COAD & COAD

The parties to this proceeding were a husband and wife. The dispute concerned the division of property following their separation. The court was required to determine how the parties' assets should be divided.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the current standard of living of each party, considering the husband's financial circumstances while incarcerated, and evaluating the wife's ability to coordinate her professional responsibilities with her role as a parent. The court also had to consider the extent to which the marriage had affected the earning capacity of each party, the financial circumstances of any cohabitation, and any child support obligations. Furthermore, the court was required to consider any fact or circumstance that justice required, including the wife's receipt and expenditure of criminal injuries compensation monies and the potential for a personal injuries claim against the husband.

The court reasoned that the wife's current standard of living was not inadequate and that it was inappropriate to gauge the husband's standard of living against the family's pre-separation circumstances. The court noted that the husband could afford certain daily expenses from his prison income and family gifts. It was also observed that the wife had managed her professional and parental responsibilities effectively, and her partner was self-supporting. The court found that the husband paid no child support, which did not alleviate the wife's responsibilities. Regarding the criminal injuries compensation, the court was not satisfied that an allowance was appropriate, nor that the funds were expended in a manner requiring them to be added back to divisible assets. The court also noted that the wife had not pursued a personal injuries claim against the husband in these proceedings, and that the husband had already been punished for his actions. The court indicated that there was no tortious or punitive aspect to the property alteration.

The court ordered a proportional division of the former matrimonial home, noting that the wife had proposed its sale but had not provided evidence of sale costs. Consequently, these costs could not be factored into the valuation of the home.