Sentences with phrase «matrimonial assets with»

However, recent case law has demonstrated that if income is utilised from those trusts, they may rank as matrimonial assets with the Court being able to direct the trustees to utilise them in divorce settlements.

Not exact matches

Both cases dealt with an ante-nuptial, or pre-nuptial, agreement and the weight which should be given to it on division of the parties» assets in matrimonial financial order proceedings.

Such factors include «any agreement between the parties with respect to the ownership and division of the matrimonial assets made in contemplation of divorce.»

While Mr Vaughan's argument succeeded at first instance, the Court of Appeal had little truck with it, approving earlier guidance from Martin v Martin [1976] Fam 335, [1976] 3 All ER 625 and Norris v Norriss [2003] 1 FLR 1142, [2003] All ER (D) 428 (Feb): clear evidence of wanton dissipation of assets should result in factoring back of the relevant monies into the matrimonial pot.

The judge made an order for divorce and dealt with matters such as where the children would live, sale of the matrimonial home, and division of assets, but he expressly made no order with respect to spousal support.

In contrast to a civil law marriage contract (common in civil law countries such as continental Europe, South Africa etc), a pre-nuptial agreement does not elect a «matrimonial property regime» i.e. a set of rules which govern how assets are owned and dealt with during the marriage.

The team also works with various high - profile people in the retail, politics, entertainment and sports arenas on matters such as asset protection in a matrimonial context, and routinely works with the family team on pre-and-post-nuptial agreements and cohabitation agreements.

I have assisted on a number of complex matrimonial disputes involving high net worth individuals with assets based in more than one jurisdiction.

However, in this case, the judge did not apply the principles in relation to «add back» but chose instead to rule that the husband's conduct was an additional reason to depart from equality which, together with the wife's needs left the wife with an additional share of the matrimonial assets.

Therefore, case law now suggests that the value of assets which have been dissipated in matrimonial cases in Australia will not be added back, regardless of whether those assets have been dissipated deliberately and recklessly by one party or, with the sole intention to reduce the matrimonial assets available for distribution.

This theory is applied to most family assets with the exception of some, and one of the most important exceptions being your matrimonial home.

For a married couple with assets on reserve, a diligent judge would have to apply the Divorce Act for alimony and child support, provincial family law relations statute to moveable (personal) property only, possibly the FHRMIRA to immoveable (real) property, or else the local land code if the community is under the First Nations Land Management Act or self - government agreement (e.g., Westbank in BC) or its own matrimonial property law if it adopts one under the FHRMIRA and displaces the statute's default rules.

In addition to being a significant asset, the matrimonial home is usually associated with deep emotional ties.

After determining that the wife was entitled to spousal support on the basis that she had contributed to the development of the substantial family assets, the Court returned its mind to the issue of matrimonial property and determined that section 9 (3)(a) and (j) of the Matrimonial Property Act granted Alberta courts the discretion to order periodic payments with respect to matrimonial property along the same lines as a maintenance supmatrimonial property and determined that section 9 (3)(a) and (j) of the Matrimonial Property Act granted Alberta courts the discretion to order periodic payments with respect to matrimonial property along the same lines as a maintenance supMatrimonial Property Act granted Alberta courts the discretion to order periodic payments with respect to matrimonial property along the same lines as a maintenance supmatrimonial property along the same lines as a maintenance support order.

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.

At Nolletti Law Group, our White Plains divorce lawyers use all resources available to provide our clients with the security and peace of mind which come from knowing that they are represented by a team of assertive, client - centered divorce attorneys and professionals with substantial experience in efficiently handling complex matrimonial litigation that involves significant assets.

It may be that one or both parties has substantial wealth which has been accumulated prior to the marriage and the parties do not wish this to be mixed with any assets or funds accumulated throughout the marriage and similarly they do not wish any capital / income deriving from that wealth to constitute matrimonial property.

For some courts, however, compensation orders are the only legal and equitable option they have to deal with matrimonial assets in foreign jurisdictions.

In its deliberation with regards to the division of matrimonial property, the Court determined that it had the jurisdiction to consider the value of the assets located outside of British Columbia, but that it had no power to «determine the right, title or interest in land situated outside the province».

b) Deferring to the Foreign Jurisdiction: While the Court in Stano determined that the issue of the foreign matrimonial assets would need to be dealt with according to the laws of the Czech Republic or, potentially in BC pending pleadings and evidence, in Bindra v Bindra the court deferred completely to the foreign jurisdiction.

The gray area between in rem orders that affect title to land and in personam orders that enforce rights with regards to land is often too murky to discern, as outlined above, which brings us to the next option a court has with regards to matrimonial assets located in a foreign jurisdiction: to defer to the foreign jurisdiction.