Purich v. Purich, (1998) 226 A.R. 351 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 06, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 226 A.R. 351 (QB)

Purich v. Purich (1998), 226 A.R. 351 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. OC.067

Sheron Gail Purich (petitioner/plaintiff) v. Frederick Theodore Purich (respondent/defendant)

(Action Nos. 4801-091145 & 9701-05227)

Indexed As: Purich v. Purich

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Veit, J.

August 6, 1998.

Summary:

The parties were married in 1988 and separated in 1996. Before their marriage, the husband had approximately $8,000,000 in assets while the wife had $125,000. The wife assumed a traditional marriage role. The wife petitioned for divorce. The issues were the division of marital property and spousal support.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues and ordered according­ly.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - General - Including pre-marriage acquisi­tions - A wife petitioned for divorce - Before the marriage, the husband's assets included a large investment portfolio ($5.5M) - The portfolio had decreased in value - The wife sought an equal division of the portfolio - She conceded that she did not contribute to its acquisition - How­ever, she argued that it was not exempt because the husband was unable to adequately trace the property - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the assets were exempt from division - The husband had adequately traced the pre-marital property -The law did not require spouses to keep financial records of the type expected of a bank or trustee - See paragraphs 36 to 44.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - General - Including pre-marriage acquisi­tions - A wife petitioned for divorce - Before the marriage, the husband's assets included a large investment portfolio ($5.5M) - The portfolio had decreased in value - The wife sought an equal division of the portfolio - She argued, inter alia, that while it had decreased in net value from the date of the marriage, during the last decade the portfolio had, from time to time, increased in value and produced profits - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - There was no increase in the husband's exempt assets against which to made a legitimate claim - Once the property was characterized as exempt, it was inappropriate to account for fluctuations in the value of the asset - Absent dissipation, the property was to be distributed according to the value at the time of trial - See paragraphs 41 to 44.

Family Law - Topic 880.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Increments - [See second Family Law - Topic 880.1 and Family Law - Topic 880.32 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Increments - A wife petitioned for divorce - The husband's pre-marital assets had totalled approximately $8M - The wife sought an equal division of marital prop­erty - The husband had advanced money to each of his children from a previous mar­riage to buy houses - The loans were secured by mortgages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the increase in the value of the mortgages from the date of the marriage to the date of trial was an asset to which the wife was entitled to claim a half interest - This asset was dif­ferent from the husband's other invest­ments made using his pre-marital assets - This asset, like a matrimonial home, clear­ly was not a commercial investment - See paragraphs 55 and 56.

Family Law - Topic 880.18

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Tracing - [See first Family Law - Topic 880.1 ].

Family Law - Topic 880.32

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Particular property - Registered Retirement Savings Plans - A wife petitioned for divorce - The husband's pre-marital assets included RRSPs - The wife sought an equal division of marital property - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it was unfair to give the wife any portion of the increase of the husband's RRSPs from the date of the marriage to the date of the trial - The husband was retired and could no longer contribute to an RRSP - During the mar­riage, the husband had encouraged the development of a financial regime in which he paid all the bills but he and the wife's assets were kept separate - The court stated it would be unfair to derogate from that approach now that the marriage had broken down - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Family Law - Topic 4022

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards to wife - Consider­ations - The parties married in 1988 and separated in 1996 - Before their marriage, the husband had approximately $8M in assets while the wife had $125,000 in assets - She now had $600,000 in net assets - The wife assumed a traditional marriage role - The wife (now 55) peti­tioned for divorce and sought indefinite spousal support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded her indefinite spousal support of $1,750/month (net of income tax) given the wife's age, lack of training and the complete financial depend­ence fostered by the husband during the marriage - The wife's current assets, her share of the matrimonial home, and the monthly support award, would allow the wife to maintain the lifestyle she had during the marriage - See paragraphs 7, 8 and 66 to 85.

Family Law - Topic 4022.1

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Awards to wife - Extent of obligation - [See Family Law - Topic 4022 ].

Cases Noticed:

Mazurenko v. Mazurenko (1981), 30 A.R. 34; 23 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1981), 39 N.R. 539; 32 A.R. 612 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

McLeod v. McLeod (1990), 108 A.R. 393; 28 R.F.L.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Roenisch v. Roenisch, 1991 CanRepAlta 325; 115 A.R. 255; 32 R.F.L.(3d) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Brokopp v. Brokopp (1996), 181 A.R. 91; 116 W.A.C. 91; 19 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Jackson v. Jackson (1989), 97 A.R. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Smith v. Smith, [1997] A.R. Uned. 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Komarniski v. Komarniski (1980), 27 A.R. 541 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Lauderdale v. Lauderdale (1997), 200 A.R. 198; 146 W.A.C. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 9].

Lasalle v. Lasalle (1994), 7 R.F.L.(4th) 100 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Brand v. Brand (1996), 186 A.R. 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Au v. Au (1993), 47 R.F.L.(3d) 342 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Myers v. Myers (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 226; 106 W.A.C. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Gardiner v. Gardiner (1996), 191 A.R. 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Row v. Row (1991), 123 A.R. 324; 35 R.F.L.(3d) 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Wilson v. Wilson (1986), 2 R.F.L.(3d) 86 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Katay v. Katay, 1995 CanRepAlta 627; 168 A.R. 31 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hood v. Hood (1996), 177 A.R. 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Kremp v. Kremp (1989), 100 A.R. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Dwelle v. Dwelle (1982), 46 A.R. 1; 31 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Offet v. Offet, 1993 CanRepAlta 435; 150 A.R. 11; 1 R.F.L.(4th) 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Ho v. Ho (1993), 1 R.F.L.(4th) 340 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hook v. Hook, 1996 CanRepAlta 302; 183 A.R. 216 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Debacker v. Debacker (1993), 143 A.R. 228; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 106 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mason v. Mason (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 239; 93 W.A.C. 239; 18 R.F.L.(4th) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Newson v. Newson et al. (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 24; 43 W.A.C. 24; 45 R.F.L.(3d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

MacNeil v. MacNeil (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 284; 362 A.P.R. 284; 2 R.F.L.(4th) 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Siegel v. Siegel Estate et al. (1995), 177 A.R. 282 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Rosin v. Rosin (1993), 46 R.F.L.(3d) 242 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

McGrath v. Holmes (1995), 10 R.F.L.(4th) 161 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Shaw v. Shaw (1995), 14 R.F.L.(4th) 340 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Robinson v. Robinson (1993), 66 O.A.C. 381; 48 R.F.L.(3d) 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Van de Sande v. Van de Sande (1994), 148 A.R. 30 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Labron v. Labron (1996), 183 A.R. 251; 21 R.F.L.(4th) 385 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Diann P. Castle and Jane M. Hoffman, for the petitioner/plaintiff;

Deborah L. Shennette and Ellen O'Don­nell, for the respondent/defendant.

This matter was heard at Calgary, Alberta, on June 15-19, 1998, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing judgment on August 6, 1998, in Edmonton, Alberta.