A woman has sued her father over money she provided to him in 2014 toward a down-payment for a Surrey property he planned to flip.

害羞草研究所淭he outcome of her claim turns on the correct characterization of this transaction害羞草研究所� Justice Terry Schultes noted. The case was heard in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster. Stacey Ellen Grenier successfully sued her dad, Stanley Norman Williams, over $23,000 in April 2014 for a down-payment on a property he was trying to buy.

She said it was a loan, to be repaid with interest after her dad renovated the house and sold it for a profit. But he maintained it was a gift which he intended to return later, along with an additional sum as a 害羞草研究所渂enefit.害羞草研究所�

Williams told the court he returned $3,000 of it shorty after he received the cash, at his daughter害羞草研究所檚 request.

The court heard the money came from a settlement Grenier received for a motor vehicle personal injury claim of $29,662.81, for pain and suffering.

Grenier testified her father dropped by her house one day in April 2014 to tell her he had made a successful bid for a house he was planning to flip but was short on the down-payment and asked her if he could borrow her settlement money. 害羞草研究所淪he told him she only had $23,000 left,害羞草研究所� Schultes noted. 害羞草研究所淢r. Williams said that he could 害羞草研究所榤ake that work.害羞草研究所櫤π卟菅芯克鶟

She testified that she trusted her dad and wanted to help him out. The court heard she told him a 10 per cent return on the loan was fair.

害羞草研究所淚n cross-examination she agreed that there is a difference between 10 per cent interest and a 10 per cent return, as well as between a loan and a 害羞草研究所榞ift with benefit,害羞草研究所櫤π卟菅芯克鶟 the judge noted. 害羞草研究所淗owever, she denied the suggestion that this money was a gift and that Mr. Williams害羞草研究所檚 intention was to give it back later.害羞草研究所�

For his part, Williams said it was Grenier who suggested he use part of her settlement money for his real estate bid and he would not have shown up at her door asking for money, as she alleged. According to Williams account, Schultes noted, 害羞草研究所渉e agreed to meet, and after hearing her proposal and 害羞草研究所榙oing a mental analysis害羞草研究所� of what was being proposed, he accepted the money.害羞草研究所�

害羞草研究所淲hile he did not need the money to carry out the purchase, he thought that 害羞草研究所榓s a gift to be repaid at some future date with a bonus, it made sense,害羞草研究所� so he accepted what he described as 害羞草研究所榓 family gift process.害羞草研究所櫤π卟菅芯克鶟

Williams told the court he maintained at the time of the transaction and repeatedly afterwards that it could not be a loan. But Schultes found otherwise.

害羞草研究所淚n short, I believe Ms. Grenier害羞草研究所檚 evidence on the nature of the transaction with Mr. Williams, and find that she loaned the money to him for one year, at an annual interest rate of 10 per cent,害羞草研究所� Schultes concluded in his

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on