However, based on the data in the statement as varied by the
trial judge, and before considering the maher obligation, the
husband and wife had net assets of $214,990 and $17,210,
respectively. Since the trial judge treated the maher obligation
as “excluded property”, he deemed the wife’s NFP to be zero pursuant to s. 4(5) of the FLA. As a result, the trial judge calculated
the equalization payment to be $107, 495.
 Properly including the maher obligation as part of NFP
reduces the husband’s net assets by $79,580 and increases the
wife’s net assets by $79,580. Accordingly, the parties’ NFPs are
$135,410 and $62,370, respectively. This obviates the need to
rely on the deeming provision as the wife has a positive NFP.
The resulting equalization payment is $36, 520.
 Counsel for the wife pointed out that the maher payment
needs to be actually paid even if it is included in equalization.
I agree. The maher payment included in the equalization calculation is a demand obligation with a paper value. Collection of
the demand obligation is not an equalization issue but a debt
collection issue. This can be seen clearly by considering the situation where, during the marriage, the husband endorses over to
the wife a third party’s promissory note. The third party’s promissory note would be included in equalization, and afterwards
the wife could collect the debt from the third party. The same
reasoning applies to the husband’s own promissory maher obligation in this case. The wife is entitled to collect the debt owed
to her. Thus, the wife is entitled to an equalization payment
of $36, 520 plus post-separation adjustments of $44,449.93 plus
realization of the maher obligation of $79,580, for a grand total
of $160, 549.93.
 I would allow the appeal and vary paragraph one of the
judgment below to order a payment of $116,100 composed of an
equalization payment of $36, 520 and $79,580 in realization of
the promissory maher obligation included in the equalization
 The husband was successful on the family law issue of
whether the maher obligation should have been included in
equalization. However, the wife was successful on the collection
issue and obtained an order allowing her debt collection claim.
As success is divided, I would not make an order as to costs of