Gifts Cannot Be Revoked

Gifts Cannot Be Revoked

Once a gift has been made of an interest in real property or any other type of property, the gifts cannot be revoked.

The gifts of a joint interest in real property is in inter vivos rather than a testamentary gift and cannot be retracted by the donor. It is a complete and perfect inter vivos gift. Bergen v Bergen 2013 BCCA 492 at p.41.

In McKendry v McKendry 2017 BCCA 48 the court stated:

“A gift is a gratuitous transfer made without consideration. Two requirements must be met for an inter vivos gift to be legally binding: the donor must of intended to make a gift and must’ve delivered the subject matter to the donee. The intention of the donor at the time of the transfers the governing consideration. In addition, the donor must’ve done everything necessary, according to the nature of the property, to transfer it to the donee and render the settlement legally binding on him or her. Pecore v Pecore 2007 SCC 17 at para.5

A gift may be delivered in various manners. For example, a donor may choose to transfer property directly to a donee or a trustee, or may retain possession and make a declaration of trust. Once a gift is given, the donor cannot retract it. If it is incomplete, however, the court will not perfect a gift. Accordingly, where the gift rests merely in a promise or unfulfilled intention, the court will not compel an impending donor to follow through with making the gift. Pecore at para.56

Transfer of Property Registered After Death Valid

Transfer of Property Registered After Death Valid

Chung estate v. Chan 1995 BCJ 2195 was a decision of the BC Court of Appeal that held that a transfer of real property from a deceased person to himself and another person as joint tenant, was valid despite the fact it was registered at the land title office after the deceased’s death.

This decision was subsequently followed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Plecas v Plecas 2015 BCSC 464 , which stated that the form A transfers were effective as against her, upon execution, and were intended to do so, and the transfers carried with them the right to apply for registration even after death.

In Plecas the plaintiff sought to set aside various transfers from the deceased to her son, that were registered after the death of the deceased.

The court allowed the validity of those transfers.

The Supreme Court of Canada had considered the effect of section 20 of the Land Title act RSBC in the decision Davidson V. Davidson 1946 SCR 115.

In the Davidson case, the defendant was the registered owner of the lands.

He executed and delivered a transfer of the lands. The transfer was neither registered no was an application made to register.

The plaintiff registered judgments against the registered title of the defendant.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the instrument was bona fide and validly executed, and was entitled to priority over the judgment creditor under the circumstances.

The court followed the common law rule with respect to the rights of judgment creditors, that stated the execution creditor can only attach that interest which exists in the execution debtor. In Davidson the respondent had disposed of his entire interest before the registration of the judgment, and the judgment could not attached to the lands and questions even though the transfer was registered after death.

In Feinstein fee. Ashford 2005 BC SC 1379, the court considered section 20 of the Land Title act in the context of a joint tenancy.

A joint tenant executed, but did not register a form a transfer, which purported to sever the joint tenancy at Institute instead a tenancy in common.

The petitioner argued that the severance of the joint tenancy was not binding, as it failed to meet the common-law requirement of delivery.

The court rejected that argument, ruling instead that ”the application for reregistration that was executed by the respondent was effective as against himself on the date that it was signed”.

In other words, the application did indeed sever the joint tenancy on the date it was signed, even though it was not registered until after the respondent’s death .

In the decision Mordo v. Nitting 2006 BCSC 1761 the court found that the grantor had done everything necessary to create a valid trust by completing a form a transfer and declaration of trust.

The declaration of trust confirmed that although the executed for me was not registered, the grantor thereafter held legal title as trustee only. The documents were then left with the grantor’s solicitor.
The court found that section 20 of the Land Title act was engaged, rendering the transfer effective against the person making it, even before it was registered.