Wood v. Nolte

Wood v. Nolte

The plaintiffs failed to prove a legally binding oral contract or sufficiently unequivocal acts of part performance referable only to such a contract; alternatively, although some services and expenditures occurred, enrichment to the deceased was minimal, benefits were mutual and the one-half transfer plus gifts constituted adequate compensation, so no unjust enrichment or constructive trust is established and relief is denied.

Citation
2011 BCSC 692
Parties
Plaintiffs: Ian Thomas Wood and Anna Christine Wood; Defendants: Mavis Nolte; Kathleen Mary Perry, Executrices of the Estate of Kathleen Mary White (also known as Molly White)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Property / Trusts / Contract / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Action dismissed; plaintiffs' claims for specific performance and constructive trust denied.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Part Performance, Specific Performance, Statute of Frauds (writing Requirement), Joint Tenancy Severance
Source Language
English
Property Law Trusts and Equity Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Estates and Probate Constructive Trust Part Performance Specific Performance +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Thomas Wood and Anna Christine Wood

Plaintiffs

Mavis Nolte; Kathleen Mary Perry, Executrices of the Estate of Kathleen Mary White (also known as Molly White)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Property / Trusts / Contract / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement existed obligating the deceased to transfer her remaining interest in the property to the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether part performance or s.59(3) Law and Equity Act permits enforcement of the alleged oral agreement
  3. 3 Whether a constructive trust/unjust enrichment arose from the plaintiffs' work and expenditures such that they are entitled to the remaining one-half interest

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to prove a legally binding oral contract or sufficiently unequivocal acts of part performance referable only to such a contract; alternatively, although some services and expenditures occurred, enrichment to the deceased was minimal, benefits were mutual and the one-half transfer plus gifts constituted adequate compensation, so no unjust enrichment or constructive trust is established and relief is denied.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; plaintiffs' claims for specific performance and constructive trust denied.

Orders

  • Claim for declaration and transfer of the remaining one-half interest dismissed
  • Costs may be spoken to if necessary