Gammon et al. v. Steeves et al., (1986) 72 N.B.R.(2d) 239 (TD)

• Judge: Meldrum, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 1986
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1986), 72 N.B.R.(2d) 239 (TD)

Gammon v. Steeves (1986), 72 N.B.R.(2d) 239 (TD);

    72 R.N.-B.(2e) 239; 183 A.P.R. 239

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Gammon et al. v. Steeves et al.

(M/C/700/85)

Indexed As: Gammon et al. v. Steeves et al.

Répertorié: Gammon et al. v. Steeves et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Meldrum, J.

June 11, 1986.

Summary:

Résumé:

After a stay in the hospital Leslie Gammon went to live with his niece, Ella Steeves. Mrs. Gammon also moved in with the Steeves shortly thereafter. Mrs. Gammon was later admitted to a nursing home. During his stay with the Steeves, Gammon transferred most of his property to Ella Steeves. The Gammons then brought an action to have their property returned to them.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the action. The court found that the Steeves had a positive duty to suggest alternatives, to ensure that, if the transaction seemed one-sided, benefits to both existed and to ensure that the nature and effect of the transaction had previously been fully explained to the donor by some independent and qualified person.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 801

Undue influence - Presumed undue influence - Rebuttal - General - The plaintiffs moved in with their niece because they could no longer take care of themselves - The uncle transferred most of his property to the niece - The uncle brought an action to have his property returned to him - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of undue influence arising from a relationship was not met by ex post facto words alone - The niece had a positive duty to suggest alternatives, to ensure that, if the transaction seemed one-sided, benefits to both existed and to ensure that the nature and effect of the transaction had previously been explained to the donor by some independent and qualified person - See paragraph 68.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 826

Undue influence - Presumed undue influence from special relationship - Non-parental family relations - Uncle and aunt v. niece - The plaintiffs moved in with their niece because they could no longer take care of themselves - The uncle transferred most of his property to the niece - The uncle brought an action to have his property returned to him - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of undue influence arising from a relationship was not met by ex post facto words alone - The niece had a positive duty to suggest alternatives, to ensure that, if the transaction seemed one-sided, benefits to both existed and to ensure that the nature and effect of the transaction had previously been explained to the donor by some independent and qualified person - See paragraph 68.

Cases Noticed:

Albert v. Albert (1981), 33 N.B.R.(2d) 689; 80 A.P.R. 689, folld. [para. 64].

Zed v. Zed (1980), 28 N.B.R.(2d) 580; 63 A.P.R. 580, folld. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Infirm Persons Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-8 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Michael E. Murphy and Edwin G. Ehrhardt, for the plaintiffs;

Weldon J. Furlotte, for the defendants.

This case was heard on May 13-16, 1986, before Meldrum, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following judgment on June 11, 1986.