M. Tufman

The plaintiffs, who are creditors of the deceased, brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation administrator for the estate, alleging a conflict of interest among the beneficiaries.

The defendant beneficiaries opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to appoint one of the next of kin as estate trustee.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding that creditors do not have the right to dictate who represents the estate in litigation they initiated, and granted the countermotion to appoint the next of kin as estate trustee.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a matrimonial home transferred by the defendant to his wife prior to a loan agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

Applying the Grefford test, the court found the plaintiff established a high probability of recovering judgment on the loan, but failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the transfer was made with intent to defeat creditors, especially given the defendant's uncontroverted explanation that the transfer was for remortgaging purposes following a bankruptcy.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs transferred their family home to the defendant in 1996 in a sham transaction designed to defeat creditors, with an oral agreement that the defendant would hold the property in trust.

The plaintiffs remained in the home, paid the defendant's mortgage costs, and made significant improvements.

When the defendant refused to return the property, the plaintiffs sued.

The court found the transaction was a sham and the defendant was unjustly enriched.

Applying section 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the court ordered the property transferred back to the plaintiffs, subject to them paying compensation to the defendant.

The defendant's separate action on a 1989 promissory note was dismissed as statute-barred and fully repaid.

The plaintiffs transferred their family home to the defendant in 1996 to avoid creditors, executing a sham agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiffs remained in the home, paid the defendant's mortgage costs, and made significant improvements, believing they retained beneficial ownership.

When the defendant refused to return the property, the plaintiffs sued.

The court found the transaction was a sham and the defendant was unjustly enriched.

Applying section 37 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, the court ordered the property transferred back to the plaintiffs, subject to them paying compensation to the defendant based on the 2005 fair market value minus credits for the unjust enrichment and improvements.

The defendant's separate action for an old loan was dismissed as repaid and statute-barred.