2 total
Adverse possession claim between co-owners failed, but unequal sale proceeds were ordered for unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff sought sole ownership of a jointly purchased property, where he had resided since 1991 and paid most expenses, arguing adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act, or alternatively, proprietary estoppel, unconscionability, or unjust enrichment.
The defendants, co-owners, sought partition and sale.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for sole ownership, finding his possession was consensual and not adverse.
However, the court granted the defendants' request for partition and sale, but ordered an unequal distribution of proceeds (65% to the plaintiff, 35% to the defendants) based on unjust enrichment, recognizing the plaintiff's disproportionate financial contributions over 30 years.
The successful applicant was awarded $15,000 in costs after the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith.
This decision concerns costs following the Applicant's successful motion for spousal support, retroactivity, and release of joint home sale proceeds, where all relief was granted except security for support.
The court found the Applicant presumptively entitled to costs.
While the Respondent's affidavit evidence was deemed "unreasonable" the court declined to find bad faith, which requires an element of malice or intent to harm.
The Applicant sought full indemnity of $30,151.70, but the court, considering factors such as the importance and complexity of issues, conduct, and reasonableness of time and rates, awarded fixed costs of $15,000 to the Applicant, payable from the Respondent's share of the family home sale proceeds.
