Digest: Royal Bank of Canada v Hillbom, 2018 SKQB 251

• Date: September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 251

Docket Number: QB18246 , QBG 260/16 JCB

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-09-18

Judges:

• Goebel

Subjects:

• Debtor and Creditor � Priority
• Family Law � Child Support � Enforcement
• Land Titles Act � Interest Registration � Maintenance Order
• Statutes � Interpretation � Enforcement of Money Judgments Act
• Statutes � Interpretation � Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act
• Statutes � Interpretation � Land Titles Act, 2000

Digest: The defendants� recreational property was sold pursuant to an order confirming sale. After the payment of costs there was a surplus in the amount of $54,000. The order confirming the sale provided that the remaining monies be paid into court and applied as directed by the court. The defendants were in a spousal relationship but had separated prior to the sale. The defendant wife had registered an order against the title of the property in July 2016 noting the value of the interest at the time to be $46,975.13. The amount represented unpaid child and spousal support. As of March 2018, the amount owing from the husband to the wife was $96,000, so she sought payment of the surplus to her. The husband said the amount payable was inappropriate due to a decrease in his income over the last four years. He wanted the surplus to be applied to family debt. The plaintiff bank also sought payment of the money indicating that it had two default judgments against the defendants: one for $15,783.33 against both defendants and the other for $62,596.65 against the husband. Neither judgment was registered against the property, but they were registered with the judgment registry pursuant to The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act (EMJA). In March 2018, the plaintiff served two notices of seizure on the court pursuant to the EMJA seeking to attach money payable to the husband totaling $80,596.39 and a second one totaling $15,783.33 attaching money payable to the wife. The plaintiff conceded that the maintenance order had priority over the unsecured judgment, but argued that the jointly-held judgment should be paid in priority because the wife should not receive the benefit of the funds when she had judgment outstanding against her. The issues were: 1) a determination of the legislation that applied to the distribution of the net proceeds of the judicial sale; 2) determining the competing interests, and where they stood in priority to one another; 3) the value of the maintenance...