(a) the spouses are eligible and liable for family debts, regardless of their respective use or contribution, and (3) A family debt order applies only between the spouses and does not affect an agreement between one of the spouses and another person. (3) The Supreme Court may also consider the extent to which a spouse`s financial resources and earning capacity have been affected by the responsibilities and other circumstances of the relationship between the spouses if the objectives of spousal support under section 161 [Objectives of Spousal Support] were not achieved in the decision on spousal support. “right to relationship” means the right to relationship as defined in Article 107 [own law of the relationship]. 106 (1) This section applies where more than one court may issue an injunction respecting the division of property in respect of the same spouses. If there is proceeding before the Family Court or the Federal District Court, the proceedings are concluded by a court order, which is made either by consent (through an application for consent) or after a hearing in the Family Court or the Federal District Court. In the absence of proceedings in a family court or a federal district court, separated spouses may document their asset allocation by entering into a binding financial agreement under the Family Law Act 1975. In most cases, the procedure is concluded by issuing final orders or concluding a binding financial agreement. (4) Nothing in this section permits the Supreme Court to divide the excluded property unless section 96 [Division of Excluded Property] permits. 97 (1) In order to divide family property or debts under this Part or Part 6 [Pension Division], the Supreme Court may require that (g) a spouse waive or release in writing any rights, benefits or protections provided in writing under section 23 of the Personal Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c.
48, section 19 of the Act respecting the sale of property under certain conditions, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 373, or section 58 or 67 of the Security of Personal Property Act; (a) to allocate family property or family debts, or both, and to do so equally or unevenly; There are situations where the principle of net separation for spousal support under sections 81 for married couples and 90ST for common-law couples is not appropriate; some of these circumstances include: (a) When regular spousal support is required due to a lack of property that must be divided to meet the maintenance needs of the parties. (b) If the circumstances of each party change, regular spousal support is preferred, allowing for adjustment of the support provisions by mutual agreement or by the court. According to § 83 or § 90SI of the Act, periodic maintenance orders vary when circumstances change. (c) Pursuant to paragraph (d) of paragraph 79(4)(d) and paragraph 90SF(4)(d) of the Act, the court is specifically mandated to consider the impact of a proposed decision on the earning capacity of one of the parties. A periodic support order instead of a lump sum maintenance order may allow the payer to keep a company`s capital assets intact if this is the case. (d) The issue of spousal support may be left open if it is not clear how much a party will need in the future. (e) There is no power to terminate the court`s jurisdiction over maintenance by court order, which means that spousal support can be changed at any time by the court for valid reasons. 5.
Subject to paragraph 3, where the first common habitual residence of the spouses in the course of the relationship between the spouses was in a jurisdiction in which a community of property applies, property owned or acquired and debts due or acquired in the course of the relationship between the spouses, which are property or debts, must: to which the community of property applies, at the end of the relationship between the spouses under the regime of community of property. In the proceedings provided for in this Part, with the exception of proceedings provided for in Article 78 or maintenance payments due during the existence of a marriage, the court shall, as far as possible, make orders which definitively determine the financial relations between the spouses and shall avoid any new proceedings between them. Section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975 requires a court ruling on a property claim to make such orders that ultimately determine the financial relationship between the parties to the marriage and avoid further proceedings between them. In other words, a division of ownership should be complete and definitive. Any agreement reached must be properly documented to protect each party and avoid future claims. A fundamental principle of family law is that there must be full and open financial disclosure. In some cases, after the completion of the orders or financial agreement, information becomes available showing that there has not been a full and open financial disclosure. Financial orders and agreements can be challenged and rescinded because there is no full and open financial disclosure.
4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, the interest of one of the spouses shall be enforceable against the other spouse from the date of separation, unless a property agreement between the spouses or a decision provides otherwise. (b) The value of family property and family debts must be determined from the date on which a court making a spousal support order often has the choice to leave the order indefinitely, bearing in mind that section 83 of the Act provides for an amendment if the circumstances change in such a way that the change is justified, or, on the contrary, the setting of a termination date, which often implies a prediction, although on the balancing of probabilities. .