Oamra & Williams

In this family law appeal, the wife contested the property settlement order made by the primary judge, arguing that the parties had agreed to keep their property separate and that there should be no alteration of property interests. The court was required to decide whether it was just and equitable to make any property settlement order, and whether there needed to be mutuality in any stated or unstated assumptions that the parties would keep their finances separate. The court also considered whether the primary judge erred in various respects, including in his assessment of contributions and tax consequences.

The court found that the wife could not rely upon unilateral unstated assumptions, and that the primary judge was correct in finding that it was just and equitable to make a property settlement order. The court held that the primary judge gave adequate reasons for his assessment of contributions and did not err in considering the tax consequences of potential property sales. The court found that it was open to the primary judge not to add back legal fees because of the inadequacy of evidence on both sides in relation to the source of funds used to pay them and the relatively small difference in the amount paid in legal fees.

The court dismissed the wife's appeal and ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs fixed in the sum of $19,635.00 within 28 days.