Date: 20090512
Docket: T-628-08
Citation: 2009
FC 493
Toronto, Ontario, May 12, 2009
PRESENT: Kevin R. Aalto, Esquire, Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
CLAUDIA
RICCI
Plaintiff
and
JOHN TULLY and the Owners and
All others Interested IN THE
SHIP “CELESTRIS”
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Introduction
[1]
“FOREVER
LOST” is the apocryphal name of the 48 foot sailboat which is at the centre of
this proceeding (the “Sailboat”). The Plaintiff, Claudia Ricci (“Claudia”) and
the Defendant, John Tully (“John”) are married and are currently involved in
divorce proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Those
proceedings were commenced subsequent to this action.
[2]
There is a
dispute as to the ownership of the Sailboat between Claudia and John. Claudia
claims that she is the equitable owner of the Sailboat because she provided all
of the purchase funds. She raised those funds by taking out a mortgage on her
home which she had owned free and clear and which she had purchased and lived
in prior to her marriage to John. For his part, John claims ownership by way
of gift from Claudia and also alleges that he has spent endless hours repairing
and restoring the Sailboat. For the reasons that follow, the Sailboat is indeed
forever lost to Claudia and John and must be sold.
Background
[3]
Claudia is
a 51 year old single parent who lives with her three children aged eighteen,
twenty-one and twenty-four. She is employed as an early childhood education
teacher with the Centered on Child Care Centre. She earns an annual gross
salary of approximately $40,000. Her evidence is that she runs a monthly
financial shortfall of over $1,000 a month due to debts she incurred to finance
the purchase of the Sailboat.
[4]
From about
May 2004 until December 2006, Claudia and John were involved in a personal
relationship and cohabited together. They were married on January 29, 2005.
During that time, John was involved in a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act and had negligible assets.
[5]
During
their cohabitation, Claudia and John lived in Claudia’s home in Bolton, Ontario. Claudia had purchased that
home in January 1998. At the time of the purchase there was no mortgage
financing on the property. It is Claudia’s evidence that the original
intention of the purchase of the Sailboat was that she and John wished to use
it as a retirement investment. They viewed it as being the basis of a charter
company and that they would eventually retire and live aboard the Sailboat in
the Caribbean. Claudia deposes that this was John’s idea. He apparently had
significant experience with Sailboats while Claudia had nominal experience.
Acquisition of the Sailboat
[6]
Between
August 2004 and November 2004, Claudia and John travelled to various locations
in the United
States looking
at Sailboats. Eventually, they decided to purchase a 1990, 48 foot Jacobs Auxiliary
sailboat which at the time was named “CELESTRIS”. In November, 2004 the purchase
was completed.
[7]
Claudia’s
evidence is that John handled the administration of the purchase of the Sailboat
on behalf of himself and Claudia and that the Sailboat would be registered in
both of their names.
[8]
The
evidence is undisputed that the entire purchase price of the Sailboat in the
amount of $100,000 US was raised by Claudia. She borrowed the entire amount
from TD Canada Trust by placing a mortgage on the home in the amount of
$132,000 Cdn. Her evidence is that after consolidation of some of her personal
expenses, she received a net amount of $119,820.73 Cdn. from the proceeds of
the mortgage which were then used to purchase the Sailboat.
[9]
During
their cohabitation, John and Claudia apparently contributed equally to the
mortgage payments on the home. However, John did not contribute to the capital
cost of the acquisition of the Sailboat. Possession of the Sailboat was taken
in early 2005 and in May, Claudia and John sailed it back to Canada. Claudia states that John
was responsible for making all necessary arrangements with respect to the
import of the Sailboat to Canada and all necessary arrangements
with Canada Customs and other government agencies. John failed to do so. As a
result, the Sailboat was encumbered with a $26,450 fine levied by Canada
Customs. A further sum of approximately $15,000 was levied with respect to
importation taxes and duties.
[10]
Claudia
says in her affidavit that John suggested that Claudia pay these additional
amounts since he did not have any money or assets and Claudia still had equity
in her home. As a result, Claudia obtained a secured line of credit against the
home for $57,500 in June 2005 and paid an additional $40,000 of this towards
the fines and duties owing on the Sailboat.
[11]
In
December, 2006 Claudia refinanced her home to consolidate the debts incurred
with respect to the Sailboat. This resulted in a mortgage in the amount of
$185,000 on the home. Her evidence is that of the mortgage amount, a total of
$159,000 relates to her investment in the Sailboat.
John’s Actions
[12]
It is
Claudia’s evidence that the Sailboat was to be registered in both her name and
John’s name. This is so given the fact that she contributed all of the money
for the acquisition of the Sailboat. However, as John was responsible for all
of the administration relating to the acquisition of the Sailboat and its
importation to Canada, on the registration
documents, only John is identified as the owner and purchaser of the Sailboat
in the bill of sale. When it was registered with the Canadian Registrar of
Vessels, it was registered solely in his name.
[13]
Unfortunately,
the marriage did not last long and Claudia and John separated on or about
December 1, 2006. At that time, John moved out of Claudia’s home but kept
possession of the Sailboat. It is moored at a marina on Lake Ontario in Toronto. Claudia’s evidence is that she does
not have any keys, pass codes or any other access whatsoever to the Sailboat
and does not use it. It is solely used by John.
[14]
A
separation agreement was entered between Claudia and John. In that separation
agreement, John agreed to make all of the mortgage payments taken out to
acquire the Sailboat. Until May 2008, the payment on the mortgage was
approximately $1,411. Since May, the monthly payment is approximately $1,370
per month.
[15]
John gave
Claudia approximately $14,046 to cover the monthly mortgage payments from
December, 2006 until the end of February, 2008. A cheque provided on March 1,
2008 in the amount of $750 did not clear. Claudia’s evidence, which was
uncontradicted, is that John failed to make any further payments until ordered
by this Court to do so.
[16]
This
action was commenced by Statement of Claim issued April 22, 2008. A warrant
for the arrest of the Sailboat was issued on April 23, 2008 and served on the
Sailboat on April 25, 2008. The Sailboat has remained under arrest within the
jurisdiction of this Court since that time.
[17]
A Vessel Registration
Query Search result from Transport Canada’s
website completed on May 28, 2008 indicates that the ownership of Sailboat was
registered to Marguerite Dunning on May 6, 2008. This is obviously subsequent
to the arrest of the Sailboat. Marguerite Dunning is apparently a woman with
whom John had a relationship subsequent to his separation from Claudia. At the
time of the change of ownership the name of the Sailboat was changed from
“CELESTRIS” to “FOREVER LOST”. A further Vessel Registration Query Search
result from Transport Canada was conducted on July 17,
2008 and shows that the ownership was switched back from Marguerite Dunning to
John. The name of the Sailboat remains “FOREVER LOST”.
These proceedings
[18]
As noted,
the Sailboat is currently under arrest pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by
this Court on April 25, 2008. The Statement of Claim in this proceeding seeks
various heads of relief including the following:
a)
A declaration
that Claudia acquired and is entitled to a 100% interest in the Sailboat and
that it be registered with the Canadian Registrar of Vessels in Claudia’s name;
b)
Permanent
possession and occupation of the Sailboat by Claudia;
c)
Alternatively,
a declaration that Claudia has an equitable mortgage equivalent to the value of
her financial contributions to the purchase, restoration, upkeep and
importation expenses of the Sailboat.
[19]
The
Statement of Defence filed by John in this proceeding pleads that he has a long
history of involvement with boating as an owner, operator and hobbyist and that
he has owned approximately ten vessels in his lifetime. He pleads that Claudia
had no experience with boating or admiralty matters and that she never intended
to be directly involved in the ownership or operation of the Sailboat. John
also pleads that the contributions made by Claudia were and were always
intended to be gifts to John and that Claudia never was intended to have any
ownership interest in the Sailboat. Alternatively he pleads that any moneys
contributed for the purchase of the Sailboat came from spousal assets and not
from a mortgage on a property owned by Claudia.
[20]
He does
concede that some of the purchase funds came from a mortgage from a home which
he describes as the matrimonial home in which he and Claudia were cohabiting as
spouses and in which property Claudia did not at any relevant time have sole
interest. John pleads that he has spent more than 1,500 hours and more than
$50,000 in the last four years bringing the Sailboat to sea worthy and
marketable condition.
[21]
John
specifically relies in his Statement of Defence on the doctrine of
forum non conveniens. He pleads, essentially, that
this action is frivolous and vexatious and that all issues relating to the Sailboat
and the division of family assets should be dealt with by the Family Court
Division of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and not this Court.
[22]
On August
25, 2008 the Court heard a motion brought by Claudia seeking the sale of the
Sailboat. There was a cross-motion by John to stay the action in favour of the
proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice. At that hearing, with the
encouragement of the Court, the parties reached an agreement which was
encapsulated in my Order of September 30, 2008. The essential terms of that
order are as follows:
1.
The Defendant, John
Tully, shall make payments to the Plaintiff in the amount $1,085.00 on the
first day of each month beginning September 1, 2008 until a final determination
is reached in this matter. Mr. Tully shall have a maximum of two opportunities
to rectify failure to make a monthly payment by making payment within 48 hours
of notice of his failure to make a payment.
2.
The Defendant, John
Tully, shall obtain Hull and Machinery insurance on the Vessel
within two weeks of the date of this Order. The amount of the insurance shall
be an agreed value of $160,000.00 or the value of the Vessel as determined by a
qualified marine surveyor, whichever is less. The cost of the insurance and
any necessary survey for the insurance shall be at Mr. Tully’s expense.
3.
The Plaintiff shall
be entitled to have an independent survey of the Vessel conducted at her own
expense upon reasonable notice to the Defendant, John Tully.
4.
The Vessel shall
remain under Arrest.
5.
The Defendant, John
Tully, shall mark the Vessel with its name and official number in accordance
with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, forthwith.
6.
The Defendant, John
Tully, is prohibited from any dealing with the Vessel pursuant to s.75 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 for the duration of this lawsuit or
until such further Order of this Court.
7.
The Plaintiff’s
motion for sale of the Vessel pendente
lite is hereby adjourned
sine die returnable in the event of default of this Order.
8.
This action is hereby
stayed subject to enforcement of the terms of this Order.
[23]
Unfortunately,
John has failed to comply with the Order of September 30, 2008 in two material
respects: first, he defaulted in making the monthly payments; second, he failed
to maintain insurance on the Sailboat. Notwithstanding these defaults, John
continues to reside and has full use of the Sailboat.
The Current Motions
[24]
Two
motions are now before the Court. One from Claudia which effectively renews
her motion of August 25, 2008 for the sale of the Sailboat together with other
relief relating to payment of the proceeds of the sale of the Sailboat against
the mortgage on the property. The evidence on this motion from Claudia, which
is uncontested by John, is that John has stopped making payments to her
respecting the mortgage; that she has spoken to the insurance broker involved
in placing insurance on the Sailboat in September and has been advised that the
insurance premium has not been paid since September, 2008 and was cancelled
effective January 16, 2009; and, the underwriters are owed the sum of $657.98
for the period September 2008 through January 2009.
[25]
Claudia
also deposes, based on her conversation with the underwriter that the policy of
insurance that was issued was based on the removal of propane tanks from the
Sailboat and that the underwriter was misinformed by John that they had been
removed.
[26]
Claudia
has also been informed by Marguerite Dunning, who was involved in a
relationship with John following the breakdown of the marriage with Claudia,
that propane tanks were being used on the vessel when she (Ms. Dunning) was
living on board and that at least as of November 2008 the galley was under
reconstruction and propane tanks were on board and being used. The insurance
on the Sailboat requires that there be no propane on the Sailboat. Further, as
of March 9, 2009, the date of a further survey of the Sailboat undertaken at
the expense of Claudia, propane continued to be used on the Sailboat. Claudia
deposes, on information and belief, that there is no shutoff valve, there is no
gas sniffer or ventilation and the galley remains under refit with propane
tanks in the centre of the cockpit.
[27]
To add to
the financial woes and the precarious position of the Sailboat, the dockage
fees also appear to be in arrears.
Motion to get off the record
[28]
At the
outset of the hearing, the motion to get off the record was heard first. John’s
lawyers sought the usual order pursuant to Rule 125 of the Federal Courts
Rules. John was also present in Court. Rule 125(40) provides that the
order is not effective until proof of service of the order is filed. This
provision in the rule is there to ensure that the Order comes to the attention
of the party and that it is properly filed. Here, there could be no doubt that
John knew the Order permitting his counsel to be removed from the record was
granted. Indeed, John was asked if he had submissions to make and advised that
he did not.
[29]
John’s counsel
was then advised that he was excused. There then occurred a somewhat Monty
Pythonesque exchange between the Court and John’s former counsel. He advised
that he did not wish to leave and notwithstanding the Order that he no longer
represented John, wished to remain and make submissions on Claudia’s motion.
He based this position on the fact the Order made removing him as solicitor of
record did not take effect until proof of service on John was filed which he
argued had not yet happened. Orders of the Court take effect from the time
they are made by the judicial officer. In this case, there could be no doubt
that John was fully aware of the Order of the Court. The protection of Rule 125(4)
was not required and I ruled that counsel could not have it both ways – be
removed as counsel and then remain and make submissions when his client was
clearly present and representing himself. Counsel advised that what he was
“hoping to do is obtain a just hearing of the issues at issue on this motion
[Claudia’s motion]”. This comment provoked an extensive colloquy between the
Court and John’s former counsel regarding his participation, John’s right to be
heard and my overarching responsibility as a judicial officer to comply with my
oath of office to ensure a fair hearing.
[30]
As a
result of this exchange, John and his former counsel entered into a form of
retainer agreement whereby John authorized his former counsel to make
submissions on his behalf on the merits of Claudia’s motion.
The Motion for the sale of the Sailboat
[31]
While the
issue for determination from Claudia’s standpoint is the disposition of the
Sailboat, John’s position was that the matter should be stayed to be dealt with
in the divorce proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
[32]
It is to
be noted that John has filed no responding evidence undermining or in any way
contradicting the affidavits filed by Claudia on this motion. He relies only
on the affidavit filed in opposition to the motion when it was originally
heard. Thus, the allegations regarding the failure to pay the mortgage, the
condition of the Sailboat, the insurance on the Sailboat and the other matters
deposed to in Claudia’s affidavits are uncontradicted. The only other evidence
before the Court is that contained in the Motion Record to remove John’s
counsel as solicitors of record.
[33]
In that
material, there is an exchange of e-mails between John and his former counsel
in which John unequivocally states that “she can have the f****** thing”. It
requires no great mental gymnastics to conclude that John is referring to the
Sailboat.
Jurisdiction Issue
[34]
The
Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Provincial Superior Courts
in relation to Canadian Maritime Law. A party seeking to enforce rights
against a vessel is entitled to seek relief in this Court. As a statutory
Court, this jurisdiction is found in section 22 of the Federal Courts Act
which provides as follows:
Navigation and Shipping
22. (1) The Federal Court has concurrent
original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in all
cases in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by
virtue of Canadian maritime law or any other law of Canada relating to any
matter coming within the class of subject of navigation and shipping, except to
the extent that jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned.
Maritime jurisdiction
22. (2) Without limiting the generality
of subsection (1), for greater certainty, the Federal Court has jurisdiction
with respect to all of the following:
(a) any claim with respect to title,
possession or ownership of a ship or any part interest therein or with respect
to proceeds of sale of a ship or any part interest therein;
(b) any question arising between
co-owners of a ship with respect to possession, employment or earnings of a
ship;
(c) any claim in respect of a mortgage or
hypothecation of, or charge on, a ship or any part interest therein or any
charge in the nature of bottomry or respondentia for which a ship or part
interest therein or cargo was made security;
…
Jurisdiction applicable
(3) For greater certainty, the jurisdiction conferred on
the Federal Court by this section applies
(a) in relation to all ships, whether Canadian or not and
wherever the residence or domicile of the owners may be;
…
(b) in relation to all mortgages or hypothecations of, or
charges by way of security on, a ship, whether registered or not, or whether
legal or equitable, and whether created under foreign law or not.
[35]
Does the
Sailboat fit within these provisions? In my view it unquestionably does as
ship is defined to mean “any vessel or craft designed, used or capable of being used
solely or partly for navigation, without regard to method or lack of propulsion
. . .”
[36]
Thus, this Court clearly has the jurisdiction to deal with the
Sailboat. However, the
Federal Court should not become a surrogate divorce court for warring spouses
to engage in a battle over family assets when the proceedings should properly
be brought in the Provincial Family Courts.
[37]
John’s
counsel raises the spectre of this Court becoming a backdoor divorce court over
family owned boats and for one embittered spouse to “seek an illegitimate juridical
advantage” over the other by proceeding in this Court to obtain possession or
sale of a family asset. This argument is based largely on the fact that John
uses the Sailboat as his home and so he argues that he should not be
dispossessed until the matrimonial proceedings, commenced after this
proceeding, are concluded.
[38]
In my
view, that is not the case here. This is a case where there is clear evidence
that the Sailboat while in the sole possession of John is in jeopardy from
fire, seizure by creditors or other danger. This Court has the jurisdiction
and powers to prevent further deterioration of the Sailboat or to ensure that
it is not put in jeopardy to third party creditors.
[39]
John’s
counsel points to the multiplicity of proceedings and additional costs which results
from concurrent proceedings in two courts. There may be separate proceedings
but that, in and of itself, is insufficient for this Court to concede
jurisdiction to the Provincial
Court in this
case. This Court can focus on the issues relating only to the Sailboat without
being encumbered by the sometimes complex matrimonial and emotional issues
permeating family law proceedings.
[40]
Johns’
counsel also raised the possibility of inconsistent findings between Courts.
However, the Sailboat or its proceeds of sale will have to be accounted for in
the overall financial settlement in the matrimonial proceedings. This Court is
simply exercising its jurisdiction to preserve the asset or its proceeds and is
not engaging in a determination of issues in the matrimonial proceedings.
[41]
Pursuant
to section 50 of the Federal Courts Act this Court may stay proceedings
properly commenced within its jurisdiction. This section mandates as follows:
50. (1) The Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court
may, in its discretion, stay proceedings in any cause or matter
(a) on the ground that the claim is being proceeded
with in another court or jurisdiction; or
(b) where for any other reason it is in the interest
of justice that the proceedings be stayed.
[42]
To stay
proceedings on the ground that the claim is being pursued in another Court, a
party must demonstrate that it is more convenient and appropriate to pursue the
action in the other Court and will best secure the ends of justice [see Amchem
Products Inc. v. British
Columbia
(Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897 at paras. 33 and 53]. It is also to
be noted that it is a remedy to be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest
of cases. The principles relating to the stay of a proceeding were recently
summarized in Kent v. Universal Studios Canada Inc., 2008 FC 906 at
paras. 15 through 18 as follows:
[15] The general test to be applied on a motion
for a stay pursuant to section 50(1) of the Federal Courts Act is a
two-part test, which has been consistently applied by this Court and other
Courts over many years. This two-part test requires that the defendant
demonstrate:
a.
that the
continuation of the action will cause prejudice or injustice (not merely
inconvenience or extra expenses) to the defendant; and
b.
that the
stay will not work an injustice to the plaintiff.
There is a long line of cases that
support this two-part test. They include: Empire-Universal Films Limited et
al. v. Rank, [1947] O.R. 775 (H.C.), at p. 779; Hall Development Co. of
Venezuela, C.A. v. B. and W. Inc. (1952), 16 C.P.R. 67 (Exch. Ct.), at p.
70; Weight Watchers International Inc. v. Weight Watchers of Ontario Ltd.
(1972), 5 C.P.R. (2d) 122 (F.C.T.D.), at pp. 129-130; Varnam v. Canada
(Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1987] F.C.J. No. 511
(F.C.T.D.), at p. 3; Figgie International Inc. v. Citywide Machines
Wholesale Inc. (1992), 50 C.P.R. (3d) 89 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 92; Discreet
Logic Inc. v. Registrar of Copyrights (1993), 51 C.P.R. (3d) 191
(F.C.T.D.), at p. 191; Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmBH et al. v. Acti-Form
Ltd. (1995), 64 C.P.R. (3d) 198 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 201; Compulife
Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc. (1997), 77 C.P.R. (3d)
(F.C.T.D.), at p. 456; Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Ship Sheena M (2000),
188 F.T.R. 16 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 16; White v. E.B.F. Manufacturing Ltd.,
2001 FCT 713 (CanLll), at para. 5; and, Safilo Canada Inc. v. Contour Optik
Inc. (2005), 48 C.P.R. (4th) 339 at p. 27.
[16] It should also be noted that the
granting of a stay is a discretionary order and the Court’s discretion must be
exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases. There are many cases
which support this proposition including: Mugesera v. Canada, [2005] 2
S.C.R. 91, at para. 12; Safilo Canada Inc. v. Contour Optik Inc., supra,
at para. 27; and, Compulife Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc., supra,
at para. 16.
[17] A summary of guidelines which have
evolved over time to assist in the determination of whether a stay should be
granted are usefully summarized by Justice Dubé of this Court in White v.
EBF Manufacturing Limited et al., [2001] F.C.J. 1073 as follows:
1. Would the continuation of the action
cause prejudice or injustice (not merely inconvenience or extra expense) to the
Defendant?
2. Would the stay work an injustice
to the Plaintiff?
3. The onus is on the party which
seeks a stay to establish that these two conditions are met;
4. The grant or refusal of the stay
is within the discretionary power of the Judge;
5. The power to grant a stay may
only be exercised sparingly and in the clearest of cases;
6. Are the facts alleged, the legal
issues involved and the relief sought similar in both actions?
7. What are the possibilities of
inconsistent findings in both Courts?
8. Until there is a risk of imminent
adjudication in the two different forums, the Court should be very reluctant to
interfere with any litigant's right of access to another jurisdiction;
9. Priority ought not necessarily be
given to the first proceeding over the second one or, vice versa.
[18] These guidelines have been approved
in other cases in this Court. See, for example, Safilo Canada Inc. v.
Contour Optik Inc., supra at pp. 349 - 350.
[43]
In
considering all of these factors and in particular, the interests of justice,
the interests of the parties and the juridical advantage conferred on Claudia
militate against granting a stay. While John’s counsel characterized the
advantage conferred on Claudia as an illegitimate juridical advantage because
of the ongoing matrimonial proceedings, in my view, that is exactly the type of
juridical advantage that can only be obtained in this Court on these facts. By
virtue of the availability of in rem proceedings the Sailboat has been
arrested and Rules 490 and 491 of the Federal Courts Rules provide a
procedure for the sale of arrested property.
[44]
These
proceedings were commenced prior to the matrimonial proceedings and it would be
unjust to Claudia to now give them priority. It is indeed arguable that by
disposing of the Sailboat in these proceedings in the form of the order below
that the matrimonial proceedings will be simplified and that a speedier
resolution of family property issues can be sorted out. Claudia does not argue
that the order of this Court would result in the Sailboat or its proceeds of
sale being put beyond the reach of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Nor
could she as it seems apparent the Sailboat was acquired during the marriage
and would have to be accounted for in the division of family assets. In any
event, those are matters for the Family Court not for this Court.
[45]
Finally, in
Streibel v. Chairman 2002 FCT 545, Prothonotary Hargrave noted that the
test for putting a party is possession of a vessel was low and that if there is
plausible evidence that the vessel should have the protection of a sheriff or
other party then this Court can order it [see the discussions at para. 15].
Here, based on the evidence before me, there is no doubt that the funds for the
purchase came from the mortgage on the home originally purchased by Claudia
prior to the marriage; that notwithstanding the Court’s prior order that John
make the mortgage payments that he has failed to do so; that amounts for
insurance and dockage are unpaid and outstanding; that John refuses or is
unwilling to make the payments; that insurance was not obtained for the
Sailboat as required; and, that the Sailboat is in jeopardy because of its
unfinished condition and the failure to make the required payments.
[46]
Thus, John
shall deliver up possession of the Sailboat to Claudia for sale. The proceeds
of sale to be paid on the terms noted below. The parties may contact the Court
as necessary to deal with any specific requirements relating to the sale of the
Sailboat or other issues arising from the implementation of this Order. Costs
of these proceedings to date are to Claudia on a solicitor and client basis.
Email this Content