Dennis Michael Molnar

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser in a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant refused to close on the purchase of a property after the title transferred from the original seller (Esther Hunter) to her Powers of Attorney (the plaintiffs' children) prior to the closing date.

The defendant claimed he was justified in refusing to close because he could not obtain title insurance due to concerns about the validity of the Power of Attorney.

The court found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was binding despite the title transfer, that the defendant did not provide a valid written objection to title by the required deadline, and that the requisitions raised were not proper title objections.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $248,318.60 less the $40,000 deposit, totaling $208,318.60, plus pre-judgment interest.

The defendant's counterclaim for return of the deposit was dismissed.

In a focused trial on the sole issue of the parties' date of separation under the Family Law Act, the court determined that the parties separated on October 5, 2022, not June 7, 2020 as the respondent alleged.

The respondent claimed that the parties agreed to separate in June 2020 but continue cohabiting for the sake of their children.

The applicant contended that the marriage remained intact until October 5, 2022, when she discovered the respondent was living a double life with another woman, with whom he owned a house and had a child.

The court found the applicant's evidence credible and rejected the respondent's position, finding that the parties continued to live as a married couple and hold themselves out as such until October 2022, and that a spouse cannot separate in secret without making their intentions clear and unequivocal to the other spouse.