Mortgage Broker

CMB MAGAZINE cmba-achc.ca spring 2019 | 35 fraudulentconveyance e creditor law firm claimed that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent preference. It asked the Court to reverse the transfer. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Like Ontario, most provinces have legislation that invalidates a transfer or property made by a debtor with the intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors out of monies owed to them. is statute in Ontario is the Fraudulent Conveyances Act. To have a transfer undone as being a fraudulent conveyance: n there needs to be a transfer of property, and n the mental intention of the transferor must be to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors out of monies owed to them. Determining whether there has been a transfer of the property of land is generally straightforward, as a registry search will provide the necessary information. Determining whether the transferor had the necessary mental intention, at the time of the transfer, is to be determined by looking at all of the circumstances. e Court looks for indicators of fraudulent intent – that is, the "badges of fraud." e badges of fraud are circumstances surrounding the transfer that support its being fraudulent. One of the more significant badges of fraud is a transfer by a debtor to a close friend or family member. is is not to say that every transfer to a close friend or family member is with a fraudulent intention. ere may be an innocent explanation. For example, the transferor may be registered on title but may have no real ownership interest. e person may have been holding the property in trust for another person and the transfer was to that other person. In that circumstance, the transferor would not be transferring any financial interest and so the transfer would not be for a fraudulent purpose. OUTCOME In this case the transferor had no fraudulent intent when transferring his joint title to his spouse. e transfer did not transfer any financial interest of the transferor as he had no present financial interest in the property. His wife had provided the purchase monies, paid the mortgage and paid for the upkeep. e transfer merely cancelled the right of survivorship which he had as a registered joint tenant. [e right of survivorship gives the person the title of the other person on the other person's death.] e couple believed it to be the case and it was in fact the case that the transferor had no beneficial interest in the property and thus the transfer was not intended to put the transferor's assets beyond the reach of his creditors. e law firm's claim that the conveyance was fraudulent was dismissed. e Court decision does not set out how it determined that the wife had segregated funds from which she made the deposit and payments, and paid for the upkeep. Most couples would have pooled or inter-mingled funds such that a claim that only one of them paid these amounts would be difficult to sustain. TAKEAWAYS Not everything registered in a person's name at the land registry is necessarily beneficially owned by that person. If property registered in the name of a debtor is transferred such that it looks like the transfer is to defeat their debt, you might have to dig a little further to determine the intent of the transfer. Unfortunately, this intent may not be evident from circumstances known to you until the end of the court proceeding. One of the more significant badges of fraud is a transfer by a debtor to a close friend or family member."

• Cover