Chisholm v. Chisholm, (2016) 377 N.S.R.(2d) 263 (SC)
| Judge | MacLeod-Archer, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada) |
| Case Date | July 07, 2016 |
| Jurisdiction | Nova Scotia |
| Citations | (2016), 377 N.S.R.(2d) 263 (SC);2016 NSSC 245 |
Chisholm v. Chisholm (2016), 377 N.S.R.(2d) 263 (SC);
1187 A.P.R. 263
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.027
Patricia Chisholm (petitioner) v. David Blair Chisholm (respondent) and Daren Chisholm (intervenor)
(SFSND No. 1206-6808; 2016 NSSC 245)
Indexed As: Chisholm v. Chisholm
Nova Scotia Supreme Court
Family Division
MacLeod-Archer, J.
September 22, 2016.
Summary:
A couple were married in 2004 after living together for several years. They had one teenage child. The couple separated in 2011. The wife sought a divorce and related relief. The primary dispute related to a home that the couple had occupied during their marriage.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, dealt with the issues accordingly.
Family Law - Topic 630
Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - General - During their marriage a husband and wife leased a home, with an option to purchase - The couple separated without exercising the option - After the couple separated, the husband's brother purchased the home - The wife continued to live in the home - The wife claimed that the home was a matrimonial asset and sought to have the deed to the husband's brother declared invalid - The brother claimed he owned the home and wanted the wife to vacate - The husband supported his brother's position - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the option created a property right in the home such that it met the definition of "matrimonial home" under the Matrimonial Property Act - The court was prepared to draw an inference, based on the facts before the court, that the deed to the brother was intended to defeat the claims of creditors - The deed conveying title to the matrimonial home was, therefore, obtained by fraud and it should be overturned in accordance with s. 10(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Property Act and title vest in the wife's name - The value of the home was to divided equally between the husband and wife - See paragraphs 12 to 58.
Family Law - Topic 631.3
Husband and wife - Marital property - Matrimonial home - Vesting order - [See Family Law - Topic 630 ].
Family Law - Topic 865
Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Matrimonial home - [See Family Law - Topic 630 ].
Counsel:
Alisha Brown-Fagan, for the petitioner;
David Blair Chisholm, self-represented;
Daren Chisholm, self-represented.
This matter was heard in Sydney, N.S., on May 9-11, June 17, and July 7, 2016, before MacLeod-Archer, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following decision on September 22, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 2016 NSSC 325
...the Respondent and the Intervenor were both self-represented. The Court rendered its decision on September 22, 2016 (Chisholm v. Chisholm 2016 NSSC 245), in which the Petitioner’s claims to a division of matrimonial assets and child support were The Court invited written submissions on cost......
-
Tobin v. Hurley, 2018 NSSC 313
...planned to advance a claim against the home. He did so with the intent of depriving her of that opportunity. [66] In Chisholm v Chisholm, 2016 NSSC 245 I directed that a deed conveyed to the husband’s brother in an attempt to subvert the wife’s claim be rescinded. In my decision I 21 “Most ......
-
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 2016 NSSC 325
...the Respondent and the Intervenor were both self-represented. The Court rendered its decision on September 22, 2016 (Chisholm v. Chisholm 2016 NSSC 245), in which the Petitioner’s claims to a division of matrimonial assets and child support were The Court invited written submissions on cost......
-
Tobin v. Hurley, 2018 NSSC 313
...planned to advance a claim against the home. He did so with the intent of depriving her of that opportunity. [66] In Chisholm v Chisholm, 2016 NSSC 245 I directed that a deed conveyed to the husband’s brother in an attempt to subvert the wife’s claim be rescinded. In my decision I 21 “Most ......