Gliege v. Gliege

In this case, Stuart Cappus and Trina Brubaker acted for a man who, unfortunately, was being sued by his father for the return of a piece of property that his father had transferred to him several years prior. The pair had a falling-out almost two-years after the transfer when the son made efforts to develop the property.

Among other things, the father claimed that the son had used undue influence and pressured him to transfer the property. He also alleged that there was an unwritten contract between him and his son respecting the property and that the son breached the contract by trying to develop the property.

In contrast, we argued that the father had freely and willingly gifted the property to his son as an early inheritance with the result being that the father had no claim to the property.

At trial, Stuart and Trina pointed to various pieces of evidence in support of their client’s position. These included a Will made by the father almost a decade before the transfer that showed he had a long-standing intention to eventually give the property to his son. They also relied on an audio recording of the appointment at which the father executed the documents transferring the property to the son. All parties were aware that the appointment was being recorded and the statements made by the father on the recording were inconsistent with his claims. Finally, Stuart and Trina referenced another Will made by the father after the transfer in which he actually confirmed that he had gifted the property to his son as an early inheritance.

Following a ten-day trial, the trial judge agreed with Stuart and Trina, and dismissed the claim.

You can click on the link below to read the trial judge’s Reasons for Judgment:

Gliege v. Gliege, 2016 BCSC 1462