FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2016)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 370 times | Saved to 55 briefcases
Caratun v. Caratun, 10 O.R. (3d) 385 [1992] OJ No. 1982.

Facts:

P married D so he could leave Romania and got D pregnant so he would have a better chance of emigrating to North America. The whole time she helped support him. Two days after he got his license, he divorced her.

Issue(s):

(1) Is a professional license property for purposes of calculating family assets?
(2) If so, how do you valuate it?

Ratio:

A license isn't property because it's not transferable and is essentially a right to work, and work is not property.

Analysis:

(1) A license is a right to work in a particular profession. Several factors make it difficult to consider property:
A. It is not a transferable right--Property is inherently transferable.
-"...things and rights considered as having a money value..." (Brinkos v Brinkos)
B.It requires personal effort to have any future value-
-Work is not included in family property.
-It is a policy objective to emphasize self-sufficiency after marriage.
C. The only difference between this and any other right to work is the exclusivity
-Work to get a license is like work to succeed in any other profession. Just as that other work is not property, so too this license isn't

(2) There are so many contingencies that render valuation difficult.

Holding:

P won on other grounds besides issue consider above.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.