The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant husband to repay $228,099 he withdrew from their joint line of credit, alleging he breached a November 2023 agreement between counsel.
She also sought a broader preservation order over all of his assets to secure her equalization and support claims, as well as potential liability in a civil action brought by her parents.
The court found that a binding agreement existed prohibiting the husband from accessing the joint line of credit and ordered him to repay the funds with interest.
However, the court dismissed the request for a broader preservation order, finding that the equity in the matrimonial home and the repayment of the line of credit provided sufficient security for the wife's claims.
