3 total
The court found a resulting trust over property gratuitously transferred by a mother to her sons to facilitate a partition action.
The Applicant sought a declaration that the proceeds from the sale of a property, previously held in joint tenancy with her husband, belonged to her.
She had gratuitously transferred her share to her sons (the Respondents Vicente and Carlos) to facilitate a partition action.
The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the Applicant intended to retain beneficial interest and did not intend to make a gift.
The court granted the declaration, entitling the Applicant to half the sale proceeds plus interest, and awarded costs against Vicente Zapata.
Motion granted ordering production of the deceased's will to a potential beneficiary under the Estates Act.
The plaintiff, the deceased's son, brought a motion for directions seeking disclosure of the deceased's complete will.
The defendant, the deceased's second wife, opposed production on the basis that the will would not be probated as all assets passed by joint right of survivorship.
The court ordered production of the will pursuant to section 9 of the Estates Act, finding that the plaintiff was mentioned in the will, had a potential interest in the estate, and was entitled to satisfy himself as to its contents.
Costs were reserved.
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.
