SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 11-7699M (Owen Sound)
DATE: 2012-11-19

RE: Natasa Kraner v. John Ivan Kraner

BEFORE: Ricchetti, J.

COUNSEL:
A. Wilford, for the Applicant (Wife)
E . Treslan, for the Respondent (Husband)
H. Van Bavel, for the Receiver

ENDORSEMENT

The Issues

[ 1 ] There are three issues to be determined today:

a) The orders of May 3, 2012 and October 25, 2012 prevent the Husband from travelling outside of Canada. The Husband seeks a variation of the prior order to permit him to travel outside of Canada for a brief period for his mother's funeral;

b) The Husband seeks an order for disclosure of certain documents pertaining to the operation of the Tobermory Lodge & Motel Resort ("Tobermory Lodge") during the summer of 2012 and copies of certain e-mails between the Receiver and counsel for the Wife; and

c) The Husband seeks relief relating to the completion of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated October 23, 2012 (as amended on November 5, 2012). The Receiver brings a motion for directions with respect to the same Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The History

[ 2 ] It is clear from the numerous motions and voluminous materials filed by both parties since the commencement of this proceeding that this proceeding has become a hostile financial battle between the parties with little or no rules. From a review of the prior endorsements of this Court, neither party appears to have taken the “high road.” At the core of the dispute is which party will own and operate the Tobermory Lodge and allegations by the Wife that substantial cash received by the Husband need to be equalized.

[ 3 ] There appears to be little doubt the Husband failed to comply with various orders of this court including spousal support and cost orders. Further, the Court has noted on several occasions that there appears to be a failure by the Husband to comply with court orders such as the disposition of $150,000 by the Husband which the court required to be paid into court and the payment of $440,000 to the Husband's brother on the same day as the non-dissipation order was made in circumstances where this Court found that the "existence of this debt is extremely far fetched." It is with this background that the Husband now moves to permit the sale of the Tobermory Lodge. The history of this matter needs to be reviewed carefully to ensure that the sale is to a bona fide third party, at a reasonable price and is best for both parties while all the issues are tried or resolved.

[ 4 ] The parties were married on January 22, 2004. They separated on July 15, 2011. There are no children of the marriage.

[ 5 ] The Wife is 63 years old. The Husband is 68 years old.

[ 6 ] The Husband is the registered owner of Tobermory Lodge, although it appears the Tobermory Lodge operated through or had its operating assets held by 2027707 Ontario Ltd., a corporation owned solely by the Husband ("2027707"). The Tobermory Lodge operates seasonally and only during the summers from the Victoria Day weekend until Labour Day.

[ 7 ] The Husband had income from the Tobermory Lodge in the amount of approximately $3,000 per month (see his November 2011 Financial Statement). The Husband does not show any substantial cash savings in his Financial Statement.

[ 8 ] The Wife has been unemployed since July 2011 and essentially has no income. The Wife has few assets apart from RRSP, a claimed interest in Tobermory Lodge and a claimed interest in a substantial amount of "cash" allegedly kept by the Husband from the operations of Tobermory Lodge.

[ 9 ] Upon commencement of this proceeding in July 2011, the Wife wanted exclusive possession and operation of the Tobermory Lodge. The Husband wanted to maintain control and operation of the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 10 ] However, at the first attendance in court, a Consent Order was made by this court on July 29, 2011. This order provided for a non-dissipation order subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 which provided:

Paragraph 1 of this Order shall not prevent the respondent, John Ivan Kraner, from listing the Tobermory Lodge & Motel Resort for sale nor shall it prevent him from accepting a bona fide third part offer to purchase the aforementioned property.

In the event that the respondent, John Ivan Kraner, accepts a bona fide third party offer to purchase the Tobermory Lodge & Motel Resort, written notice of such acceptance together with a copy of the accepted offer shall be delivered to counsel for the applicant, Natasha Kraner, within 72 hours of such acceptance.

(the "July 29, 2011 Order")

[ 11 ] The battle over control of Tobermory Lodge and disposition of assets by the Husband continued.

[ 12 ] The Husband submits that the summer 2011 Tobermory Lodge operating season was a financial loss.

[ 13 ] On May 3, 2012 this Court determined that the Husband had dissipated certain family assets and there were suspicious circumstances suggesting other improper asset dispositions by the Husband putting at risk the Wife's ability to prove and collect an equalization payment. The Husband was ordered to pay certain monies into court, and the Husband was ordered not to leave Canada pending final determination or the contempt motion (the "May 3, 2012 Order").

[ 14 ] On May 3, 2012, the Court also denied the Wife's motion to put the Tobermory Lodge in her name or to permit her to run the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 15 ] The substantial mortgage on Tobermory Lodge had gone into arrears. The 2012 operating season was about to start. Given the continued battle between the parties for control of Tobermory Lodge, their inability to work together and distrust for each other, something needed to be done.

[ 16 ] On May 16, 2012, Justice Corbett appointed a Receiver over the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 17 ] Justice Corbett permitted both parties to continue to be involved in the operations of the Tobermory Lodge. This quickly became a problem.

[ 18 ] On May 28, 2012 (or perhaps May 30, 2012 - the date on the endorsement is unclear) the parties were back in court. Justice Corbett, was critical of both parties' conduct during the opening weekend of the Tobermory Lodge. Justice Corbett stated "Mr. Kraner has been acting in a manner contrary to the interests of the Lodge, for the purpose of frustrating or impeding the Receivership." The Husband was ordered to leave the Tobermory Lodge property.

[ 19 ] Some of the allegations before Justice Corbett suggested an “alignment” of the Receiver with the Wife’s interests in this case. This continued and continues to be an issue advanced by the Husband.

[ 20 ] Justice Corbett ordered that neither party have any further involvement in the day to day management of the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 21 ] Difficulties for the Receiver continued throughout the summer months. There are allegations of "sabotage." The suggestion is that it is the opposing party which is frustrating the business operations.

[ 22 ] As a result, on August 16, 2012 the Husband brought a motion to discharge the Receiver. The Wife renewed her motion to have the Tobermory Lodge property and business put into her name.

[ 23 ] The August 16, 2012 motions were heard by Justice Wein. Written reasons were issued on August 29, 2012. As noted by Justice Wein at para. 16:

It is obvious that both John Kraner and Natasha Kraner are unhappy with the Receivership, and wish to have the property run by each of them, without the other. Contempt actions have also been brought, including a request that the Receiver be held in contempt.

[ 24 ] In addition to other relief granted, Justice Wein dismissed the motion to remove the Receiver, dismissed the motion to remove the designation of the Tobermory Lodge as a matrimonial home and dismissed the Wife's motion to transfer the Tobermory Lodge to her. (“the August 29, 2012 Order”)

[ 25 ] The matter was before this Court again on October 25, 2012 on a contempt motion brought by the Wife. The Husband failed to attend. The Court once again ordered the Husband not to leave Canada and to personally attend on November 22, 2012 for the contempt motion. The Court also made an order regarding disclosure. (“the October 25, 2012 Order”)

The Present Motions

[ 26 ] On October 31, 2012, the Receiver brought a motion for directions with respect to an Offer by Steve Levack to buy the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 27 ] On November 6, 2012, the Husband brought a motion seeking:

a) Authorization to complete the Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated October 23, 2012 with Steven Levack for the Tobermory Lodge including the assets owned by 2027707;

b) An order discharging the matrimonial home designation registered on July 9, 2012;

c) An order discharging the Receiver; and

d) An order that the net proceeds of the sale be paid into court without prejudice to the claims of the parties;

ISSUE # 1: Travel outside of Canada

[ 28 ] I recognize the Husband's desire to attend his mother's funeral. The Husband indicates he wishes to leave Canada on November 14, 2012 and will be returning to Canada on November 20, 2012.

[ 29 ] At present the Husband is in arrears for support and cost orders in the amount of approximately $40,000. The Wife does not oppose a variation of the prior orders to permit the Husband to attend his mother's funeral on the following terms:

a) The amount of $40,000 to be paid by or on behalf of the Husband to the Husband's counsel prior to the Husband leaving Canada;

b) The Husband shall return to Canada on or before November 22, 2012;

c) The Husband's counsel shall retain the funds until:

• Further order of this Court;

• The written consent of both parties; or

• If the Husband attends this Court on November 22, 2012, then at the commencement of the proceedings at 10 a.m. on November 22, 2012 when the Husband is present in court, the funds may be returned to the Husband or to whoever remitted the funds to counsel. If the Husband fails to attend court at 10 a.m. on November 22, 2012, then the entire funds are to be immediately delivered (that same day) by counsel to the Wife's counsel and said funds are to be applied by the Wife first, against outstanding cost orders the Husband has not paid and thereafter, against outstanding support arrears. The Husband to have credit for these payments in this proceeding.

[ 30 ] I am satisfied that an order with the above terms will not prejudice the Wife's position any more than necessary in these unfortunate circumstances.

[ 31 ] So ordered on the terms set out above.

ISSUE #2: Documentary disclosure from the Receiver

[ 32 ] The Husband seeks disclosure of the supporting documentation regarding the Tobermory Lodge's revenue during the 2012 operating season and copies of the emails between the Receiver and the Wife's counsel.

[ 33 ] The Receiver does not object to the disclosure.

[ 34 ] I am satisfied that access to the documents requested is necessary to permit the Husband to properly deal with the Receiver's passing of accounts on November 22, 2012.

[ 35 ] As a result, I make the following order:

a) The Receiver shall make the above documentation available for inspection to the Husband's counsel and the Husband at the Receiver's office;

b) The documentation shall not be altered or removed from the Receiver's office; and

c) If the Husband's counsel requires copies of any of the documentation, the Receiver is entitled to be paid a reasonable cost for the copying prior to the copies being made available. Upon receipt of the cost of photocopying, the Receiver shall make the copies available within 2 business days.

ISSUE #3: Discharge of the Receiver

[ 36 ] There was no argument on this issue.

[ 37 ] I am satisfied that the motion to discharge the Receiver should be heard at the same time as the November 22, 2012 motion for passing of the Receivers accounts. Until further order of this court, the court appointed receivership remains in place in accordance with the orders made by Justice Corbett.

ISSUE #4: Sale of Tobermory Lodge

[ 38 ] As can be seen from the history of these proceedings, both parties want ownership and the right to operate Tobermory Lodge free from interference of the other. The Husband appears to be prepared to sell the Tobermory Lodge at a reasonable price.

[ 39 ] The present circumstances with the Receiver operating cannot continue. Tobermory Lodge is losing money. According to the Husband, the Tobermory Lodge lost money during the 2011 operating season. During the Receivership’s operation, the Tobermory Lodge also lost approximately $59,000 during the 2012 season plus legal fees plus Receiver's fees. This leads credence that the Tobermory Lodge, in its present condition, is simply not profitable.

[ 40 ] The mortgage on Tobermory Lodge is substantial and is in arrears. The mortgage on the Tobermory Lodge is the subject of a legal proceeding.

[ 41 ] The Receiver's fees are a further drain on the value of the Tobermory Lodge and will continue to decrease the amount that may be available for distribution to the parties in this proceeding.

The efforts to sell the Tobermory Lodge

[ 42 ] Let me provide some background specific to the issue to be determined.

[ 43 ] As I said above, on July 29, 2011 both parties agreed the Husband could list and sell Tobermory Lodge to a " bona fid e" third party. A consent order was issued in this regard. That order remains in place. The Wife has made no attempt to set that order aside.

[ 44 ] In the fall of 2011, the Husband listed the Tobermory Lodge for sale with Angelo Pitino of Royal Lepage Real Estate Professionals. The listing price was $1,750,000. There were no offers.

[ 45 ] An appraisal dated October 14, 2011 valued the Tobermory Lodge at $1,037,000. (“2011 Appraisal”)

[ 46 ] The Husband reduced the listing price to $1,350,000.

[ 47 ] On June 19, 2012, the Wife submitted an offer for $1,350,000 conditional on financing and with a $1,000 deposit. The Husband signed back the Wife’s offer requiring a $50,000 deposit and no conditions. The Husband had serious concerns regarding the Wife's ability to complete the transaction. I am satisfied this concern was reasonable in the circumstances.

[ 48 ] The Wife did not accept the Husband’s sign back. Nothing appears to have happened during the months of July and August with respect to this offer.

[ 49 ] On July 9, 2012, the Wife registered on title a designation of the Tobermory Lodge as a matrimonial home.

[ 50 ] On September 7, 2012, the Husband delivered a signed offer to the Wife for $1,350,000 with a $50,000 deposit and no conditions. In other words, the Husband repeated the sign back offer he had made to the Wife in June 2012. The Wife did not accept this offer.

[ 51 ] On October 3, 2012, the Receiver sent the Husband's lawyer an offer from "Terrier Holdings Inc." as buy and the Receiver as seller. The purchase price was $800,000 with a $50,000 deposit. The offer provided that it was conditional upon the purchaser arranging financing. If the purchaser could not arrange financing by March 1, 2013 , the purchaser could terminate the agreement. The Husband searched but could find no registration for "Terrier Holdings Inc." As a result, the Husband didn't respond to this offer.

[ 52 ] I find it surprising that the offer would have been sent to the Receiver as the Receiver had not listed the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 53 ] The Husband met Steve Levack on October 23, 2012 and tried to negotiate an offer of more than $1,000,000 but Steve Levack was not prepared to offer more. "Steve Levack in trust for a company to be incorporated" submitted an offer dated October 23, 2012 for $1,000,000. While the initial deposit was only $100, once the conditions were satisfied, the purchaser was to provide a further $50,000 deposit. (“Steve Levack Offer”)

[ 54 ] The Husband accepted the Steve Levack Offer (“Steve Levack Agreement”)

[ 55 ] The Wife submits that, after she heard about the Steve Levack Offer or Agreement, she offered to buy the Tobermory Lodge for $950,000 (which is $10,000 more that the Steve Levack Offer provided no real estate commission is payable). The problem is that there is no written offer from the Wife and no evidence as to how the Wife would have been able to finance this purchase.

[ 56 ] The Wife also submits that, at some point, she agreed to buy the Tobermory Lodge for the price of the mortgage - $800,000 but she would pay the expenses to clean up title. Again, the problem is that there is no written offer from the Wife and no evidence as to how the Wife would have been able to finance this purchase.

[ 57 ] On November 5, 2012 Steve Levack advised the real estate agent that he would complete the purchase transaction but, upon completion of his inspection, would only do so at a purchase price of $900,000. The Husband submitted an amendment to the Steve Levack Agreement to amend the purchase price to $950,000. This amendment was not acceptable to Steve Levack. Steve Levack signed back the amendment at $925,000 which was accepted by the Husband.

[ 58 ] I understand that all of the conditions in the Steve Levack Agreement (as amended) have now been satisfied and the purchase agreement is now firm and binding. The further $50,000 deposit has been made by Mr. Levack.

[ 59 ] The Husband states Steve Levack is a bona fide purchaser who he had never met prior to the negotiations.

[ 60 ] Mr. Pitino, the real estate agent submitted an affidavit. He swears as to the manner in which Mr. Levack became aware of the property and the negotiations. Mr. Pinto confirms that the fact there was matrimonial litigation and a receiver involved was of concern to Mr. Levack. I have no doubt this would have impacted the price at which the Tobermory Lodge could be sold.

[ 61 ] Mr. Pitino confirms Mr. Levack is a " bonafide arms length third party purchaser of the Tobermory Lodge."

[ 62 ] Mr. Levack, the purchaser, submitted an affidavit. He confirms that he is a " bona fide , arms length, third party purchaser of the property." He also confirms that he had never met or spoken with the Husband prior to October 23, 2012 and that there is no further consideration to be paid to the Husband other than as set out in the Steve Levack Agreement (as amended).

[ 63 ] The Steve Levack Agreement (as amended) is scheduled to close on November 15, 2012. However, the manager appointed by the Receiver and who allegedly has some ties to the Wife, has filed a construction lien in the amount of approximately $200,000 against title to the Tobermory Lodge. There is no motion before this court to deal with that construction lien. As a result, the closing date of the Steve Levack Agreement (as amended) will have to be amended to permit a motion to be brought to vacate this lien. This motion should be brought promptly and be scheduled as soon as possible with the Trial Coordinator.

The Position of the Parties

[ 64 ] The Husband wants this Court to approve the Steve Levack Agreement and make the necessary ancillary orders to ensure the sale can be completed.

[ 65 ] The Wife wants this Court to dismiss the Husband’s motion as she states “I hope I have disclosed enough to show that this sale for $925,000 is a scam to steal my last hope of recovering anything.”

[ 66 ] Neither party raised any issue regarding the court's jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

[ 67 ] The Receiver filed a Fourth Report. The Receiver submits that, if the Steve Levack Agreement is accepted, there will only be about $40,725.43 (less legal fees for completing the real estate transaction) for payment into court. The Receiver states that the Husband also owes some $82,077 to 2027707 Ontario Ltd. The above does not include payment of the Receiver’s outstanding fees as may be assessed by this court. I accept the Receiver’s position that, if the Steve Levack Agreement (as amended) is completed, there will be little or no funds available for the parties or payment of the Receiver’s fees. Fortunately for the Receiver, there is $150,000 to the credit of this action which the Receiver may be able to look to for unpaid fees.

[ 68 ] The Receiver takes issue with the 2011 Appraisal but the Receiver does not submit its own appraisal or even venture a guess as to the value of the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 69 ] The Receiver concludes that the Receiver has made improvements to the Tobermory Lodge of more than $100,000 since the 2011 Appraisal and this is not reflected in the sale price. I am not sure as to the value of this comment except as an implicit statement that the Receiver believes the Tobermory Lodge should sell for more. The facts are the business is losing money, the owner(s) are embroiled in a very hostile matrimonial dispute and there is a receiver managing the business. It should come as no shock that the business, in these circumstances, might very well sell for less, even substantially less, than what it may be worth. I do not know if that is the case, but what is clear is that this is the first real offer in almost a full year since the business has been up for sale. It is a good indication of what the Tobermory Lodge is worth at this time in these circumstances.

[ 70 ] The problem with the Receiver’s report is that, while being supportive of the Wife’s position, the Receiver puts forward no viable option. There were no suggestions by the Receiver as to how the financial situation might improve for the benefit of the parties unless the Tobermory Lodge is sold as soon as possible.

[ 71 ] I am satisfied that unless the Tobermory Lodge is sold now, the losses will simply continue to mount and there will be less available for the parties.

Analysis

[ 72 ] The Wife filed an extensive affidavit on this motion. Much of her affidavit deals with the Husbands alleged hiding and transferring of monies. It is an attempt to establish that the Husband has lied and cheated for many years and that his statements cannot be trusted. The difficulty is that this court is not in a position to determine the accuracy of the Wife’s allegation or to make findings of fact in this regard. More important, it is not necessary to make the findings the Wife seeks to advance in order for this court to decide this motion.

[ 73 ] The Wife’s affidavit speculates that the Steve Levack Agreement of Purchase and Sale is not a bona fide offer. However, there are no facts to support this other than the allegations the Husband has lied and cheated. The Wife agreed to let the Husband list the Tobermory Lodge and sell to a bona fide purchaser. The Wife has changed her mind. That was clear when she decided in July 2012 to register a matrimonial designation on the property knowing it would encumber the Husband’s ability to sell the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 74 ] In order for the Husband's motion to succeed all that the Husband would need to establish was :

i. that the July 29, 2011 Order continues to be enforceable which is the case;

ii. that Steve Levack is a bona fide purchaser which appears from all the evidence except the speculation by the Wife. I am satisfied Steve Levack is a bona fide third party purchaser; and

iii. that the sale price is reasonable in the circumstances. I am satisfied that the $925,000 purchase price is reasonable given all of the circumstances including the 2011 Appraisal, time of year, the receivership, time on the market, and past financial performance.

[ 75 ] Based on the above, I would have granted the Husband's motion.

[ 76 ] However, let me go one step further. The Wife's position is simple: The Husband has taken a great deal of cash out of the business. If this cash was accounted, the Tobermory Lodge would have a considerably higher value. The difficulty with this position is that:

a) the Receiver has operated the Tobermory Lodge during the summer of 2012 and there has been no financial windfall, cash or otherwise. In fact, the Receiver lost money during this past season (and that fails to take into account the Receiver's fees and the mortgage has not been paid during this period);

b) after the Wife heard about the Steve Levack Agreement on October 24, 2012, the Wife never submitted an offer to buy the Tobermory Lodge. She could have done so up until the amendment on November 5, 2012 because Steve Levack wouldn’t close at his original price of $1,000,000. This gave the Wife an opportunity and plenty of time for the Wife to submit an offer at $1,000,000 as suggested today. She didn’t do so. Why? The only conclusion is that the Wife really has no financial ability to make a realistic offer but she doesn't want the Husband to have the Tobermory Lodge. I am not satisfied that the Wife is in a position to buy the Tobermory Lodge or even to get a mortgage/financing. To use her words in her November 8, 2012 Affidavit:

I am 63 years old with no job references. I cannot find any employment and have used up all of my mother’s life savings to survive. I am destitute.

c) there are no other offers for the Tobermory Lodge despite it being up for sale for a considerable time. This is the off season. However, the mortgage and other expenses will continue to accrue; and

d) it would take some time for the Tobermory Lodge to be operated to demonstrate this alleged profitability and then be sold. Who and how would the Tobermory Lodge be financed in the interim? Why would the mortgagee refrain from continuing its mortgage action given the present financial circumstances?

[ 77 ] The Wife submits that the Husband has not complied with the Bulk Sales Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. B.14. That is something for the purchaser to consider whether it is required or not. The only reason compliance with the Bulk Sales Act might be required in these circumstances is because the land and the assets of Tobermory Lodge have not been vested in the Receiver (as I understand it the receivership is for 2027707 Ontario Limited), so the entire sale is not a Receiver’s sale which would be exempt as being a sale made pursuant to a court order. No one has asked for a vesting order. In any event, I doubt a judicial exemption order for compliance would be difficult to obtain in these circumstances. This issue is not an impediment to the completion of the sale of the Tobermory Lodge.

[ 78 ] I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of all that the Husband’s motion be granted.

Conclusion

[ 79 ] The following order shall issue:

a) The Husband is authorized to complete the Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated October 23, 2012 between Steve Levack, in trust for a company to be incorporated, as purchaser and John Kraner and 2027707 Ontario Limited, as vendors, as amended on November 5, 2012 for a total purchase price of $925,000. In order to avoid any further dispute between the parties, the vendors will be bringing a motion to vacate a Construction Lien by the former manager, which will necessitate an amendment in the closing presently scheduled for November 15, 2012. The Husband is authorized to agree to a reasonable adjournment of the closing date but to no later than December 21, 2012. If the closing of the above Agreement of Purchase and Sale, as amended, is not closed by December 21, 2012, counsel will arrange for the matter to come back before me, in Brampton, if necessary to deal with solely the sale of the Tobermory Lodge. Mr. Steve Levack to be served with notice of the return of motion before me;

b) The Wife shall withdraw the registration designating the Tobermory Lodge property as a matrimonial home within 10 days of the date hereof, which designation was registered as instrument number BR 67140 on July 9, 2012 in the appropriate Land Registry Office;

c) The net proceeds of sale, after paying the real estate commission, mortgage, municipal taxes, legal fees and any other adjustments to third parties as may be necessary to complete the transaction, shall be paid into court to the credit of this action without prejudice to the claims of the parties and Receiver;

d) The Husband's motion to discharge the Receiver is adjourned to be heard on November 22, 2012 along with the other motions to be heard that day; and

e) The Receiver shall cooperate with the real estate agent and the Husband to facilitate the closing of the Steve Levack Agreement (as amended) and as may be further amended to permit the Husband to bring a motion to vacate the construction lien registered on title.

Costs

[ 80 ] Unless the parties can agree on costs the following procedure shall apply.

[ 81 ] Any party seeking costs shall serve and file written submissions within 2 weeks of today’s date. The submissions are limited to 3 pages together with an attached Costs Outline and any authorities relied on.

[ 82 ] Any reply submissions shall be served and filed within one week after the two week deadline. The submissions are limited to 3 pages together any authorities relied on.

Ricchetti, J.

DATE: November 19, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: 11-7699M (Owen Sound)
DATE: 2012-11-19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Natasa Kraner v. John Ivan Kraner BEFORE: Ricchetti, J. COUNSEL: A. Wilford, for the Applicant (Wife) E . Treslan, for the Respondent (Husband) H. Van Bavel, for the Receiver ENDORSEMENT Ricchetti J.

DATE: November 19, 2012