The appellant mother sued her son and daughter-in-law for repayment of a $52,000 loan, which she claimed was payable upon her turning 65 or retiring.
The respondents argued the money was a gift or, alternatively, a demand loan that was statute-barred.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by weighing evidence, evaluating credibility, and drawing adverse inferences without considering whether a trial was necessary in the interests of justice.
The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.
