“Paulsen vs. Paulsen”: Law Case Case Study

Introduction: Facts

Basic Facts

Angela Paulsen (Applicant) and Keith Paulsen (Respondent) physically separated in January 2009 after 15 years of living together. They sold the house, but due to many debts owed at that time the shared profit was just enough to cover some liabilities. The Paulsens had two children at the moment of separation.

Statement of Claims

According to the Respondent, the parties had an oral agreement which would give them a shared custody over the children, while he paid possible expenses. The Applicant denied the existence of any agreement, but acknowledged that the Respondent had covered some costs without providing substantial financial support while the children lived with her most of the time.

Ms. Paulsen applied to the Court on June 15, 2015, with an aim to equalize the property between the parties including the pension plans they had when being married. The Applicant stated that the parties separated in January 2009, while the Respondent claimed that it was in May 2008. Regardless of which time was accurate, her application did not meet the limitation date provided by the FLA. The Applicant moved to extend the limitation period under the FLA statute and asked the Court to identify the exact date of separation.

Procedural Facts

This is a trial decision by McDermot J.

Issues

1. What should the Court consider the actual date of physical separation?
2. Can the Court extend the limitation period for the property equalization between the parties?

Rules

1. According to the FLA, separation is defined as there being no possibility for the further cohabitation of spouses. Additionally, in Taylor vs. Taylor, 1999, the Court held that events which indicate the point where a chance for reconciliation and signs of joint living (e.g., sexual relationships, spousal social functions, etc.) are no longer present also define the moment of separation.
2. The FLA allows an extension of the limitation period if the Applicant postponed the motion in good faith and there are no risks that any party will suffer substantial prejudice. To identify if a person acted in good or bad faith, the judge should assess the subjective views on the events. To find if there is a possibility of substantial prejudice, he should additionally evaluate whether the equalization of property (pension) will damage one of the parties’ welfare.

Analysis

Date of Separation

The fact that the Applicant moved out the shared house in January 2009 is not sufficient in this case because the psychological and physical separation of the spouses took place shortly before that event. The fact that they told their children about the separation in the late August of 2008 might signify the seriousness of their intentions. Therefore, this moment may be considered the date of their separation as it shows that no reconciliation could have followed.

Good Faith

The Applicant supports her motion by saying that she was completely unaware that pensions were a part of the property or that she could claim for equalization. Although the Respondent accuses her of double-mindedness and states that Ms. Paulsen applied to the Court only when she found out that his girlfriend had sold the house, there is no sufficient proof for the Respondent’s claims. On the other hand, even though the ignorance of the parties’ rights showed by both Mr. and Ms. Paulsen may not be enough to show good faith, it does not prove bad faith either. Thus, it is possible to say that Ms. Paulsen did not have any secret motives.

Substantial Prejudice

Neither of the parties profited from selling the house and neither had any savings to invest in the property. As a result, the Respondent would not bear significant losses due to equalization of pensions. For this reason it was possible to extend the limitation period.

Conclusion

The Court established September 1, 2008, as the date of separation. The findings allowed the extension of the equalization claim to June 15, 2015. Additionally, the Court ordered that the parties should submit all relevant costs, on the basis of which the judge will equalize their pensions.