The parties failed to cooperate in obtaining a joint appraisal of a property in India
In a family law case that has stretched over two years, the BC Supreme Court has issued directions to finally resolve the division of two properties located in India as part of a broader asset division between a separated couple.
The dispute in B.S.D. v S.K.D, 2024 BCSC 505 centred around properties inherited by the claimant from his parents in 2007, consisting of agricultural land and a house. Despite a pretrial order to appraise all properties owned by the parties, including those abroad, disagreements over whether the overseas properties were included led to no appraisals being obtained. This oversight complicated the asset division process, further exacerbated by the respondent initiating legal action in India to prevent the sale of these properties.
The court had previously ruled that the claimant should compensate the respondent for half of the increase in value of both properties from the inheritance date until the date of separation. This decision was based on the principles of the Family Law Act, which allows for compensation in lieu of direct division for property located outside the jurisdiction, provided one spouse can compensate the other within the local jurisdiction.
Despite this ruling, the parties failed to cooperate in obtaining a joint appraisal of the Indian properties, leading to separate appraisals being submitted. The claimant's appraisal valued the properties based on their increase in value from 2007 to 2014, while the respondent's appraisal only provided a 2014 valuation, lacking the crucial 2007 baseline for an accurate calculation of value increase.
In the latest judgment, the court adopted the claimant's appraisal as the basis for valuation, emphasizing the need to conclude the proceedings efficiently. The court found the claimant's appraisal to comply substantially with the original order by providing the necessary valuation increase over the specified period. In contrast, the respondent's appraisal was incomplete and would not serve as a reliable basis for calculating her share of the increase in property value.
The court concluded, “At this late stage, more than two years after the reasons for judgment, the focus should be on what is necessary to bring this matter to a resolution as efficiently as possible.”
