The ex-wife argued that her title on the title of the second property and the SUV indicated a present. She additionally alleged possession of a share within the property based mostly on her involvement within the household. Nonetheless, the courtroom rejected these claims, ruling that no proof supported an intention to reward her or the son possession pursuits.
The Superior Court docket decided that the presumption of a ensuing belief utilized, that means the mother and father retained useful possession regardless of whose names appeared on authorized paperwork. It discovered that the mother and father’ actions had been pushed by sensible concerns, such because the son’s residency software and insurance coverage laws, slightly than any intent to switch possession.
Within the case of the Ottawa properties, the courtroom concluded that the mother and father had been the only real monetary contributors and beneficiaries. Equally, the Lincoln SUV, initially registered below the ex-wife’s title for insurance coverage functions, was dominated to belong to the mother and father, who had funded and maintained the car.
Finally, the courtroom declared the mother and father the only real useful homeowners of the property and directed the ex-wife to return proceeds from the unauthorized sale of the SUV.
