PDA

View Full Version : Judge: Parents can sell home of daughter, 37, because they supplied cash



Teh One Who Knocks
07-31-2019, 10:34 AM
By Dom Calicchio | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/1FWUq4ll.png

In a ruling Tuesday, a judge sided with the parents in a dispute over a home they had helped buy for their 37-year-old daughter.

The parents wanted the home put up for sale because they ran into tax trouble and needed to access some cash, according to a report.

But the daughter balked, claiming it was “her” home, even though the parents had paid $110,000 of the cost. (It was unclear what percentage of the cost the dollar figure represented.)

The dispute has reportedly ripped the Canadian family apart.

“We were fair,” the mother told the Vancouver Sun. “We were never vindictive to (our daughter), but we’ve lost our daughter now. I just don’t know how it can be repaired because it’s done so much damage.”

The daughter’s lawyer said there would be no comment from her, the newspaper reported.

According to the Sun, the court case revealed that whenever their adult son and daughter needed something, their parents were supportive.

The parents reportedly paid for their children’s education and their vehicles, covered the cost of their daughter’s elective surgery and helped finance homes for both of them.

In the son’s case, the home financing was a loan that the son repaid.

In the daughter’s case, the parents had supplied the $110,000 toward the home purchase. But she argued that the land title, tax bills and day-to-day care of the property all suggested that she was the rightful owner.

In his ruling, British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Robert Punnett noted that the case was made more difficult because – as is the case with many family financial arrangements – documentation was lacking, and the bitterness resulting from the dispute made it difficult to assess the credibility of the family members.

Ultimately, he ordered that the home be sold, with the parents in charge, and that neither the daughter nor her representatives interfere with the sale.

The court ruling issued to the public identified the family members only by their initials, the Sun reported.

DemonGeminiX
07-31-2019, 11:40 AM
Granted, she's an ass for living off her parents, but regardless of who spent cash where, who's name's on the documents? If it's the daughter's name, then the parents shouldn't have a right to the home or its sale. Contract law has to stand for something up there in the Great White North. I don't know if it's anything like it is here in the US, but if it is, then this judge is effectively nullifying it. Unless GF, Hal or Noilly can clue us in on the legal justifications that say otherwise, then I say appeal, if she can.

Muddy
07-31-2019, 01:46 PM
Not in America, baby.. It's all about the deed... Fuck that 'Judge'.. That's some Canadian bullshit..

PorkChopSandwiches
07-31-2019, 04:11 PM
She sounds like an undeserving cunt anyway

Godfather
08-01-2019, 02:46 AM
Granted, she's an ass for living off her parents, but regardless of who spent cash where, who's name's on the documents? If it's the daughter's name, then the parents shouldn't have a right to the home or its sale. Contract law has to stand for something up there in the Great White North. I don't know if it's anything like it is here in the US, but if it is, then this judge is effectively nullifying it. Unless GF, Hal or Noilly can clue us in on the legal justifications that say otherwise, then I say appeal, if she can.

Ya I'm frankly quite shocked by this, I get that the judge saw right through the daughter's bullshit but I would never have guessed he'd have the balls to throw the land title out the window. Land title should trump pretty much anything else. The only way I could see the parents having any force here is if they were registered as the private mortgagees/lenders... but the article is pretty clear that the documentation was hazy and so it doesn't sound like the case. I'd be surprised again if the BC Court of Appeals court upheld this.