Chu et al. v. Chen et al., (2004) 197 B.C.A.C. 201 (CA)
| Judge | Southin, Braidwood and Mackenzie, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | April 16, 2004 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 201 (CA);2004 BCCA 209 |
Chu v. Chen (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 201 (CA);
323 W.A.C. 201
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.046
Peter Kong Chu, Mei Yee Sung, Kan Chak Wan, Yun Mui Lui, Lam Chan, Shui Ying Wong Chan and Frank Cheuk Man Lai (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Francis Chok-Yan Chen and Margaret Ming Wai Lee (respondents/defendants)
(CA030373)
Peter Kong Chu, Mei Yee Sung, Kan Chak Wan, Yun Mui Lui, Lam Chan, Shui Ying Wong Chan and Frank Cheuk Man Lai (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Francis Chok-Yan Chen and Margaret Ming Wai Lee (appellants/defendants)
(CA030376)
(2004 BCCA 209)
Indexed As: Chu et al. v. Chen et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Southin, Braidwood and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
April 16, 2004.
Summary:
The plaintiff vendors, who had among them a 4/5th interest in a parcel of land, transferred those interests to the defendant purchasers, each of whom had a 1/10th interest, without obtaining a mortgage back for the "purchase" price of approximately $1 million. The purchasers did not pay the money owed, and the vendors sued, claiming a vendors' lien and personal judgment. The vendors also registered a certificate of pending litigation against the land. The vendors applied under rule 18A for summary judgment. Before the matter came on for hearing, a mortgage was registered against the defendant Chen's 7/10th interest, subject to the certificate of pending litigation.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. 906, granted the vendors judgment against the defendant Chen, but dismissed the application for a declaration for a vendors' lien, ruling that the issue was not suitable for disposition under rule 18A. The matter was referred to trial.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 503, dismissed the claim for a declaration that the vendors held an equitable mortgage or vendors' lien against the land, dismissed the claim for an order enforcing a vendors' lien, and dismissed the purchasers' counterclaim and third party claim. The vendors appealed (the first appeal); the purchasers also appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim (the second appeal).
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the first appeal (but left for further submissions what the order of the court should be), and dismissed the second appeal.
Real Property - Topic 7849
Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending litigation - Effect of - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that "the registering of a certificate of pending litigation does not give rise to a cause of action even if the action fails but only if some ulterior purpose or malice is shown; a fortiori, if the action succeeds" - See paragraph 80.
Real Property - Topic 7853
Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending litigation - Vacating of - General - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that persons against whose land a certificate of pending litigation was registered, if that registration was impeding them, may seek relief under s. 256 of the Land Title Act - See paragraph 81.
Sale of Land - Topic 7785
Remedies of vendor - Vendor's lien - When available - The plaintiff vendors, who had among them a 4/5th interest in a parcel of land, transferred those interests to the defendant purchasers, each of whom had a 1/10th interest, without obtaining a mortgage back for the "purchase" price of approximately $1 million - The purchasers did not pay the money owed, and the vendors sued, claiming a vendors' lien and personal judgment - The British Columbia Court of Appeal reviewed the history of the vendor's lien and affirmed that in this case, such a lien did arise - See paragraphs 46 to 67.
Cases Noticed:
Marshall v. Heidi (1984), 56 B.C.L.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Gordon v. Hipwell, [1952] 3 D.L.R. 173; 5 W.W.R.(N.S.) 433 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 4].
Freeborn v. Goodman, [1969] S.C.R. 923, consd. [para. 42].
Rice v. Rice, 2 Drewry 73; 61 E.R. 646, refd to. [para. 50].
Kettlewell v. Watson (1884), 26 Ch.D. 501, refd to. [para. 50].
Mackreth v. Symmons (1808), 15 Ves. Jun 329; 33 E.R. 778, refd to. [para. 50].
Hearn v. Botelers (1604), Cary 25; 21 E.R. 14, refd to. [para. 54, Appendix].
Hughes v. Kearney (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 132, refd to. [para. 54, Appendix].
Boulton v. Gillespie (1860), 8 Gr. 223, consd. [para. 59].
Winter v. Lord Anson (1827), 3 Russ. R. 488, refd to. [para. 63].
Chapman v. Tanner (1684), 1 Vern. 267; 23 E.R. 461, refd to. [Appendix].
Bond v. Kent (1692), 2 Vern. 281; 23 E.R. 782, refd to. [Appendix].
Gibbons v. Baddall, 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 682; 22 E.R. 573, refd to. [Appendix].
Coppin v. Coppin (1725), Sel. Cas. T. King 28; 25 E.R. 204, refd to. [Appendix].
Pollexfen v. Moore (1745), 3 Atk. 272; 26 E.R. 959, refd to. [Appendix].
Harrison v. Southcote (1751), 2 Ves. Sen. 389; 28 E.R. 249, refd to. [Appendix].
Walker v. Preswick (1755), 2 Ves. Sen. 622; 28 E.R. 396, refd to. [Appendix].
Burgess v. Wheate (1759), 1 Black. W. 123; 96 E.R. 67, refd to. [Appendix].
Fawell v. Heelis (1773), Amb. 724; 27 E.R. 468, refd to. [Appendix].
Beckett v. Cordley (1784), 1 Bro. C.C. 353; 28 E.R. 1174, refd to. [Appendix].
Blackburn v. Gregson (1785), 1 Bro. C.C. 420; 28 E.R. 1215, refd to. [Appendix].
Austen v. Halsey (1801), 6 Ves. 475; 31 E.R. 1152, refd to. [Appendix].
Nairn v. Prowse (1802), 6 Ves. 752; 31 E.R. 1291, refd to. [Appendix].
Elliot v. Edwards (1802), 3 Bos. & Pul. 181; 127 E.R. 100, refd to. [Appendix].
Authors and Works Noticed:
MacIntyre, Malcom M., Modern Consequences of Earlier Confusion between a Vendor's Lien and the Interest of a Cestui Que Trust (1952), 30 Can. Bar Rev. 1016, generally [para. 64].
Story, Joseph, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in England and America (13th Ed. 1886) (America), generally [para. 61]; pp. 554, para. 1215 to 579, para. 1232 [para. 62].
Counsel:
K.J. MacDonald, for the appellants in CA030373 and for the respondents in CA030376;
G.F. Gregory, for the respondents in CA030373;
F. Chen, appearing in person for the appellants in CA030376.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 24 and 25, 2003, before Southin, Braidwood and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Southin, J.A., on April 16, 2004.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Hall, 2015 BCCA 96
...23]. Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795; 361 N.R. 1; 224 O.A.C. 330; 2007 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 24]. Chu et al. v. Chen et al. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 201; 323 W.A.C. 201; 2004 BCCA 209, refd to. [para. Hearn v. Botelers (1604), Cary 25; 21 E.R. 14, refd to. [para. 28]. Hughes v. Kearney ......
-
Gregory & Gregory v. Chen et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 662 (SC Reg.)
...of Vancouver. The full background to this matter is set out in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, which may be found at 2004 BCCA 209. The very rough summary of those events is that Ms. Lee and Mr. Chen were two of a number of co-owners in the property development venture. In ......
-
Chu v. Chen, [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 173
...made submissions pursuant to the invitation extended in paragraphs 73-74 of the reasons for judgment pronounced the 16th April, 2004 (2004 BCCA 209). [2] Counsel for the successful appellants submits this form of draft order: "THE APPEALS from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice......
-
Chu et al. v. Chen et al., 2006 BCCA 475
...case was heard in this Court on 24th and 25th November, 2003. [2] Since this Court delivered, on 16th April, 2004 (28 B.C.L.R.(4th) 24, 2004 BCCA 209), its reasons on the principal issue - vendor's lien or no vendor's lien - a number of proceedings have taken place, all for the purpose of u......
-
Hall v. Hall, 2015 BCCA 96
...23]. Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795; 361 N.R. 1; 224 O.A.C. 330; 2007 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 24]. Chu et al. v. Chen et al. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 201; 323 W.A.C. 201; 2004 BCCA 209, refd to. [para. Hearn v. Botelers (1604), Cary 25; 21 E.R. 14, refd to. [para. 28]. Hughes v. Kearney ......
-
Gregory & Gregory v. Chen et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. Uned. 662 (SC Reg.)
...of Vancouver. The full background to this matter is set out in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, which may be found at 2004 BCCA 209. The very rough summary of those events is that Ms. Lee and Mr. Chen were two of a number of co-owners in the property development venture. In ......
-
Chu v. Chen, [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 173
...made submissions pursuant to the invitation extended in paragraphs 73-74 of the reasons for judgment pronounced the 16th April, 2004 (2004 BCCA 209). [2] Counsel for the successful appellants submits this form of draft order: "THE APPEALS from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice......
-
Chu et al. v. Chen et al., 2006 BCCA 475
...case was heard in this Court on 24th and 25th November, 2003. [2] Since this Court delivered, on 16th April, 2004 (28 B.C.L.R.(4th) 24, 2004 BCCA 209), its reasons on the principal issue - vendor's lien or no vendor's lien - a number of proceedings have taken place, all for the purpose of u......