E. Izmaylov

The plaintiffs transferred their family home to the defendant in 1996 in a sham transaction designed to defeat creditors, with an oral agreement that the defendant would hold the property in trust.

The plaintiffs remained in the home, paid the defendant's mortgage costs, and made significant improvements.

When the defendant refused to return the property, the plaintiffs sued.

The court found the transaction was a sham and the defendant was unjustly enriched.

Applying section 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the court ordered the property transferred back to the plaintiffs, subject to them paying compensation to the defendant.

The defendant's separate action on a 1989 promissory note was dismissed as statute-barred and fully repaid.

The plaintiffs transferred their family home to the defendant in 1996 to avoid creditors, executing a sham agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiffs remained in the home, paid the defendant's mortgage costs, and made significant improvements, believing they retained beneficial ownership.

When the defendant refused to return the property, the plaintiffs sued.

The court found the transaction was a sham and the defendant was unjustly enriched.

Applying section 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the court ordered the property transferred back to the plaintiffs, subject to them paying compensation to the defendant based on the 2005 fair market value minus credits for the unjust enrichment and improvements.

The defendant's separate action for an old loan was dismissed as repaid and statute-barred.