Skjodt v Skjodt, 2023 ABKB 644

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Skjodt v Skjodt, 2023 ABKB 644 Date: 20231115 Docket: 4806 023075 Registry: Lethbridge Between: Neil Martin Skjodt Applicant - and - Andrea Janine Skjodt Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Justice M.H. Hollins _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Skjodt applied in morning chambers for various relief.

This endorsement deals with the only matter that was reserved; his application to sever the joint tenancy of he and the Respondent in the matrimonial home and convert the parties to tenants in common in relation to that property. [ 2 ] The application did not refer to the Law of Property Act (Alberta) which authorizes partition and sale. It also became apparent during the hearing that Mr. Skjodt wanted only to sever the joint tenancy but did not wish to sell the home. In fact, in the family law proceedings more generally, Ms.

Skjodt has been pushing to sell the home in order to settle their property issues and Mr. Skjodt has been resisting that as he and the couple’s twin daughters, 17 years old, currently reside there.

[ 3 ] For the following reasons, the application is dismissed. [ 4 ] The parties separated in May, 2022 and have not resolved their support or property issues, although have apparently exchanged recent settlement offers. The overwhelming bulk of Mr. Skjodt’s present concerns relate to his spousal support obligations. His Affidavit is mainly directed to facts about his declining income and Ms. Skjodt’s alleged failure to disclose her relevant financial information. [ 5 ] The only evidence in Mr.

Skjodt’s Affidavit related to severing title is his statement that he “would also like to transition the house to a “Tenancy in Common”, giving each party an undivided one-half interest in the home. Although his counsel referenced vague “health issues” in argument, there was nothing about that in his Affidavit. [ 6 ] He also says that Ms. Skjodt has been unwilling to sign a mortgage renewal. First, the maturity date had passed before this application was heard and I was given to understand that the renewal was dealt with somehow, at least temporarily.

Further, it is far from clear to me that severing title would address the issue of mortgage renewal anyway. Presumably, the lender’s mortgage remains registered against each one-half interest, requiring agreement to renew from each party. I should note that this was not addressed in argument, nor did I inquire about it. [ 7 ] Ms. Skjodt was opposed to the application, fearing that it would either affect her matrimonial property interest or obviate any leverage she has in their negotiations regarding matrimonial property. As Ms.

Skjodt was unrepresented, I shared some concern about possible unintended consequences that might harm her interests. [ 8 ] For example, I was told that there is an existing matrimonial property claim but I know nothing of what property the parties might have outside this home. If Mr. Skjodt was to somehow alienate his one-half interest, it is unclear what might happen to Ms.

Skjodt’s claim against that interest, if she has one. [ 9 ] In Kozyra v Kozyra , 1998 ABQB 640 , Justice Veit denied an application for partition and sale, notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that, if either of them died prior to resolution of their property claims, the other would receive an unfair windfall. As is the case here, Ms. Kozyra only wanted to sever title, not to sell the home.

Justice Veit pointed out that the Law of Property Act does not contemplate that partial relief; para15. [ 10 ] Although the Kozyra and other cases have granted partition and sale and simultaneously stayed the sale portion of the order, that was not what was asked for here. In fact, as I mentioned, the governing legislation was not even cited. [ 11 ] I come back to the fact that this was Mr. Skjodt’s application. Even if it were not problematic in law – which I think it is – there is insufficient evidence to support his claim for this relief. [ 12 ] There will be no costs of this application.

Heard on the 24 th day of October, 2023. Dated at the City of Lethbridge, Alberta this 15 th day of November, 2023. M.H. Hollins J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Lori G. Andreachuk for the Applicant Andrea Skjodt for Self Representative