Armshore Investments Ltd. v. Goode

Armshore Investments Ltd. v. Goode

The mortgagee (Armshore) was entitled to a deficiency judgment despite transferring the property to its director because the company remained the mortgagee and equity did not require denial; the most reliable measure of value on the evidence was the 2015 resale price of $105,000 (supported by a $100,000 appraisal), and the deficiency was calculated on that basis; interest was adjusted by disallowing interest for July 21–August 5, 2015 and by applying a 5% rate for periods after March 24, 2015; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
2017 NSSC 130
Parties
Plaintiff (mortgagee): Armshore Investments Limited; Defendant (mortgagor): John Douglas Goode
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Foreclosure and Deficiency Judgment / Application for Assessment of Deficiency Judgment; Final Decision
Outcome
Deficiency judgment granted to plaintiff based on resale price and appraisal with specified adjustments
Legal Topics
Foreclosure, Deficiency Judgment, Sheriff's Sale, Resale Valuation, Related Party Transfer
Source Language
English
Real Property Civil Procedure Equity Foreclosure Deficiency Judgment Sheriff's Sale Resale Valuation Related Party Transfer

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armshore Investments Limited

Plaintiff (mortgagee)

John Douglas Goode

Defendant (mortgagor)

Procedural Posture

Foreclosure and Deficiency Judgment / Application for Assessment of Deficiency Judgment; Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mortgagee that purchased at a sheriff's sale but transferred the property to its director before resale can claim a deficiency judgment
  2. 2 Whether the resale price of the property is a fair and reasonable basis for calculating the deficiency
  3. 3 Whether the mortgagee made reasonable marketing efforts and disclosed relevant circumstances given the non-arm's length transfer

Ratio Decidendi

The mortgagee (Armshore) was entitled to a deficiency judgment despite transferring the property to its director because the company remained the mortgagee and equity did not require denial; the most reliable measure of value on the evidence was the 2015 resale price of $105,000 (supported by a $100,000 appraisal), and the deficiency was calculated on that basis; interest was adjusted by disallowing interest for July 21–August 5, 2015 and by applying a 5% rate for periods after March 24, 2015; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Deficiency judgment granted to plaintiff based on resale price and appraisal with specified adjustments

Orders

  • Deficiency judgment granted in the amount claimed based on a resale price of $105,000 (total claimed deficiency figure reflected in plaintiff's briefs)
  • Disallow interest for the period July 21, 2015 to August 5, 2015