Sentences with phrase «matrimonial assets held»

Although this novel approach in Darby had no impact on the husband so long as he remained in Costa Rica, if a similar order were made against a spouse who resided within Canada and held assets in a foreign jurisdiction, it could prove to be a powerful tool in ensuring that the other spouse received their fair portion of any matrimonial assets held outside of the country.

Not exact matches

However, the duty of matrimonial disclosure necessarily extends above and beyond disclosure in a commercial or civil claim, because all assets held by either party to a family dispute may form part of the marital acquest.

After they married they signed a document providing that all future assets would be held under a matrimonial property regime known as Sociedad de Gananciales.

In the absence of such an agreement, the statutory matrimonial property regime applies, meaning joint ownership of all assets acquired during the marriage, regardless of the name under which they are held, but only if they were acquired by means of a joint contribution by both spouses.

In general terms matrimonial property includes all assets belonging to the parties individually or jointly which was acquired during the period of marriage and held as at the date of separation, less any debts similarly held by the parties individually or jointly as at that date, subject to a few exceptions.

As a result, in recent years, Canadian courts and the legal profession have increasingly been tasked with the challenge of responding to cases where matrimonial property includes foreign - held assets which, sometimes, were greater in value in than those assets held on Canadian soil.

Originally, the Court in Chikonyora cited section 9 (1) of the Matrimonial Property Act, which «authorizes Alberta courts to distribute property situated in Alberta in a manner that equalizes the foreign held assets of one or both of the spouses».

The overarching question was whether or not the assets held in Dragon were to be treated as financial resources of Mr Charman for the purpose of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973).

After further holding that the companies» assets were effectively Mr Prest's property and constituted «property» to which he was «entitled» within the meaning of s 24 (1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the judge ordered him to transfer the properties, or cause them to be transferred, to Mrs Prest.