As a matter of law, therefore, the calculation of the division of assets and
resulting equalization payment must always precede any support analysis.
Not exact matches
The appellant husband argued that (1) the trial judge erred in how he ordered the
equalization payment to be paid; and (2) this error led the trial judge to make a further error with respect to his costs award, as it
resulted in the trial judge failing to properly assess the reasonableness of the appellant husband's offers to settle.
The motion judge held that, pursuant to s. 5 (6)(e) of the Family Law Act (which allows a judge to depart from the standard
equalization payment calculation if the
resulting amount would be «disproportionately large» in light of a cohabitation period of less than 5 years), the
equalization payment that the wife would otherwise receive ($ 268,000) should be reduced to $ 60,000.
[As a
result, the
equalization payment owing to the appellant husband increased by $ 40,000.]