Ruptash and Lumsden v. Zawick

Ruptash and Lumsden v. Zawick

The appellants acquired a valid, indefeasible title free from the respondent's asserted claims because the caveat only protected the respondent's right of pre‑emption and not an equitable charge, the agreement did not create an express charge or assign rents, the respondent's remedy was a personal right to contribution enforceable in partition (not a lien on the land), and s.189 of the Land Titles Act bars unregistered equitable charges from affecting purchasers from registered owners in the absence of fraud.

Citation
[1956] SCR 347
Parties
Appellant: Mike Ruptash; Appellant: William C. Lumsden; Respondent / Plaintiff: David Michael Zawick; Co‑owner / Transferor: William Zawick
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside and substituted as ordered.
Legal Topics
Tenancy in Common, Caveat, Equitable Lien, Registration and Indefeasibility, Purchase for Value Without Notice, Running of Covenants
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Land Titles Tenancy in Common Caveat Equitable Lien Registration and Indefeasibility Purchase for Value Without Notice +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mike Ruptash

Appellant

William C. Lumsden

Appellant

David Michael Zawick

Respondent / Plaintiff

William Zawick

Co‑owner / Transferor

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a purchaser from a registered co‑owner takes subject to a co‑tenant's unregistered claim for contribution to repair costs
  2. 2 Whether the caveat filed protected any equitable lien or charge beyond a right of first refusal/pre‑emption
  3. 3 Whether s.189 of the Land Titles Act prevents enforcement of unregistered equitable charges against purchasers from registered owners

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants acquired a valid, indefeasible title free from the respondent's asserted claims because the caveat only protected the respondent's right of pre‑emption and not an equitable charge, the agreement did not create an express charge or assign rents, the respondent's remedy was a personal right to contribution enforceable in partition (not a lien on the land), and s.189 of the Land Titles Act bars unregistered equitable charges from affecting purchasers from registered owners in the absence of fraud.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside and substituted as ordered.

Orders

  • Declare that the appellants' registered title is a good and valid title free from the claims asserted in Caveats Nos. 7063 H.V. and 6823 J.H. and free from claims of the respondent under the agreements of 23 June 1951 and 13 December 1951.
  • Order that Caveats Nos. 7063 H.V. and 6823 J.H. be expunged from the Register.