In Fleming v. Fleming, 2009 NLUFC 2, Fry, J. discussed the onus of proof as regards to whether a debt was a matrimonial or family debt. She stated at paragraph 13: 13 Unlike assets accumulated during the course of the marriage which are presumed to be matrimonial assets unless excluded by one of the exemptions, debts incurred during the course of the marriage are generally presumed to be "non-matrimonial" unless proven otherwise. The individual who seeks to have the debt included in the equalization schedule must show that the debt was incurred for family or matrimonial purposes and the debt is capable of legal enforcement. . . .
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.