Peter Smith

The applicant brought a motion under the Partition Act for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and for an order requiring the respondent to vacate the property to facilitate repairs and staging.

The respondent consented to the sale but opposed vacating the home, citing financial hardship and the need to accommodate her adult son.

The court granted the motion, ordering the respondent to vacate by a specified date, finding that vacant possession was necessary to maximize the sale price and that the respondent had sufficient notice to find alternative accommodation.

The net proceeds were ordered to be divided equally on closing, with the respondent's share subject to deductions for her portion of repair costs and any registered liens.

On a motion under Family Law Rule 11(3), the applicant sought to add his former mother-in-law and adult children as respondents and to expand claims arising from alleged misuse of settlement funds and family property following separation and divorce.

The court held there was no limitation period for the support claim against the adult children and permitted that amendment.

The proposed fraudulent conveyance claim concerning one property was found to be governed by a two-year limitation period and was refused as clearly statute barred.

However, the proposed constructive trust and related claims concerning two other properties were allowed because there was a live factual and credibility dispute over discoverability.

The related civil action was ordered transferred to Family Court to be heard together with the family proceeding, subject to the exclusion of the barred Wendell claims.