What are the implications of adding a (non-spouse) family member to title to a home?
Implications of adding a (non-spouse) family
member to title to a home
In the recent decision of Gross v. Alexander, two of our family lawyers at Kahane Law Office were successful in obtaining a decision on property rights involving unique family dynamics. The Gross v. Alexander case offers invaluable insights into joint tenancy and equitable distribution under the Family Property Act. It demonstrates that parties should carefully consider when putting family members on title as Joint Tenants with the Land Titles Office.
Justice Lisa A. Silver of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, delivered a verdict that clarified the application of joint tenancy principles. This navigated the complicated landscape of equitable distribution of property among family members.
The Essence of the Dispute
At the heart of the dispute were Lloyd Alexander and the Bittany and Bryan Grosse.
Originally Lloyd was on title alone. He added both Grosses onto title when they moved in and started renovating the home. Following the Grosses moving into the home, their marriage deteriorated.
Justice Silver assisted in determining each parties interest in the home, following the separation of Brittany and Bryan Gross. Her decision focused on whether there was a joint tenancy that was created and how the net proceeds from the sale of the property were to be divided between the three.
The Legal Framework
Justice Silver dissected the legal framework surrounding joint tenancies, emphasizing the necessity for clear intentions and agreements in property ownership. This is especially important among individuals who share more than just a transactional relationship. The court considered evidence including financial contributions for refinancing and renovations to the home.
The Court’s Conclusions
The decision focused on two issues, acknowledging the complexity of human relationships and their impact on legal interpretations:
- Establishment of Joint Tenancy: The court affirmed that the addition of the Grosses to the property title did indeed create a joint tenancy. This conclusion anchored in the evidence that demonstrated a mutual intent to share the property as a family unit.
- Unequal Distribution of Net Proceeds: In a move that underscores the court’s flexibility in applying principles of equity, Justice Silver ordered an unequal division of the sale proceeds. Alexander was awarded a 50% share, recognizing his initial ownership and contributions. While the Grosses were each allocated 25%, reflecting their later contributions and the evolving nature of their relationship with Alexander.
- Equitable Considerations: The decision highlighted the court’s reliance on equitable principles, factoring in the unique circumstances that led to the property’s co-ownership. This includes the emotional and financial entanglements that blurred the lines between mere co-owners and a family.
Implications for Future Cases
Gross v. Alexander sets a precedent for how courts might approach similar disputes, emphasizing the importance of intentionality in property agreements and the role of equity in ensuring fair outcomes. It serves as a reminder that the law is not straightforward and often depends on the circumstances of each case.
This article is intended for informational purposes only. Readers are cautioned that this article does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on as such. Rather, readers should obtain specific legal advice in relation to the issues they are facing.