The parties built a new matrimonial home on property owned by the appellant prior to the marriage.
The cost of construction significantly exceeded the market value of the property, leaving it subject to substantial debt.
The trial judge declared the respondent a fifty percent equitable owner based on resulting trust principles and ordered the appellant to pay $160,000 if he remained in the home, explicitly departing from the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in failing to follow the statutory equalization process.
Under the Family Law Act, the appellant's net family property was zero, meaning no equalization payment was owed.
The respondent's cross-appeal for unjust enrichment was dismissed as the appellant was not enriched.
