In family law cases it is not uncommon to face debts the validity of which is question. In Medeiros v. Medeiros, 2009 ONCA 734 the Court deals with a promissory note:
1. Did the trial judge err in finding there is a debt owing to Robert?
[31] Carlos submits that the trial judge erred in finding that there is a debt owing to Robert under the promissory note because it is clear from the documentary evidence that there was no expectation that the $200,000 advanced by Robert would ever have to be repaid.
[32] We agree. Although the trial judge concluded at page 6 of her reasons that all parties understood that Phyllis was obsessed with ensuring that no part of any funds she advanced to Julie would form part of Julie's net family property and that the only way to resolve the outstanding litigation "was to satisfy all concerned, in particular Phyllis Posa, that Julie's money would be safeguarded for Julie only, in case of marital breakdown", the real issue in this case was whether the arrangements the parties entered into were effective to carry out that purpose.
[33] In our view, the trial judge erred in failing to take account of the documentary evidence demonstrating that there was an understanding between Robert, Julie and Carlos that Robert would never make a demand on the note and that, in fact, Robert had gifted the money to Julie.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment