Case Name:
  Paulina v. Dudas

Between
Eva Lujza Dombovarine Paulina,
otherwise known as Eva Paulina,
plaintiff, and
Louis Dudas, defendant

[2005] B.C.J. No. 172
2005 BCSC 137
Vancouver Registry No. E033752

British Columbia Supreme Court
Vancouver, British Columbia
Ross J.

Heard: September 9, 10, 14 and 15, and October 13 -
14, 2004, and January 7, 2005.
Judgment: February 2, 2005.
(66 paras.)

       Civil evidence — Witnesses — Credibility — Family law — Marital property — Equalization — Marriages of short duration — Financial disclosure — Valuation of assets — Business, commercial or non-family assets — Maintenance and support — Spousal support — Circumstances where order refused.

       Action by the plaintiff wife, Paulina, against the defendant husband, Dudas, for a divorce. The husband met the wife after replying to her personal ad. The husband lived in Canada and visited the wife and her daughter in Hungary. The husband had child support obligations to two children from a previous marriage. The parties decided to marry. The husband purchased a two-bedroom apartment for the parties on the basis that the wife was going to contribute to the cost. The wife agreed to sell her apartment in Hungary to contribute to the cost of the two-bedroom apartment in Canada. The wife and her daughter moved to Canada and the parties married. The husband sponsored the wife's application for landed immigration status. The wife did not contribute any income to the household and did not sell her apartment. As soon as the wife's application for landed immigration status was successful, the wife ceased to share a bed with the husband. A year after marrying, the wife left their home and moved into a shelter. She obtained a student loan and studied to become an office assistant. She also sold her Hungarian apartment. The wife sought spousal support and an equalization of the family assets.

       HELD: Action allowed. The divorce was granted. The wife was found not to be credible. The parties ceased to live as husband and wife when the immigration application was successful. This was a marriage of extremely short duration. Two of the husband's properties were considered to be business assets. The wife did not contribute to those assets. A property the husband purchased after the marriage was also not a family asset. The two-bedroom apartment was the former family home and was a family asset. However, there were no proceeds of the sale. The husband's pension was a family asset and was divided. The husband derived no benefit from the wife's student debt and did not bear any responsibility for it. The wife's apartment was a family asset since the parties intended to use it to assist in purchasing the family home. The wife gained an economic advantage from the marriage by immigrating to Canada and becoming self sufficient. Since the wife should have shared the proceeds from the sale of the Hungarian apartment with the husband, the husband did not have to pay any spousal support.

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:

Divorce Act, ss. 15.2(4), 15.2(6)

Family Relations Act, ss. 58, 59, 60

Counsel:

The Plaintiff Appearing on her own Behalf

Counsel for the Defendant: Kathleen H. Walker

       ROSS J.:—

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1      This is a family proceeding arising out of a very brief relationship. The defendant, Louis Dudas, placed a personal ad in a newspaper in Hungary. The Plaintiff, Eva Lujza Dombovarine Paulina, otherwise known as Eva Paulina, responded to the ad and a correspondence ensued. Mr. Dudas paid for Ms. Paulina and her daughter Judit to come to Canada on November 3, 2000 and the parties married on November 23, 2000. Mr. Dudas sponsored the applications of Ms. Paulina and Judit for landed immigration status. The parties then separated on November 23, 2001 and Ms. Paulina subsequently commenced this proceeding.

¶ 2      I granted an order for divorce during the trial. The remaining issues are the division of assets and Ms. Paulina's claim for spousal support.

CREDIBILITY

¶ 3      Resolution of the issues in this matter was complicated by difficulties with the credibility of both parties. Even after making every allowance for the fact that English is not Ms. Paulina's first language and the fact that she did not have the assistance of counsel at trial, I did not form a favourable impression of Ms. Paulina's credibility. Her demeanour in the witness box was poor. Her responses to even the most straightforward questions were evasive argumentative and, frequently, contradictory. Her testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of independent witnesses, for example, in relation to the circumstances of her separation from Mr. Dudas.

¶ 4      In addition, her conduct in relation to her applications for welfare and student loans was not consistent with frank and honest disclosure in that she did not disclose the fact that both she and her daughter owned property, which was a source of revenue, in Hungary.

¶ 5      Ms. Paulina's affairs have been conducted in a manner that gives rise to concerns about the completeness and accuracy of her financial disclosure. She has used or permitted to be used numerous variations of her name. She has maintained numerous bank accounts both in Canada and in Hungary. In the litigation her financial disclosure was piecemeal and complicated by incomplete translations of documents written in Hungarian.

¶ 6      I concluded that Ms. Paulina has not made complete financial disclosure. For example, despite demands, she did not disclose any documents in relation to the sale or rental of her daughter's Hungarian properties. I also concluded that she has received revenue from her apartment in Hungary, but had failed to disclose this fact.

¶ 7      I found Mr. Dudas to be generally a more credible witness. However, his conduct in relation to financial disclosure has also been questionable. He admitted that he exaggerated his assets and income in the application that he prepared in support of his sponsorship of Ms. Paulina and her daughter. He admitted that until trial he did not disclose the existence of a recreational property he had purchased with his son after separation. His excuse in both cases was that he had been persuaded to do so, in the first instance by Ms. Paulina, and in the second by his son. This may be so, but his willingness to go along does him no credit.

¶ 8      However, I found that Mr. Dudas's evidence was consistent with the documents and the testimony of other witnesses. At trial I concluded that his financial disclosure had been complete and accurate. In the result, where the evidence of Mr. Dudas and Ms. Paulina is in conflict, and in the absence of other evidence, I accept the evidence of Mr. Dudas.

FACTS

¶ 9      Eva Paulina was born in Hungary on November 27, 1956. She testified that she obtained her teaching diploma in Hungary qualifying her to teach in elementary and junior high school. In addition, it was her testimony that she obtained a journalist diploma in 1982 and that she held a license to work as a newspaper reporter. She had no license to work as a television reporter or to use a microphone.

¶ 10      She testified that she worked first as a teacher, then as a journalist from 1980 to 2000. In addition, she was an author who had published at least 10 books in Hungary in the last 20 years.

¶ 11      When she met Mr. Dudas in 2000, her salary was approximately $500 Canadian per month, net. She testified that she had extended health and disability benefits and contributed to a private pension plan.

¶ 12      Ms. Paulina testified that when she met Mr. Dudas, she owned an apartment with a value of $32,000 Canadian. There was no mortgage on the apartment. In addition, it was her testimony that she held in trust for her daughter another apartment, which was rented to a tenant, and a recreational property.

¶ 13      Ms. Paulina was married for the first time to Gabor Dombovari in 1981 and divorced in 1984. She had one child, Judit, who was born March 4, 1983.

¶ 14      She married for a second time on July 11, 1996 to Nagy Istvan, a Canadian. She came to Canada, leaving Judit behind in Hungary, but the couple cohabited for only a month. She returned to Hungary when it became clear that her husband did not have sufficient funds to sponsor her immigration to Canada. This marriage was dissolved, by divorce, in Hungary November 28, 1997.

¶ 15      The defendant, Louis Dudas, was born February 8, 1944 in Hungary. He immigrated to Canada in 1968 and has been steadily employed as a maintenance worker since that time. He is also 50% owner of a rooming house located at 1606 Lynn Valley Road, from which he derives rental income.

¶ 16      Mr. Dudas was married twice before his marriage to Ms. Paulina. There were two children now both adult and independent of the first marriage.

¶ 17      Mr. Dudas married Maria Levothe in 1976. There are two children of the marriage, Marcel, born January 25, 1991 and Katherine, born December 4, 1984.

¶ 18      Katherine has cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. She is mentally handicapped and non-verbal. She is confined to a wheelchair. In addition, she contracted Hepatitis C as a result of a blood transfusion received as an infant. Katherine is unable to work or to care for herself. Because of these conditions, Katherine remains dependent upon her parents, requiring assistance with all aspects of her daily living.

¶ 19      Mr. Dudas and Ms. Levoth separated in 1997 and subsequently divorced. Mr. Dudas agreed to pay $550 per month child support and 40% of the special and extraordinary expenses of the children. Mr. Dudas has made all the maintenance payments in a timely fashion. In addition, he has the children every second weekend and at least one week in the summer.

¶ 20      In the spring of 1999, Mr. Dudas placed a personal ad in a newspaper in Hungary. The ad stated that he was a Hungarian born Canadian citizen looking for companionship and that a long-term relationship was possible. Ms. Paulina answered the ad and a correspondence commenced.

¶ 21      Mr. Dudas went to Hungary in July, 2000 and met Ms. Paulina. They commenced a sexual relationship. I find that during this visit, Ms. Paulina did not tell Mr. Dudas about her previous marriage to a Canadian.

¶ 22      The parties discussed marriage. At the time, Mr. Dudas was living in a one bedroom apartment located at 311-145 West 18th Street in North Vancouver. The parties agreed that they would require a two-bedroom apartment to accommodate themselves and Ms. Paulina's daughter.

¶ 23      I find that Mr. Dudas explained to Ms. Paulina that he had only a modest income. I find further that Ms. Paulina said, and the parties agreed, that she would sell the two Hungarian apartments. They would use the proceeds of sale from the first to purchase a two bedroom apartment. The proceeds of sale from the second would finance Judit's education.

¶ 24      Mr. Dudas returned to Vancouver and the parties continued to correspond. Ms. Paulina continued to press for the purchase of a two bedroom apartment. In anticipation of Ms. Paulina's arrival, on October 18, 2001, Mr. Dudas purchased a two bedroom apartment located at 309-145 West 18th Street, North Vancouver, in the same building as his one bedroom unit. Mr. Dudas financed the $43,000 down payment with a line of credit and took out a $75,000 mortgage to finance the balance of the purchase price of $118,000.

¶ 25      I find that the use of the line of credit to finance the down payment was consistent with and pursuant to the agreement the parties had reached with respect to the sale of the Hungarian apartment and in the anticipation that the proceeds of that sale would be made available to discharge the line of credit.

¶ 26      Mr. Dudas sent Ms. Paulina the airfare to come to Canada. Ms. Paulina and her daughter arrived in Canada on November 3, 2000. The parties lived in the one bedroom unit for a short period, 7 to 10 days, while the new unit was being decorated. Mr. Dudas had wanted to wait to decorate the suite so that Ms. Paulina could select colours to her liking.

¶ 27      The parties were married on November 23, 2000 and Ms. Paulina and her daughter applied for landed status. Mr. Dudas signed a sponsorship agreement in support of the application. I find that Mr. Dudas overstated his assets and income in the documents in support of this agreement. He reported gross rental income as net. Mr. Dudas testified that this was Ms. Paulina's idea. She was afraid that his financial situation would not be sufficient for him to qualify to sponsor Ms. Paulina and her daughter. Given Ms. Paulina's previous experience with her second husband's inability to sponsor her immigration, I find that she did encourage him to make a false statement on the application. However, Mr. Dudas's willingness to go along with the suggestion does him no credit.

¶ 28      Mr. Dudas found out about Ms. Paulina's earlier marriage to a Canadian as the necessary forms were being prepared for the marriage and application for landed immigration status. He found out somewhat later that Ms. Paulina had been corresponding with another Hungarian man who lived in Vancouver during the time she had been corresponding with him.

¶ 29      Ms. Paulina brought approximately $450 with her when she arrived in Canada. I find that she did not contribute these funds to the household. Mr. Dudas purchased furniture for Judit's room. Ms. Paulina requested that he purchase her an IBM computer similar to the one that she used in her workplace in Hungry and he did so. Ms. Paulina worked on the computer in the evenings. Mr. Dudas testified that she worked at the library during the day. She told Mr. Dudas, and I find, that she was writing a book. He believed that the title was "How to Immigrate to Canada".

¶ 30      Ms. Paulina attended ESL classes, paid for by Mr. Dudas. She obtained some employment as a babysitter; however she did not contribute any of her income to the household.

¶ 31      Mr. Dudas testified that it was his belief that Ms. Paulina was continuing to do so some work for which she was receiving income in Hungary while they were living together and that she received rental income from her apartment in Hungary.

¶ 32      Ms. Paulina denied both assertions. She did not declare such income in Canada and never made any financial contribution to the household during the marriage. However, there are documents from the tax authorities in Hungary that are consistent with her earning income in Hungary during that period. Ms. Paulina testified that the documents are mistaken. Later documents call them into question and provide some evidence in support of this assertion.

¶ 33      I am not able to conclude that Ms. Paulina was earning income in Hungary during the marriage in relation to work as a journalist that she was performing in Canada.

¶ 34      However, I find that Ms. Paulina was earning rental income from her apartment that she did not disclose at the time, did not contribute to the household and that she denied during this litigation. Her daughter's apartment was rented out both before and during the marriage; however Ms. Paulina did not disclose the amount of rental income. During the marriage she continued to maintain her apartment in Hungary including paying for cable television. I find that these expenses would not have been incurred in relation to maintaining an empty apartment.

¶ 35      I find that Ms. Paulina did receive rental income from her apartment in Hungary during the marriage, continuing until the apartment was sold in July, 2002. She did not disclose or contribute these funds to the household during the marriage. She did not disclose these funds in the course of her application for social assistance and student loans. She denied receiving such income in the course of the litigation.

¶ 36      After the parties were married, Mr. Dudas asked Ms. Paulina many times about the sale of her apartment. He needed the funds to pay off the line of credit that he had obtained to finance the down payment of the two bedroom unit. Now, for the first time, Ms. Paulina told him that for reasons related to tax in Hungary, the property could not be sold right away.

¶ 37      In July, 2001, shortly after receiving documentation confirming that her application for landed immigration status had received favourable consideration, Ms. Paulina ceased to share a bed with Mr. Dudas. He has testified, and I find, that the couple ceased to live as husband and wife from that point. Ms. Paulina testified that the move was the result of difficulties she was having sleeping. She testified further that marital relations continued.

¶ 38      I reject this testimony. I have concluded that Ms. Paulina married Mr. Dudas in order to immigrate to this country. As her objective was being realized, she began to withdraw from the marriage.

¶ 39      Ms. Paulina testified that she left the marriage on November 23, 2001 after Mr. Dudas threatened to kill her and demanded that she leave the home. I reject this evidence. Mr. Dudas denied Ms. Paulina's version and testified that Ms. Paulina chose to leave the matrimonial home with no prior confrontation with Mr. Dudas and without telling him she was leaving. This testimony is consistent with the note left by Ms. Paulina and with the testimony of Rita Nagy.

¶ 40      Ms. Nagy testified that she came to the apartment building where the parties lived and observed Ms. Paulina and Mr. Loslov, a Hungarian man of Ms. Nagy's acquaintance. They were moving bedding out of the apartment building. She testified that she telephoned Mr. Dudas and told him that she thought Ms. Paulina was moving out of the home. He was surprised, speechless, and said he would go to see what was going on. Mr. Dudas gave testimony to the same effect.

¶ 41      I find that Mr. Dudas did not threaten Ms. Paulina and did not order her from the house. Rather, Ms. Paulina chose to move out without prior discussion of her intentions with Mr. Dudas.

¶ 42      Ms. Paulina went to the Sage Transition House. She testified that she did so because of abuse from Mr. Dudas during the marriage. I find that there was no abuse. Rather, Ms. Paulina falsely reported abuse by Mr. Dudas to bolster her claims during this litigation and to assist her in obtaining benefits from the Transition House and Women in Focus program.

¶ 43      Ms. Paulina was referred from the Sage Transition House to the Women in Focus program. The program is designed to provide support for women with some history of abusive relationships.

¶ 44      Ms. Paulina was accepted into the program based on her self report of abuse and eligibility for Ministry of Human Resources benefits. Ms. Paulina had applied for, and was in receipt of such benefits. However, she had not disclosed the Hungarian properties or the revenue obtained from these properties in that application.

¶ 45      The Women in Focus program was a 20 week program covering many services including career assistance and English upgrading. Ms. Paulina completed English 10 and 11 while in the program. She received driver education to assist her in obtaining her licence. Ms. Paulina also received food from the food bank and transportation to the food bank.

¶ 46      Ms. Paulina was then accepted into an office assistant program at Capilano College to commence in September, 2002. She applied for a student loan and was granted a loan of $16,965. She did not disclose the Hungarian property or revenue in her application for this loan.

¶ 47      Ms. Paulina was very successful in the program, making the Dean's list, receiving a scholarship in recognition of her grades and finally, completing the program.

¶ 48      In July, 2002, Judit travelled to Hungary and arranged for the sale of her mother's apartment. The sale was documented in an agreement dated July 22, 2002. The apartment was sold for 5,200,000 forint, or approximately $32,180 Canadian. The funds were placed in a bank account in Judit's name in Hungary and transferred to Ms. Paulina in a series of drafts. Ms. Paulina testified that the proceeds have all been spent.

¶ 49      Ms. Paulina has secured full time employment at EJ College Ltd. at a rate of $11.00 per hour. She reported an annual income of $22,352 on her financial statement.

¶ 50      Mr. Dudas reported income of $39,533 on his financial statement composed of $32,987 in wages and $6,565 from rental income. He testified that because of the roll back in wages, his income will be reduced to $38,000 per annum.

DIVISION OF ASSETS

¶ 51      With respect to the characterization of assets, the Family Relations Act (the "Act") provides as follows:

¶ 52      Ms. Paulina's position is that all of the assets that were registered in Mr. Dudas's name are family assets to which she is entitled to a 50% share. She submits that her apartment was not a family asset and that Mr. Dudas is not entitled to any share in the proceeds of its sale. In addition, she seeks to have Mr. Dudas assume responsibility for a share of her student loans.

¶ 53      Mr. Dudas's position is that, of the assets registered in his name, only the former matrimonial home and pension are family assets and that Ms. Paulina's apartment in Hungary is a family asset. He submits that the student loans are not family debt for which he should assume any responsibility.

¶ 54      With respect to all of the assets that Ms. Paulina claims are family assets, she claims that she made an indirect contribution to the maintenance of the assets through her work in the household and her care of Mr. Dudas's children when they were in the home.

¶ 55      This assertion must first be viewed in light of the extremely short duration of the relationship. Ms. Paulina was occupied during the marriage with taking an ESL course, working on her writing in the library during the day and in the apartment in the evenings. These activities were not such as to constitute indirect contributions to maintain the family assets.

¶ 56      In addition, I find that Ms. Paulina devoted minimal time to the care of Mr. Dudas's children. She was preoccupied with a concern that she would contract Hepatitis C from Katherine and I find that this concern resulted in her avoiding as much as possible giving care to Katherine. In all of the circumstances, I find that Ms. Paulina's efforts in homemaking and in relation to Mr. Dudas's children were minimal and did not constitute an indirect contribution to the maintenance of the assets.

¶ 57      The assets in issue are:

¶ 58      With respect to Ms. Paulina's student loan, this was obtained for the purpose of her educational advancement after separation. Mr. Dudas derived no benefit from the debt. In the circumstances, I find that the student loan is not a family debt for which Mr. Dudas bears any responsibility, see Williams v. Follack (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 299, 2 B.C.L.R. (2d) 298 (S.C.).

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

¶ 59      Section 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act provides:

¶ 60      The objectives of an order for spousal support are stated in section 15.2(6) as follows:

¶ 61      In addressing a claim for spousal support, the existence of a sponsorship agreement is a factor to be considered together with the general principles applicable to spousal maintenance, see Achari v. Samy (2000), 80 B.C.L.R. (3d) 378, 2000 BCSC 1211. The fact that the party seeking an order for support acted in bad faith in entering into a marriage of convenience to facilitate immigration is anther factor to be considered, see OM v. NEM (2003), 40 R.F.L. (5th) 189, 2003 BCPC 99.

¶ 62      This is a marriage of very short duration. I have found that Ms. Paulina acted in bad faith, that this was, for her, but not for Mr. Dudas, a marriage of convenience entered into to facilitate her immigration.

¶ 63      Mr. Dudas has child maintenance obligations arising from his second marriage which, with respect to Katherine, will be life long. There are no children of this marriage.

¶ 64      Ms. Paulina enjoyed an economic advantage arising from the marriage in that she achieved her goal of immigration to this country. She is currently self-sufficient.

¶ 65      It would have been appropriate for Mr. Dudas to pay spousal support for a short period of time after the parties separated in light of Ms. Paulina's need to upgrade her English and obtain employment. However, Ms. Paulina sold the Hungarian apartment, which I have found to be a family asset, and used all the proceeds of that sale during the period when she was enrolled at Capilano College. In those circumstances, I find that Mr. Dudas's share of those proceeds corresponds to what would have been reasonable spousal support. Accordingly, I make no compensation order with respect to the proceeds of sale of the Hungarian apartment and dismiss the application for spousal support.

¶ 66      Mr. Dudas as the successful party in this litigation is entitled to costs.

ROSS J.

QL UPDATE:  20050207
cp/e/qlsmw/qlemo/qlbrl

Madam Justice Ross