R.D.D. v. K.L.D.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R.D.D. v. K.L.D. 2005 BCSC 1826 Date: 20051129 Docket: E051592 Registry: Vancouver Between: R.D.D., also known as R.D.D. Plaintiff And K.L.D., also known as K.L.D. Defendant Before: Master Donaldson Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers November 29, 2005 Counsel for Plaintiff P. Bond Counsel for Defendant S. Mansfield Place of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver [1] THE COURT: This is an application to deal with child support and spousal support and to a much lesser degree a vehicle. [2] There is consensus that the father's income is $172,000 a year although I am given to understand this is based upon income from his dental practice for the year- end 2003 rather than 2004. The financial statement for that should have been available by July of 2005. [3] The family includes three children, K.1 who is 20, C. who is 19 and a younger child K.2, who is 13. [4] The eldest child, K.1, may or may not remain a child of the marriage and indeed so far as the 19-year-old C. is concerned, if she does not attend Camosun College in the spring semester it may be that she will not be a child of the marriage as well. At the present time, however, I am satisfied the children for the purpose of this application are children of the marriage and therefore I am satisfied that child support should be set in accordance with the guidelines at $2,507 each month. [5] Do we have a dispute as to a date? [6] MR. MANSFIELD: I was going to adjourn that issue to the trial. [7] THE COURT: Well, we will start commencing the 1st of December and any issue as to retroactivity can be referred to the trial judge if that is necessary. [8] Of somewhat more concern is spousal support. The recent authorities indicate increasing confidence by the courts in the spousal support guidelines and they of course provide a range from low to high. Counsel on behalf of the mother has taken the position that as she has not earned income since the separation contending that she has simply not had the will to go to work as a result of the trauma of the separation and so the range should be taken and considered at the high end with her not having an attributed income. The range extends from approximately $3,568 a month through $4,840 per month. [9] However, it is to be noted that in the last year she worked, she earned slightly in excess of $25,000 working from January through July. Certainly in years past she did not work during the summer months by choice. There is no medical indication that mother is not capable of finding employment and I am satisfied, based upon the income that she has earned in the years preceding 2004 which did not include a summer period of at least two months it is appropriate to attribute to her an income of $30,000. [10] The spousal support guidelines calculation indicates a range from a low of $2,627 to a high of $3,441. As counsel for the mother has pointed out, if, based upon the 23-year marriage, the 50 percent level was considered appropriate that would have a high-end of $3,441. [11] The father has been paying to the mother $3,304 support since May. I am satisfied that taking the guidelines into account and considering the means and needs of the parties it is appropriate that commencing the 1st of December the father pay support in the amount of $3,250 and continuing until further order. [12] So far as the vehicle is concerned, it is my understanding that they each own a 1996 Dodge vehicle which they at least in their financial statements considered to be a rough equivalent value but each vehicle is joined in joint names and I am pleased that with the assistance of their counsel the parties have agreed that they will exchange transfer documents such that each will become the sole owner of the vehicle in their possession and as I understand it, they are able to reach agreement as to the value of those vehicles. [13] I think, counsel, that deals with all the issues. [14] MR. MANSFIELD: Your Honour, I just want to suggest that the transfer documents take effect within 14 days by agreement. [15] THE COURT: Yes. "Master A. Donaldson"