Schroeder v. Schroeder, (2000) 151 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: August 30, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2000), 151 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QBM)

Schroeder v. Schroeder (2000), 151 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.021

Diane Elizabeth Schroeder (petitioner) v. Robert Lance Schroeder (respondent)

(99.02.00040 FD)

Indexed As: Schroeder v. Schroeder

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Brandon Centre

Harrison, Master

August 30, 2000.

Summary:

A husband and wife who operated a farm separated. At issue was the division of mat­rimonial property and in particular the hus­band's claims for credit for certain pre-acquired assets.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dealt with the issues accord­ingly.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions (incl. pre-marriage acquisitions) - A hus­band purchased farm land in his name prior to the marriage - By the time the couple separated, the property value had appreciated significantly - The parties had agreed to equally share any appreci­ation in value - The husband argued that he should be credited for this pre-acquired asset - The wife argued that the parties' equity in pre-acquired assets was lost after marriage due to financial reverses - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the wife's approach would change the accounting procedure from a balance sheet approach to an income gen­eration function presumably assessed on an annual basis not in keeping with the appli­cable legislation - The court allowed the husband's initial equity in the farm to be credited to him as an asset acquired previ­ous to marriage - See paragraphs 7 to 20.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions (incl. pre-marriage acquisitions) - In a division of marital property, a husband claimed an exemption for a car as being a pre-acquired asset - The car was sold to buy a truck - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that since there was no evidence as to what the pro­ceeds of sale were, the court could not ascertain how much money was invested in the truck from the sale of the automobile - There­fore, no amount could be credited to the husband for the car - The court opined that the car had, in any event, been con­verted to family use - See paragraphs 21 and 22.

Family Law - Topic 880.1

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions (incl. pre-marriage acquisitions) - In a division of marital property, a husband claimed an exemption for a herd of cattle as being a pre-acquired assets - None of the animals originally purchased by the husband remained at the time of separ­ation; however, there remained 15 animals descending from the original herd - A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the husband should be granted an exemption for the cattle - The exemption should be the lessor of the fair market value of the herd at marriage or the fair market value of those remaining ani­mals at separation - See paragraphs 24 to 46.

Family Law - Topic 880.55

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

Cases Noticed:

Burke v. Burke (1987), 47 Man.R.(2d) 216; 8 R.F.L.(3d) 393 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

Dashevsky v. Dashevsky (1986), 40 Man.R.(2d) 58 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Homenick v. Homenick (1988), 57 Man.R.(2d) 318 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

Rowe v. Rowe (1999), 135 Man.R.(2d) 164 (Q.B. Master), folld. [para. 18].

Carnahan v. Carassetsnahan (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 152: 93 W.A.C. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Boggs v. Boggs (1987), 50 Man.R.(2d) 216 (Q.B. Fam. Div.) 3, refd to. [para. 22].

Kowaluk v. Kowaluk (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 184; 188 W.A.C. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Rotzetter v. Rotzetter (1984), 27 Man.R.(2d) 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Hilderman v. Hilderman (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 177; 45 R.F.L.(2d) 190 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Stewart v. Stewart (1992), 130 A.R. 293 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Hughes v. Hughes (1998), 232 A.R. 224; 195 W.A.C. 224; 43 R.F.L.(4th) 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Jackson v. Jackson (1989), 97 A.R. 153; 21 R.F.L.(3d) 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Halwas v. Halwas (2000), 147 Man.R.(2d) 218 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Martial Property Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M-45; C.C.S.M., c. M-45, sect. 1(1) [para. 21]; sect. 4(1) [para. 16].

Counsel:

Pat L. Fraser, for the petitioner;

Robert H. Johnston, Q.C., for the respon­dent.

This action was heard before Harrison, Master, of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Brandon Centre, who delivered the following judgment on August 30, 2000.