Scheuerman v. Scheuerman

Scheuerman v. Scheuerman

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed because the husband’s claim necessarily relied on his own illegal purpose to protect assets from creditors; equity will not assist a plaintiff who must make out his case by proving an act done to defeat creditors, and he failed to prove the creditor was not prejudiced by the conveyance (presumption of advancement not successfully enforced into an equitable remedy).

Citation
(1916) 52 SCR 625
Parties
Appellant: Anna Soheuerman; Respondent: John Soheuerman
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Title to Land; Trusts; Fraudulent Conveyance / Hearing and Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed; costs to appellant
Legal Topics
Conveyance in Fraud of Creditor, Resulting Trust, Statute of Frauds, Restitution, Exemptions From Execution, Advancement, Equitable Remedies
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Trusts Fraud Civil Procedure Conveyance in Fraud of Creditor Resulting Trust Statute of Frauds +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Soheuerman

Appellant

John Soheuerman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Title to Land; Trusts; Fraudulent Conveyance / Hearing and Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether husband who caused conveyance of homestead to wife to defeat creditors can recover property or proceeds
  2. 2 Whether an oral trust/conveyance can be enforced despite Statute of Frauds when proof requires disclosure of illegal purpose
  3. 3 Whether property was exempt from execution and therefore incapable of prejudicing creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed because the husband’s claim necessarily relied on his own illegal purpose to protect assets from creditors; equity will not assist a plaintiff who must make out his case by proving an act done to defeat creditors, and he failed to prove the creditor was not prejudiced by the conveyance (presumption of advancement not successfully enforced into an equitable remedy).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed; costs to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Appellate Division reversed