The plaintiff advanced $90,000 to his daughter and son‑in‑law following the sale of his home.
The court held that equity presumes bargains rather than gifts and found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the advance was a loan.
However, the court determined that the loan constituted a demand obligation created prior to January 1, 2004, making the former six‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act applicable.
Because the claim was issued more than six years after the date of advancement and there had been no acknowledgment of the debt or payment to extend the limitation period, the claim was statute‑barred.
The action was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
