Hall v. Hall, 2015 BCCA 96

• Judge: Donald, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 96;(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 228 (CA)

Hall v. Hall (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 228 (CA);

    633 W.A.C. 228

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.025

Patricia Adeline Hall (respondent/plaintiff) v. Trawala Lamegue Hall also known as Trawala Lamegue Whitehouse (appellant/defendant) and Marty Daryl Hall (third party/defendant/third party)

(CA041030; 2015 BCCA 96)

Indexed As: Hall v. Hall

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A.

March 9, 2015.

Summary:

In December 2001, Patricia transferred to her son, Marty, the property located at Taylor Street for $174,000. The purchase price was to be paid in two installments, with $114,000 of the agreed upon purchase price remaining unpaid (the Purchase Advance) until the earlier of the sale of Taylor Street or Patricia's death. In 2004, Marty married Trawala. In April 2006, Marty gratuitously transferred a half-interest in Taylor Street to Trawala. In or about 2009, Marty and Trawala embarked on a renovation of Taylor Street. In the course of the renovation, Patricia advanced approximately $164,000 (the Renovation Advance) to Marty. After Marty and Trawala separated, Taylor Street was sold in foreclosure proceedings for $690,000. The balance of the sale proceeds, approximately $242,000, was put in trust pending the outcome of this litigation. Patricia commenced proceedings seeking to recover $278,417.59, which was the amount advanced in the two financial transactions. Trawala brought a third party claim against Marty seeking indemnification for unjust enrichment.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 100, held in Patricia's favour and ordered that she was entitled to payment of the $242,000 held in trust. The court dismissed the third party claim. Trawala appealed the award to Patricia and the dismissal of the third party claim.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - What constitutes - See paragraphs 32 to 47.

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - See paragraphs 32 to 47.

Sale of Land - Topic 7785

Remedies of vendor - Vendor's lien - When available - See paragraphs 9 to 31.

Trusts - Topic 1907

Resulting trusts - General principles - Circumstances when not imposed - See paragraphs 9 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Kerr v. Baranow (2011), 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 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. 28].

Hearn v. Botelers (1604), Cary 25; 21 E.R. 14, refd to. [para. 28].

Hughes v. Kearney (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 132, refd to. [para. 28].

Mackreth v. Symmons (1808), 15 Ves. Jun 329; 33 E.R. 778, refd to. [para. 28].

Rice v. Rice, 2 Drewry 76; 61 E.R. 646, refd to. [para. 28].

Albert Life Assurance Co., Re (1870), L.R. 11 Eq. 164, refd to. [para. 28].

Lysaght v. Edwards (1876), 2 Ch. D. 499; 45 L.J. Ch. 554, refd to. [para. 28].

Kettlewell v. Watson (1882), 21 Ch. D. 685; 54 L.J. Ch. 281, affd. 26 Ch. D. 501; 53 L.J. Ch. 717, refd to. [para. 28].

Allen v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1914] 2 K.B. 327; 83 L.J.K.B. 649, refd to. [para. 28].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

M.J. Walton, for the appellant;

E. Raponi, Q.C., for the respondent;

T.T. Luchies, for the third party.

This appeal was heard at Victoria, British Columbia, on January 29, 2015, by Donald, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Goepel, J.A., on March 9, 2015.