given by third parties after the date of marriage are excluded:
FLA, s. 4(2)1.2
F. The Husband’s Other Arguments
 The husband also advanced other attacks on the trial
judge’s equalization calculations.
 First, he argued that certain assets, particularly some
real property in Iran, were not appraised. He submits that this
resulted in inaccurate determinations of the parties’ respective
obligations. The trial judge found that these assets belonged to
the husband. As such, it was his responsibility to provide
appraisals for those assets: Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99,
rule 13(3.3) (as they appeared from June 10, 2015 to June 22,
2016). Though there were no appraisals, the trial judge’s valuation of the assets was not arbitrary. He used what he found to
be their purchase price for their value, which was substantially
less than what the wife claimed in her evidence. As such,
the husband benefitted from this determination since it reduced
 Second, the husband submitted the trial judge double-counted the effect of the maher payment on the husband’s NFP
as the Form 13B Financial Statement in the trial record shows
the maher payment both as an excluded asset and a debt existing on the date of marriage. While this is so, the resulting numbers indicate the trial judge treated the maher payment solely as
 Third, he submits there was an inadequate evidentiary
base for the post-separation adjustments. I do not agree. The
trial judge was entitled to accept the testimony and documentary evidence of the wife. There is no basis for interfering with
these factual determinations by the trial judge.
G. The Equalization Payment in this Case
 The maher payment must be included in NFP and the
equalization order varied as a result. The wife’s Form 13B
Financial Statement in the record was not calculated correctly.
2 See, also, Berta v. Berta,  O.J. No. 3069, 2015 ONSC 1493 (S.C.J.),
at para. 21, revd on other grounds (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 730,  O.J.
No. 6844, 2015 ONCA 918, where the trial judge held that the wife’s position that gifts from her husband during marriage were excluded from NFP
“had no chance of success in law”. This court reversed the costs award on
other grounds, but agreed, at paras. 95-96, with the trial judge that the
wife’s “untenable positions regarding the parties’ NFPs” was “amply supported by the evidentiary record”.