Sexual Assault Victim Collects Judgement As Court Sets Aside Transfer

Sexual Assault Victim Collects Judgement As Court Sets Aside Transfer

Sexual Assault Victim Collects Judgement

S. (GW) v. R. (WW) 2010 BCSC 1741 is a case alleging a fraudulent conveyance of assets from the plaintiff’s stepfather, to his son,

The stepfather had sexually abused the plaintiff for several years when she was very young.

In about 1986 the plaintiff told her mother and her half-brother, the stepfather son, of the sexual abuse.

After the death of the plaintiffs mother in 1997, the stepfather transferred title to his home into joint names between himself and his son, the defendant.

The father also named his son as the designated beneficiary of his RRSP and other accounts, so that upon the the death of the stepfather, he left very little in his estate.

The defendant son inherited his father’s modest estate of $21,000, in 2003.

The plaintiff commenced a court action for damages in 2004 ( after the death of her father) and obtained judgment against the estate for $150,000 in 2007.

The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that the stepfather’s transfers of the various titles in 1997, were fraudulent conveyances made with the intent to defeat any claims the plaintiff might make.

The Court agreed.

The court accordingly set the transfers aside, thus allowing the plaintiff to realise her judgment.

disinherited.com strongly applauds the reasoning and outcome of this decision.

BC Estate Lawyer-Unjust Enrichment Equals Fairness

Fairness

Trevor Todd and Jackson Todd have handled contested estates for over sixty combined years and have experience in unjust enrichment claims.
Unjust Enrichment Equals Fairness

Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine based on the general equitable principal that no one should be allowed to profit at another’s expense.

In other words, a person should pay for the reasonable value of any benefits, whether property or services, that he or she has been unfairly received and kept from another person.Continue reading

Disbarred Lawyer Loses Mother’s BC Estate Case

 Estate of Sophia Ewachniuk v Ewachniuk 2011 BCSC 395 is the fascinating sequel of a disbarred lawyer’s continued litigation with his two sisters.

In a previous trial involving the same parties Hix v Ewachniuk 2008 BCSC 811, affirmed 2010 BCCA 317,the court found that the deceased’s 2000 will was prepared by the defendant lawyer son.

The will purportedly left her entire $2 million estate to her lawyer son.

The court declared that will void, stating it was procured by his undue influence.

This subsequent litigation had to do with the estate suing the defendant son for repayment of a promissory note signed by the defendant, in favour of his parents in 1980, for $750,000.

The promissory note did not contain a date for repayment, but indicated that it was payable one year after demand, without interest.

The estate administrator issued a letter of demand to the defendant after their mother’s death in 2008.

The defendant argued that he owed nothing.

The court held that it was the defendant’s burden to prove that the intention of the parties was not to make the promissory note enforceable against him.

The court held that the promissory note is that delayed- demand promissory note that is not statute barred by far the Limitation act, which provides for an ultimate limitation period of 30 years.

The court recited the principle in Miller v. Miller Estate (1987) 14 BCLR (2d) 42 “the court should require a high standard of proof from a person who claims he is owed money by the deceased person, applies to a claim by a deceased person as represented by her estate for money owed to the estate.”

“The evidence of the payment in these types of situation should examined with the most careful scrutiny and indeed at the outset with some suspicion”

The court ordered the defendant son to pay the estate $750,000 plus costs