Bronson v. Tompkins Ranching Ltd.

Bronson v. Tompkins Ranching Ltd.

The remedies sought against the trustee in the First Action and against the third party purchaser in the Second Action are cumulative rather than alternative; because the plaintiffs have not received full satisfaction on their judgment in the First Action they are not precluded from bringing the Second Action and the Second Action is not an abuse of process; whether TRL is bound by factual findings from the First Action was left open for further submissions.

Citation
2012 BCSC 770
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas E. Bronson; Plaintiff: Lee B. Lewis; Plaintiff: Virginia L. Shaffer; Plaintiff: H. Davis Lewis, Jr.; Defendant: Tompkins Ranching Ltd.; Defendant: High & Wild Wilderness Safaris (2005) Inc.; Defendant: Jennifer Sue Lewis Browning; Defendant: Julie Anne Lewis
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts and Fiduciary Duty / Interlocutory Application Re Dismissal/stay Under Rule 9 5 (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application to dismiss or stay Second Action denied insofar as it sought to bar the action; plaintiffs permitted to proceed with Second Action; application regarding whether TRL is bound by First Action findings reserved for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Election of Remedies, Cumulative Vs Alternative Remedies, Set Aside/recission of Sale, Preclusive Effect of Findings on Non Parties, Security for Costs
Source Language
English
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Property Fiduciary Duty Abuse of Process Election of Remedies Cumulative Vs Alternative Remedies +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas E. Bronson

Plaintiff

Lee B. Lewis

Plaintiff

Virginia L. Shaffer

Plaintiff

H. Davis Lewis, Jr.

Plaintiff

Tompkins Ranching Ltd.

Defendant

High & Wild Wilderness Safaris (2005) Inc.

Defendant

Jennifer Sue Lewis Browning

Defendant

Julie Anne Lewis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts and Fiduciary Duty / Interlocutory Application Re Dismissal/stay Under Rule 9 5 (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the Second Action
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs have committed an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether remedies are cumulative or alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The remedies sought against the trustee in the First Action and against the third party purchaser in the Second Action are cumulative rather than alternative; because the plaintiffs have not received full satisfaction on their judgment in the First Action they are not precluded from bringing the Second Action and the Second Action is not an abuse of process; whether TRL is bound by factual findings from the First Action was left open for further submissions.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss or stay Second Action denied insofar as it sought to bar the action; plaintiffs permitted to proceed with Second Action; application regarding whether TRL is bound by First Action findings reserved for further submissions.

Orders

  • Second Action permitted to proceed; dismissal/stay application denied insofar as it sought to bar the action
  • Leave granted to parties to bring further submissions on whether Tompkins Ranching Ltd. is bound by findings in the First Action