Hilborn v. Wright

Hilborn v. Wright

Claimant failed to prove a resulting trust or unjust enrichment. Evidence established co‑mingling of funds, transfers from respondent to accounts in claimant's name and joint financial conduct; claimant's evidence lacked credibility and forensic accounting evidence was unreliable. Therefore the statutory presumption...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 928
Parties
Claimant: Holly Tiffany Hilborn; Respondent: Cory Michael Wright
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Property Division in Common‑law Separation / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Claimant's resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims dismissed; property divided equally as joint tenants; financial liabilities allocated between parties.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Constructive Trust, Division of Assets, Co‑mingling of Finances, Joint Line of Credit Liability, Valuation Date
Source Language
english
Property Law Family Law Equitable Remedies Trusts and Unjust Enrichment Resulting Trust Constructive Trust Division of Assets Co‑mingling of Finances +2 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holly Tiffany Hilborn

Claimant

Cory Michael Wright

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Property Division in Common‑law Separation / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a resulting trust arises to defeat the s.23 Land Title Act presumption of equal beneficial ownership
  2. 2 Whether unjust enrichment and a constructive trust should be imposed to alter title interests
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of responsibility for joint and sole lines of credit

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to prove a resulting trust or unjust enrichment. Evidence established co‑mingling of funds, transfers from respondent to accounts in claimant's name and joint financial conduct; claimant's evidence lacked credibility and forensic accounting evidence was unreliable. Therefore the statutory presumption under s.23 of the Land Title Act was not displaced and the property remains held equally as between the joint tenants; joint and sole lines of credit are shared obligations and valuation is fixed as at separation (net property value used $1,250,000).

Court Disposition

Claimant's resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims dismissed; property divided equally as joint tenants; financial liabilities allocated between parties.

Orders

  • Property to be divided 50/50 between the parties as joint tenants
  • Claimant may purchase respondent's interest within 60 days by paying one half of the net equity based on valuation as at separation (net value used $1,250,000)