Goodfriend v. Goodfriend

Goodfriend v. Goodfriend

Appeal dismissed: where a husband gratuitously transfers property to his wife at her persuasion based on her mistaken belief that he was at risk from suit, and in fact there was no real jeopardy and no creditor shown to have been defeated, the wife cannot rely on the presumption of advancement; the husband may rebut the presumption and recover beneficial ownership absent laches or confirmatory conduct; where no creditor was actually impeded the illegality/clean‑hands principle does not automatically bar recovery (Krys v. Krys distinguished Scheuerman).

Citation
[1972] SCR 640
Parties
Appellant / Wife: Vivian Goodfriend; Respondent / Husband: Carl Goodfriend
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (property/resulting Trust) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Presumption of Advancement, Gifts, Defeating Creditors, Illegality (clean Hands), Reconveyance
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Family Law Resulting Trust Presumption of Advancement Gifts Defeating Creditors Illegality (clean Hands) +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivian Goodfriend

Appellant / Wife

Carl Goodfriend

Respondent / Husband

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (property/resulting Trust) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a gratuitous transfer from husband to wife created a resulting trust or whether the presumption of advancement applied
  2. 2 Whether a husband’s alleged intent to defeat anticipated creditors bars him from rebutting the presumption of advancement when no creditor was in fact hindered or delayed
  3. 3 Whether a wife who persuaded her husband to transfer property based on her mistaken belief about creditor risk can rely on the presumption of advancement

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: where a husband gratuitously transfers property to his wife at her persuasion based on her mistaken belief that he was at risk from suit, and in fact there was no real jeopardy and no creditor shown to have been defeated, the wife cannot rely on the presumption of advancement; the husband may rebut the presumption and recover beneficial ownership absent laches or confirmatory conduct; where no creditor was actually impeded the illegality/clean‑hands principle does not automatically bar recovery (Krys v. Krys distinguished Scheuerman).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Declaration that respondent (Carl Goodfriend) is the true and beneficial owner of the lands conveyed to the appellant and entitled to reconveyance