An affidavit of assets and means (“AOM”) is a sworn or affirmed statement by Parties in a divorce, setting out that Party’s assets, income and expenses.
In a contested divorce, Parties are unable to agree on the divorce and/or the ancillary matters, including what constitutes matrimonial assets and how they should be split. The Court calls for an AOM from both Parties so as to see what each Party’s assets, income, liabilities and expenses are, so that the Court can decide instead.
An AOM may contain one or more of such matters including:
- Each child’s expenses
- Monthly income
- External sources of income
- Properties
- Monthly personal expenses
AOMs should be supported by evidence and Parties should not make bare allegations or assertions such as “my income is $3,000 per month”. In other words, both Parties have a duty to provide full and frank disclosure. This is crucial in ensuring that the matrimonial pool accurately reflects what Parties had gained during the marriage. Complete disclosure is required and Parties cannot decide what to disclose based on what they think constitutes matrimonial assets. The consequences of failing to disclose assets, is that the matrimonial pool would be diminished and the other party would be deprived of receiving a just and equitable share of the matrimonial assets.
In the event one Party suspects that the other Party has not provided full and frank disclosure but is instead dishonestly or improperly concealing documents such as bank statements because they had made transfers of funds to other parties so that these assets cannot be split between the Parties in the divorce, then a request for discovery can be taken out.
The burden is on the party requesting for documents to show the Court why it should make an order compelling the other Party to do so. Again, bare allegations of suspicion will not suffice.
In certain cases, the Court may draw an adverse inference against a Party for failing to provide full and frank disclosure of the matrimonial assets in his possession. This would typically be where there was some evidence suggesting that the person had tried to conceal or deplete assets that should have been included in the matrimonial pool and he had access to the information he is alleged to be hiding.
If the Court draws an adverse inference, the Court may make a finding on the value of the undisclosed assets and include it into the matrimonial pool or order that a higher proportion of assets be given to the other party. These are known as the quantification approach and the uplift approach.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice. It is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking any action(s) based on this publication. We shall not be responsible for, nor do we accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance on this publication.