BC Family Law and Interim Distribution of BC Family Assets and Advances to Pay BC Legal Fees: Who Pays the Piper in Divorce?
We are all familiar with the notion that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but what happens when you don’t have the money to pay the piper? In contested divorce cases it is not uncommon for legal fees and expenses to reach the point where you face difficulty paying your lawyer to represent your interests for lack of funds. In cases of mid to high net worth divorcing couples there are usually substantial assets that require dividing – bank accounts, trust/income funds, houses, property (local and foreign) and insurance policies to name but a few. Assets by their very nature have an intrinsic monetary value. The question is whether or not a divorcing spouse short on capital before a trial needed to pay their legal fees can access these assets or borrow against them to pay past, present and future legal expenses before the trial that will likely divide these family assets- most often equally? Is there any reason that all assets should remain untouchable until the trial is over and judgment rendered?
A new rule may allow people access to income and assets before a trial where in the past this was more difficult if not impossible to achieve. Lorne MacLean of the MacLean Family Law Group points out new BC Supreme Court Family rule 12-1 may allow a much needed interim advance of funds for a spouse needing funds to live on or to pay legal and expert fees as it states:
BC Supreme Court Family Law Rule 12-1
Allowance of income from property
(3) If property is the subject matter of a family law case and the court is satisfied that the property will be more than sufficient to answer all claims on it, the court at any time
(a) may allow the whole or part of the income of the property to be paid, during such period as the court may direct, to a party who has an interest in it, or
(b) in the case of personal property, may order that part of the personal property be delivered or transferred to a party.
Recovery of specific property
(4) If a party claims the recovery of specific property other than land, the court may order that the property claimed be given up to the party, pending the outcome of the family law case, either unconditionally or on terms and conditions, if any, relating to giving security, time, mode of trial or otherwise.
In the past a party claiming an advance against their ultimate share in property met with stiff judicial precedent against them.
In British Columbia the leading authority – Ansari v. Ansari [2000] BCJ No. 763 – holds that advances (interim distributions) or borrowing funds against family assets subject to division in a divorce proceeding to pay past, present and future legal fees are not allowed except to fund unusual disbursements relating specifically to the valuation of assets. In Ansari v. Ansari [2000] B.C.J. No. 763 (BCSC) – Macaulay J.noted:
(a) Jurisdiction for interim payment from family assets founded in s.66 of the Family Relations Act (as decided in Erskine v. Erskine (1991) 31 R.F.L. (3d) 273)
(b) Two step test established by Kirkpatrick J. in Jiwa v. Jiwa [1992] B.C.J. No. 3024 (S.C.):
(1) Is the advance required to mount a challenge to the other spouse’s position at trial?
(2) Will the advance or the payment on an interim distribution basis jeopardize the other spouse’s position at trial?
Macaulay J. held at paragraph 28 in Ansari:
As the interim distribution of assets sought relates primarily to past and projected legal expenses in the matrimonial litigation, entitlement falls to be determined, in my view, within s.66 and with regard to the limitations expressed in earlier decisions. The weight of authority is against ordering an interim distribution of assets to meet past and, in particular, future legal expenses except to fund unusual disbursements relating specifically to the valuation of assets. I decline to order an interim distribution in favour of either party.
The more recent case of Herr v. Herr [2006] B.C.J. No. 1624 – held as in Ansari that no interim disposition of funds should be allowed allowed and at paragraphs 19 and 20 Ralph J. stated:
The purpose for which the true interim distribution was required was not specific but appeared to be for past and future legal expenses. As recognized in Ansari the weight of authority is against ordering an interim distribution of assets to meet past and future legal expenses except to fund unusual disbursements relating to the valuation of assets.
In my respectful view, having already authorized a substantial draw upon these funds to pay the arrears of support, the Master erred in further authorizing the payment of $40,000 for the unspecified past and future legal expense. I conclude that Mr. Herr’s appeal with respect to the Master’s order relating to the interim distribution of $40,000 should be allowed and that the order must be set aside.
Similarly, in Hiemstra v. Hiemstra [2001] B.C.J. No. 522 – No interim distribution of funds was allowed to pay legal fees and in McLeod v. McLeod [2001] B.C.J. No. 1201 (S.C.) – Kirkpatrick J. followed Ansari and refused to make an interim order for distribution of funds for legal fees. Kirkpatrick J. also followed the Pierce decision, in that she did not find that such an advance is, in equity, required. The distinguishing features in this case are that the wife was already receiving a substantial sum (close to $5000 per month) for child support and the husband was paying a good portion of the household expenses, and spousal support of almost $4000. Therefore, the circumstances were not so dire as to require the disbursement of funds to the wife out of the property.
An older line of cases did allow some advances for legal fees:
(a) Pierce v. Pierce [1994] B.C.J. No. 3079 (S.C.) as per Melnick J. – the focus in ordering an advance is not whether it is required for one spouse to fund his or her lawsuit against the other, but rather whether, in order to make a determination regarding assets, as contemplated by s.52 of
Family Relations Act, such an advance is, in equity, required.
(b) Ford v. Ford (6 February 1992), Vancouver Registry A913765 – allowed for release of funds for legal fees.
(c) Newbury J. in Lane v. Lane [1991] B.C.J. No. 3246 (S.C.) – lump sum payment ordered to reimburse a wife for past accounting and legal expenses but would not order payment for estimated future legal expenses.
The big change regarding experts in family matters is the emphasis on 1 neutral expert being appointed by consent or if disputed by court order as follows:
Single Court Appointed Expert
13-4
Application to court
(3) If the parties do not agree that a joint expert is required or do not agree on any matter relating to the appointment of a joint expert, any party may apply to the court in accordance with Rule 10-5 for an order
(a) appointing a joint expert, and
(b) settling any matter relating to the appointment of the joint expert.
Note also full cooperation is required and full disclosure mandated under this rule.
Appointment of Court’s own Expert
13-5
(10) The remuneration of an expert appointed under this rule
(a) must be fixed by the court and consented to by the expert, and
(b) may include
(i) a fee for the report, and any supplementary reports, required under Rule 13-6, and
(ii) an appropriate sum for each day that the expert’s attendance in court is required.
Security for remuneration
(11) The court may make one or both of the following orders, without prejudice to any party’s right to costs:
(a) an order directing that the expert’s remuneration be paid by the persons and at the time ordered by the court;
(b) an order for security for the expert’s remuneration
If you have an issue with needing to access monies you are properly owed before trial call us toll free at 1 877 602 9900 to help you ensure your case is handled properly and that funds you need to protect your rights and properly instruct your lawyer and valuation experts can be obtained.
