2)(g), family property includes the increase in value of a spouse's ''excluded property'' after it was received or brought into the relationship.


The definition of family debt is at s. 86 and is much shorter:
The definition of family debt is at section 86 and is much shorter:


<blockquote><tt>Family debt includes all financial obligations incurred by a spouse</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>Family debt includes all financial obligations incurred by a spouse</tt></blockquote>
Line 201: Line 201:
====The valuation of property and valuation date====
====The valuation of property and valuation date====


Although the pool of family property to be shared between spouses is crystallized when the separation happens, under s. 87(b), the ''value'' of the family property is not fixed until the date of the trial or agreement that divides the property. This makes sense, because it can take two or three years for the division of property to wrap up at a trial, and it can take four or five months to finish an agreement for the division of property.  With respect to daily use bank accounts (i.e. bank account where your pay is deposited and you pay your monthly bills), it has become more common for the court to value such bank accounts based on its value as at the date of separation instead of the date of the trial or agreement.  
Although the pool of family property to be shared between spouses is crystallized when the separation happens, under section 87(b), the ''value'' of the family property is not fixed until the date of the trial or agreement that divides the property. This makes sense, because it can take two or three years for the division of property to wrap up at a trial, and it can take four or five months to finish an agreement for the division of property.  With respect to daily use bank accounts (i.e. bank account where your pay is deposited and you pay your monthly bills), it has become more common for the court to value such bank accounts based on its value as at the date of separation instead of the date of the trial or agreement.  


Under s. 87(a), the value of property is its ''fair market value'', the amount a reasonable buyer would pay for the property ''in its current condition'', not the purchase price of the property, the insured value of the property, or the replacement cost of the property. In other words, the value of the reconstituted leather living room suite you got from the Brick for $999 five years ago isn't what ''you'' paid for it, it's the $100 that someone would likely give you for it at the date of the trial or agreement.
Under section 87(a), the value of property is its ''fair market value'', the amount a reasonable buyer would pay for the property ''in its current condition'', not the purchase price of the property, the insured value of the property, or the replacement cost of the property. In other words, the value of the reconstituted leather living room suite you got from the Brick for $999 five years ago isn't what ''you'' paid for it, it's the $100 that someone would likely give you for it at the date of the trial or agreement.


===Excluded property===
===Excluded property===


The definition of ''family property'' at s. 84 starts from the assumption that ''all property'' either or both spouses own on the date of separation is shareable family property. Under s. 85(2), the spouse who claims that an asset should be excluded from the pool of family property is responsible for proving that the asset is ''excluded property''.  
The definition of ''family property'' at section 84 starts from the assumption that ''all property'' either or both spouses own on the date of separation is shareable family property. Under section 85(2), the spouse who claims that an asset should be excluded from the pool of family property is responsible for proving that the asset is ''excluded property''.  


Excluded property is defined at s. 85(1):
Excluded property is defined at section 85(1):


<blockquote><tt>(1) The following is excluded from family property: </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(1) The following is excluded from family property: </tt></blockquote>
Line 235: Line 235:
*property held in a trust that was contributed by someone else.
*property held in a trust that was contributed by someone else.


Perhaps most importantly, under s. 85(1)(g), excluded property includes property bought during the relationship with excluded property. Say, for example, that a spouse receives an inheritance of $10,000 and buys a collection of vintage Pyrex. The Pyrex collection would be that spouse's excluded property because it was bought with excluded property, even if the Pyrex collection was used in the day-to-day course of the couple's life together. Remember, whether something was "ordinarily used for a family purpose" is not a consideration under the ''Family Law Act''.
Perhaps most importantly, under section 85(1)(g), excluded property includes property bought during the relationship with excluded property. Say, for example, that a spouse receives an inheritance of $10,000 and buys a collection of vintage Pyrex. The Pyrex collection would be that spouse's excluded property because it was bought with excluded property, even if the Pyrex collection was used in the day-to-day course of the couple's life together. Remember, whether something was "ordinarily used for a family purpose" is not a consideration under the ''Family Law Act''.


However, where a married person puts what would be excluded property in the name of the other spouse, it may be that the excluded property becomes family property. Similarly, where a parent gives money or property during the relationship, it is open to the son-in-law or daughter-in-law, or the common law spouse, to argue that it was a gift to the couple and is not excluded property.  The law in this area is in flux (as there are currently two lines of authority), so it is difficult to give a definitive answer as to what law applies.  Even lawyers find this area of law difficult, so do not be upset if you are confused about this area of law.
However, where a married person puts what would be excluded property in the name of the other spouse, it may be that the excluded property becomes family property. Similarly, where one spouse's parent gives money or property during the relationship, the other spouse might argue that it was a gift to the couple and is not excluded property.  The law in this area is in flux (as there are currently two lines of authority), so it is difficult to give a definitive answer as to what law applies.  Even lawyers find this area of law difficult, so do not be upset if you are confused about this area of law.


====Taking stock at the beginning of a relationship====
====Taking stock at the beginning of a relationship====
Line 269: Line 269:
*records any changes in the value of excluded property during the relationship.
*records any changes in the value of excluded property during the relationship.


Remember, under s. 85(2) it's up to the person claiming that the property is excluded property to prove it.
Remember, under section 85(2) it's up to the person claiming that the property is excluded property to prove it.


==Who got what under the ''Family Relations Act''==
==Who got what under the ''Family Relations Act''==


Because of the transition provisions of s. 252 of the ''Family Law Act'', the old ''Family Relations Act'', even though it's been cancelled, will still apply to determine the division of property between married spouses if:
Because of the transition provisions of section 252 of the ''Family Law Act'', the old ''Family Relations Act'', even though it's been cancelled, will still apply to determine the division of property between married spouses if:


*they started a court proceeding to divide property before 18 March 2013, the date when the ''Family Law Act'' came into effect,  
*they started a court proceeding to divide property before 18 March 2013, the date when the ''Family Law Act'' came into effect,  
Line 289: Line 289:
<blockquote><tt>(2) ... as a tenant in common.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(2) ... as a tenant in common.</tt></blockquote>


As long as an asset qualified under the act as a ''family asset'', each spouse was presumed to have a one-half interest in that asset. Family assets were defined in s. 58(2) of the act, and the focus under the act was on how an asset was ''used during the relationship'' rather than on who bought it, when it was bought, or how it was bought:
As long as an asset qualified under the act as a ''family asset'', each spouse was presumed to have a one-half interest in that asset. Family assets were defined in section 58(2) of the act, and the focus under the act was on how an asset was ''used during the relationship'' rather than on who bought it, when it was bought, or how it was bought:


<blockquote><tt>Property owned by one or both spouses and ordinarily used by a spouse or a minor child of either spouse for a family purpose is a family asset.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>Property owned by one or both spouses and ordinarily used by a spouse or a minor child of either spouse for a family purpose is a family asset.</tt></blockquote>
Line 319: Line 319:
===The equal and unequal division of family assets===
===The equal and unequal division of family assets===


Under s. 56 of the ''Family Relations Act'', each spouse was presumed to have a one-half interest in all family assets. This was, however, only a presumption, a presumption that could be challenged. When assets were divided more in one spouse's favour than the other, the assets were said to have been ''reapportioned''.  
Under section 56 of the ''Family Relations Act'', each spouse was presumed to have a one-half interest in all family assets. This was, however, only a presumption, a presumption that could be challenged. When assets were divided more in one spouse's favour than the other, the assets were said to have been ''reapportioned''.  


The court could order, or the spouses could agree, that all of the family assets would be reapportioned or that just a few assets would be reapportioned. This might have happened to allow one party to keep more of a pension or more of an inheritance, for example, even though all the other family assets might have been divided equally.
The court could order, or the spouses could agree, that all of the family assets would be reapportioned or that just a few assets would be reapportioned. This might have happened to allow one party to keep more of a pension or more of an inheritance, for example, even though all the other family assets might have been divided equally.
Line 345: Line 345:
Not all assets were shareable family assets. The sections of the ''Family Relations Act'' quoted above only provided for the division of assets that qualified as ''family assets''; other sorts of assets might have been exempt from division, so that the spouse who owned the asset would be allowed to keep that asset, without necessarily having to compensate the other spouse for its value.
Not all assets were shareable family assets. The sections of the ''Family Relations Act'' quoted above only provided for the division of assets that qualified as ''family assets''; other sorts of assets might have been exempt from division, so that the spouse who owned the asset would be allowed to keep that asset, without necessarily having to compensate the other spouse for its value.


Family assets were defined in s. 58 of the ''Family Relations Act'' as:
Family assets were defined in section 58 of the ''Family Relations Act'' as:


<blockquote><tt>(2) Property owned by one or both spouses and ordinarily used by a spouse or a minor child of either spouse for a family purpose is a family asset.</tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>(2) Property owned by one or both spouses and ordinarily used by a spouse or a minor child of either spouse for a family purpose is a family asset.</tt></blockquote>
Line 366: Line 366:
[[Cohabitation Agreements|Cohabitation agreements]] are agreements signed by people who will be or are living together, who may or may not wind up getting married later on down the road. [[Marriage Agreements|Marriage agreements]] are signed by people who will be getting, or are, married. Although there's no reason why these agreements can't be signed well into a relationship, they're usually signed on or shortly after the date the parties begin to live together or marry.
[[Cohabitation Agreements|Cohabitation agreements]] are agreements signed by people who will be or are living together, who may or may not wind up getting married later on down the road. [[Marriage Agreements|Marriage agreements]] are signed by people who will be getting, or are, married. Although there's no reason why these agreements can't be signed well into a relationship, they're usually signed on or shortly after the date the parties begin to live together or marry.


These agreements are often used to say how property and debt will be handled during a relationship and how it will be allocated if the couple separates. Under s. 93(1) of the ''Family Law Act'', they must be in writing and be signed by each spouse in the presence of at least one other person as a witness.  It is highly recommended that you both obtain independent legal advice from a lawyer (do not use the same lawyer, each must have a separate lawyer) before signing such an agreement to ensure that each party fully understands the nature and circumstances of the agreement and what is being given up.
These agreements are often used to say how property and debt will be handled during a relationship and how it will be allocated if the couple separates. Under section 93(1) of the ''Family Law Act'', they must be in writing and be signed by each spouse in the presence of at least one other person as a witness.  It is highly recommended that you both obtain independent legal advice from a lawyer (do not use the same lawyer, each must have a separate lawyer) before signing such an agreement to ensure that each party fully understands the nature and circumstances of the agreement and what is being given up.


However, since many people are content with the basic plan for the division of property set out in the ''Family Law Act'', the question is often about what a cohabitation agreement or a marriage agreement can do that would be better than the division the act expects. Here are some ideas. An agreement could:
However, since many people are content with the basic plan for the division of property set out in the ''Family Law Act'', the question is often about what a cohabitation agreement or a marriage agreement can do that would be better than the division the act expects. Here are some ideas. An agreement could:

Navigation menu