Megan Edmiston

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claims regarding an interest in a property, unjust enrichment, and a valid domestic contract.

The respondent failed to file any materials or evidence and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, dismissing the respondent's claims for resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and joint family venture due to lack of evidence.

The alleged cohabitation agreement was also found invalid as it did not meet the formal requirements of the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent to vacate her house.

The parties cohabited for about 12 months before separating.

The applicant had purchased the property from the respondent using her inheritance and was the sole registered owner.

The respondent refused to leave for 15 months post-separation, claiming an interest based on an alleged cohabitation agreement and unjust enrichment.

The court found no legal foundation for the respondent's continued possession and ordered him to vacate the property.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim order requiring him to pay retroactive spousal support and maintain the respondent as an irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the applicant failed to establish a conflicting decision under Rule 62.02(4)(a) or a matter of general importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondent.