Digest: Kormos v Kormos, 2018 SKQB 195

• Date: July 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 195

Docket Number: DIV 44/14 JCY , QB17583

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-07-18

Judges:

• Brown

Subjects:

• Family Law � Family Property � Valuation
• Family Law � Spousal Support

Digest: The parties married in 1991 and separated in 2014. During the marriage the respondent worked for CN and the petitioner initially stayed home with the children. In 1993 she began working in the food services industry, first operating a cafeteria and in 2010, acquiring a three-year contract providing food services for a large institution. At one point she owned a food truck and did very well with cash sales. Between 2010 and 2013, the petitioner�s income tax returns showed business income between $525,000 and 1,000,000. From 2003 to 2012, the petitioner showed net income of $280,000. Her contract was terminated in 2013 because she failed to find someone to run the facility in her absence. The petitioner then bought a small resort for the sum of $894,000. The petitioner put in $240,000 of her savings and the credit union financed the acquisition of the property. It obtained personal guarantees from both parties as well as taking the parties� home and lands as security. The respondent was not in favour of this purchase because the resort�s location made it difficult for him to live there and be able to fulfill his employment responsibilities with CN. The petitioner spent all of her time running her new business and although it did well in the first summer, it began to fail thereafter. The respondent�s advice regarding cost-cutting measures was disregarded by the petitioner and she repeated the conduct that had cost her food services contract in that she would not delegate responsibility. The petitioner found a purchaser in 2015 and a potential sale in the amount of $949,000 was arranged with a possession date on September 1, 2015. The possession date was changed to December but instead of staying and keeping the business operating until then, the petitioner left it in September and the operation deteriorated. It was eventually sold to the purchasers for $890,000. As the mortgage was in arrears, the credit union took possession of the property and placed the petitioner�s company into receivership. Because the petitioner did not attend to these matters, the credit union brought action against her and the respondent on their personal guarantees. The respondent negotiated the obligation down to $75,000 and...