Pappenberger Estate v. Champagne

Pappenberger Estate v. Champagne

The appeal is dismissed because the unjust enrichment issue legitimately arose from the pleadings and evidence and the trial judge did not err in awarding one half of net proceeds to the estate or in allocating the bailiff fees to the defendant’s share; the Master’s interim order did not fix ultimate apportionment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 BCCA 191
Parties
Respondent / Plaintiff: Gloria June Shackley as Executrix of the Estate of Elizabeth Margaret Pappenberger, deceased; Appellant / Defendant: Emile Champagne; Appellant / Defendant: Graham-Beaugrand Foundation
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Rule 18 a Decision / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons and Disposition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Proprietary Interest in Land, Unjust Enrichment and Restitution, Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 18 a Summary Determination, Allocation of Bailiff Fees, Costs Follow the Event
Source Language
english
Trusts and Equity Restitution / Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Costs Constructive Trust Proprietary Interest in Land Unjust Enrichment and Restitution Amendment of Pleadings +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria June Shackley as Executrix of the Estate of Elizabeth Margaret Pappenberger, deceased

Respondent / Plaintiff

Emile Champagne

Appellant / Defendant

Graham-Beaugrand Foundation

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Rule 18 a Decision / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons and Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding one half of net sale proceeds to the estate on a claim of unjust enrichment after finding the property was held in trust for the Foundation
  2. 2 Whether allowing an amendment and deciding the matter under Rule 18A prejudiced the defendant appellants
  3. 3 Whether the Master’s order requiring bailiff fees to be met from sale proceeds fixed ultimate apportionment of those fees

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the unjust enrichment issue legitimately arose from the pleadings and evidence and the trial judge did not err in awarding one half of net proceeds to the estate or in allocating the bailiff fees to the defendant’s share; the Master’s interim order did not fix ultimate apportionment and provided no ground for interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original judgment under Rule 18A upheld