Hardt (Re)

Hardt (Re)

The trustee erred in disallowing the claim because the Declaration of Trust established a valid trust, the promissory note and Sxipper ledger/transfers provided sufficient objective contemporaneous evidence and confirmed the cause of action (postponing the limitation period), and the evidence supported allowing the DHT proof of claim in the amount of $508,865.89.

Citation
2013 BCSC 276
Parties
Debtor: Dick Clarence Hardt; Creditor/appellant: Dick Hardt et al Trust; Trustee in Bankruptcy/respondent: D. Manning & Associates Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal of Trustee's Disallowance of Proof of Claim / Appeal From Trustee's Disallowance (court Reviews Trustee's Decision on the Record)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Proof of Claim of Dick Hardt et al Trust allowed in the sum of $508,865.89; costs awarded to Dick Hardt et al Trust against the estate of Dick Clarence Hardt.
Legal Topics
Proofs of Claim, Trust Validity, Sham Trust, Limitation Period, Confirmation of Cause of Action, Trustee Disallowance of Claims, Creditor Rights
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Trusts Civil Procedure Limitation Law Evidence Proofs of Claim Trust Validity Sham Trust +4 more

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dick Clarence Hardt

Debtor

Dick Hardt et al Trust

Creditor/appellant

D. Manning & Associates Inc.

Trustee in Bankruptcy/respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal of Trustee's Disallowance of Proof of Claim / Appeal From Trustee's Disallowance (court Reviews Trustee's Decision on the Record)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Dick Hardt et al Trust valid or a sham?
  2. 2 Was the promissory note enforceable or barred by the limitation period?
  3. 3 Was there sufficient objective contemporaneous documentary evidence to support the claim?

Ratio Decidendi

The trustee erred in disallowing the claim because the Declaration of Trust established a valid trust, the promissory note and Sxipper ledger/transfers provided sufficient objective contemporaneous evidence and confirmed the cause of action (postponing the limitation period), and the evidence supported allowing the DHT proof of claim in the amount of $508,865.89.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Proof of Claim of Dick Hardt et al Trust allowed in the sum of $508,865.89; costs awarded to Dick Hardt et al Trust against the estate of Dick Clarence Hardt.

Orders

  • Allow proof of claim of Dick Hardt et al Trust in the amount of $508,865.89.
  • Costs awarded to Dick Hardt et al Trust as against the estate of Dick Clarence Hardt.