J.T.D. v. J.P.D.

J.T.D. v. J.P.D.

Court found no proven substantial family assets in the Philippines and held claimant's Philippine shares were not family assets; funds advanced by B.D. that contributed to purchase of Beach Drive were not proved to be gifts and, on balance of probabilities, gave rise to a recognized debt of $289,101 owed to B.D.'s estate (no interest awarded) which the parties must bear equally and be deducted from the Beach Drive property's value before equal division; Beach Drive (valued $915,000) after deduction yields equal shares of $312,949.50 each (claimant entitled to cash equalization if respondent retains property); Chemainus condo (equity $122,000) is reapportioned 80% to respondent and 20% to...

Citation
2012 BCSC 343
Parties
Claimant: J.T.D.; Respondent: J.P.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Divorce/family Property and Support / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment resolving property division, child and spousal support and disclosure sanctions in favour of Claimant in part and Respondent in part as detailed in orders below
Legal Topics
Retroactive Child Support, Prospective Child Support, Section 7 Expenses, Family Asset Characterization, Reapportionment Under S.65 FRA, Resulting Trust and Gratuitous Transfers, Disclosure Sanctions and Penalties, RRSP Equalization, Security for Support, Spousal Support Compensatory
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Child Support Spousal Support Estates and Trusts Income Tax/disclosure Retroactive Child Support Prospective Child Support +8 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 8 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.T.D.

Claimant

J.P.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce/family Property and Support / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Parties' incomes for past and present for child support and spousal support
  2. 2 Retroactive and prospective child support and s.7 expense allocation and security
  3. 3 Existence and characterization of assets in the Philippines and other bank accounts as family assets

Ratio Decidendi

Court found no proven substantial family assets in the Philippines and held claimant's Philippine shares were not family assets; funds advanced by B.D. that contributed to purchase of Beach Drive were not proved to be gifts and, on balance of probabilities, gave rise to a recognized debt of $289,101 owed to B.D.'s estate (no interest awarded) which the parties must bear equally and be deducted from the Beach Drive property's value before equal division; Beach Drive (valued $915,000) after deduction yields equal shares of $312,949.50 each (claimant entitled to cash equalization if respondent retains property); Chemainus condo (equity $122,000) is reapportioned 80% to respondent and 20% to...

Court Disposition

Judgment resolving property division, child and spousal support and disclosure sanctions in favour of Claimant in part and Respondent in part as detailed in orders below

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Claimant retroactive child support $3,114.52 for Feb-Jun 2007 (five months).
  • Claimant owes Respondent retroactive child support $32,466 (July 2007-Dec 2010) plus $572 arrears (Jan-Mar 2011) = total arrears to March 31, 2011 of $33,038; credit for payments reduces net arrears owed by Claimant to Respondent to $21,658; then netting Claimant's credit for Respondent's retro obligation results in...