Suen v. Suen

Suen v. Suen

The father's equitable interest in the Richmond property is 30% of its market value as of purchase and remains 30%; unjust enrichment was established only for municipal taxes and insurance paid by the son ($7,900) and the mortgage liability remained the son's sole responsibility; the trial judge erred by expanding unjust enrichment to ordinary living and mortgage payments unrelated to preservation or maintenance of the property.

Citation
2016 BCCA 107
Parties
Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal (plaintiff): Yuk Chun Suen; Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal (defendant): Hung Shun Suen
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; trial order varied and substituted by declarations and directions of the Court of Appeal
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Joint Tenancy, Beneficial Ownership, Remedies, Sale of Property, Line of Credit
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Trusts Unjust Enrichment Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Joint Tenancy Beneficial Ownership +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuk Chun Suen

Appellant / Respondent on Cross Appeal (plaintiff)

Hung Shun Suen

Respondent / Appellant on Cross Appeal (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the joint tenancy presumption of equal beneficial ownership was rebutted
  2. 2 Whether unjust enrichment arose from payments by the son and its proper scope
  3. 3 Whether a constructive trust or monetary remedy was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The father's equitable interest in the Richmond property is 30% of its market value as of purchase and remains 30%; unjust enrichment was established only for municipal taxes and insurance paid by the son ($7,900) and the mortgage liability remained the son's sole responsibility; the trial judge erred by expanding unjust enrichment to ordinary living and mortgage payments unrelated to preservation or maintenance of the property.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; trial order varied and substituted by declarations and directions of the Court of Appeal

Orders

  • Declare that Albert's equitable interest in the Richmond home amounts to 30% of the property's market value
  • Declare that, as between the parties, Andy is solely responsible for the mortgage on the Richmond home