Costa v. Costa 2022 BCSC 704
Husband was given a 2% interest in property because he was co-signer on the mortgage and mortgagee insisted. All funds came from wife and all mortgage and upkeep payments were paid by wife. Wife moved to have husband return his 2% interest; she wanted to re-finance the property without husband’s involvement. Judge granted the order. There was no evidence of any real risk to husband in signing the mortgage; indeed, he had no more than a theoretical prospect of personal liability The judge held that husband provided no consideration and held his interest in trust for wife. The judge also held that husband had been unjustly enriched, wife was deprived, and no juristic reason for the enrichment and deprivation.
Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.