Calgary Exempt Property Increased Value Division Lawyers 403-444-5503
Calgary exempt property increased value division lawyers deal with the equitable division of gains on exempt property. Our Calgary family lawyers tell our clients that equitable division does not necessarily mean equal division. So our Calgary exempt property increased value division lawyers read with interest the recent case of Campa v Campa where the Alberta Court of Appeal explained how Matrimonial Property Act section 8 factors must be applied to each individual family law case involving a Calgary Exempt property increased value division dispute. The MacLean Law Calgary family law office headed by Lorne N. MacLean, QC is located downtown in Banker’s Hall. Call us today at 403-444-5503.
Calgary Exempt Property Increased Value Division
The Court went through key historical factors that applied to Matrimonial Property Act section 8 before upholding a 50/50 Calgary Exempt Property Increased Value Division:
The Court of Appeal took pains to point out every case is unique and section 8 must be applied to the individual case before the court.
[2] The parties were married for 13 years prior to their separation in 2009. They had lived together for three years prior to their marriage. There are two children of the marriage.
[4] During the marriage, the parties lived for five years in one of the units of the 5-plex. They then purchased the matrimonial home and lived in it together until their separation in 2009.
Increase in the value of 5-plex
[18] Section 7(2) of the MPA provides that if property is acquired by a spouse before entering the marriage, the value of that property at the time of the marriage is exempt from distribution. Mr. Campa acquired the 5-plex prior to the marriage. The value of the property at the time of marriage was $470,000 but there was a mortgage of $300,000 registered against the property at the time with the result that the appellant’s equity in the 5-plex at the time of purchase was $170,000. It follows that this amount is exempt from distribution. Indeed, the respondent does not contest the size of the exemption.
[19] The value of the 5-plex, however, increased by $1,180,000 from the time the appellant purchased it to the date of trial. Section 7(3) of the MPA provides that an increase in the value of exempt property shall be distributed in a manner the court considers just and equitable, but only after taking into consideration the matters described in section 8. Section 8 provides a list of matters to be taken into consideration in making a distribution of matrimonial property. After considering these matters, the trial judge concluded that the increase in value of the 5-plex should be divided equally between the parties. Among other matters, the trial judge took into account Ms. Campa’s contributions to the management of this rental property throughout the marriage, the fact that one of the units had been their matrimonial home for five years, that they had used the rental income to pay off the mortgage on the 5-plex and that they used the rental income for their living expenses.
[20] The appellant submits the trial judge erred in distributing the increase in value of the 5-plex equally between the parties. He says that the wife’s contributions to the 5-plex were minimal. Moreover, he submits, the trial judge was required to do a more extensive examination of the section 8 factors. Had he done so he would have found the following considerations supported an unequal distribution of this property in the appellant’s favour:
- the appellant acquired the 5-plex and developed it without any help from the respondent;
- the increase in value was due solely to market forces; and
- there was no cost to the respondent in maintaining the 5-plex.
[21] We find no merit in this argument. First, the trial judge found that the wife’s contribution to the successful management of this rental property was not minimal. In effect the trial judge found she was the rental property manager. The trial judge also took into consideration the fact that the property was acquired by the appellant and the 5-plex developed by him before the parties were married when he exempted from distribution the market value of the property at the time of the marriage. The fact that the increase in value was due “solely” to market forces favours neither party. It is not a factor to be considered under section 8. The same logic applies to the cost of maintaining the 5-plex. If the respondent did not contribute to the cost of the 5-plex because it was effectively self-sustaining, then the same holds true of the appellant.
[22] The appellant says this case is similar to the decision of this Court in Sparrow v Sparrow, 2006 ABCA 155 (CanLII), [2006] AJ No 513. In that case, the parties jointly owned a one-half interest in a cabin on a lakefront property in British Columbia. On appeal, this Court found that the increase in value was to be divided with 30% to the wife and 70% to the husband (para 18).
[23] It must be remembered, however, in considering other cases dealing with the distribution of matrimonial property that each case will be decided on its own facts, and the analysis of section 8 factors will rarely, if ever, be identical. In Sparrow, the exempt property was used by the parties for half of each summer and on alternating weekends. While the wife in Sparrow maintained the property, the husband’s parents paid most of the expenses for the property on behalf of the husband. These factors, among others, led the court to effect the distribution as it did. The same factors do not apply in this case, however, and a section 8 analysis must be conducted on the facts here.
[24] The 5-plex had a heightened significance to the parties. This was the parties’ matrimonial home for five years and their children were born there. Moreover, there was evidence before the trial judge that the rental income from the 5-plex was used for the parties’ living expenses. The wife also gave evidence of acting as a property manager for the property, and as such she was responsible for the day-to-day care and running of the property. This was in addition to her primary child-rearing role in the marriage.
[25] Based on this evidence, we cannot find the trial judge’s conclusion on this point is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.
It Pays To Hire a Top Calgary Family Lawyer When You Are Involved in a High Stakes Calgary Exempt Property Increased Value Division Case
Calgary exempt property increased value division lawyers at MacLean Law’s Calgary office are pleased to meet with you to go over what section 8 factors are present in your case and how they will affect the equitable division of the gain on exempt property. We will go over if the property at issue was used by the parties to live in or live off of, if the gain occurred through joint efforts, market forces alone or a combination of factors. Sometimes an exemption is much smaller than the gain itself and sometimes the gains come quickly in a short relationship. All of these factors play a role in the court’s decision involving Calgary Exempt Property Increased Value Division.
Hire a Calgary family lawyer who knows what factors matter and how to argue for equitable property division that favours you like one of the Calgary family lawyers at MacLean Family Law.
