A Father (RE Agent, Broker, Owns Biz as RE Developer) is approached by his Daughter wanting to purchase Property for her to live in. An Agreement is eventually reached between the Father and Daughter and an Agreement/Contract is Made.

  • The Father purchases property in 2014 for $120,000.00 (7% Increased Value since being built in 05)

  • Daughter Pays Father Directly An Initial Down payment in the amount of $10,000.00

  • Daughter is Required To Make Timely Lump Sum Payments totaling $10,000.00 every 3 months.
    Payable to the Father. Tax and Interest Free.

  • The Father would keep his name in addition to his Daughters Name on the Title Until Such time as the Principle had been Repaid, at which time His name would be removed, Leaving her with Sole Ownership and Title to the Property.

All Payments were made in accordance with the predetermined schedule.

  • TOTAL MONEY PAID to Father $160,000.00

September 2019 Father Pays A Moving Crew to Act as a Court Approved Bailiff, including the use of a Fraudulent/Forged Document purporting to be a genuine Writ of Possession used this document to justify the Forcibly Gained Entry To Property and Completely Removed his Daughter And Her Fiancée Wrongfully from their Home along with their belongings. The Reason this is mentioned, or thought to be relevant is the issue surrounding the several written "threats" made by the Father that had announced his intentions to so weeks before.

The Couple end uprooted, and with few options in the Market in their BC Town. The forced move cost dearly, as in addition to the costs associated with acquiring a new residence, re-establishing and restarting their business during the Lockdown- adding there had been costly mistakes on behalf of the movers damaging a considerable amount of their property for which was realted to their businessd.

There has been a pattern in previous circumstances, that follow much the same patterns of intimidation, and other types of behavior such as described here, on behalf of the Father.

In Decemeber 4th of 2020 The Father Sold the Home For $262,500.00

Todays Date: The Father has Not Paid or Provided any Such Monies To The Daughter. Est. Value $307,000 in 2022

  • 2
    How could he have sold it if his daughter's name was also on the title? Commented Jul 16, 2022 at 22:31
  • 1
    @MichaelHall You can go to court to force a sale of jointly owned property.
    – mkennedy
    Commented Jul 17, 2022 at 18:52
  • @mkennedy, but wouldn't the court ensure equitable distribution of proceeds from a court ordered sale, or is that expecting too much? Commented Jul 17, 2022 at 23:29
  • @MichaelHall Yes, and I doubt this happened here. I bet she wasn't on the title, because getting a writ of possession and the bailiffs is more like she defaulted on the loan or wasn't paying "rent." Or she was, but the contract is not what OP and daughter think it is.
    – mkennedy
    Commented Jul 22, 2022 at 23:43
  • my questions was more to the subject of types of remedy that would be justified in seeking given the situation as i had described it. I do not believe i could be any more clear on the facts as they are, having left nothing out, other than copies of the contract of which ive already described. as well as the series of events as described. the only thing that may perhaps be an issue is if the property was bought under the name of the fathers company , however it clearly shows her name and the name of the fathers company as party to the title. clearly both names on the title
    – Miles
    Commented Jul 25, 2022 at 1:26

2 Answers 2


Assuming hypothetically that all the facts stated in the question are accurate, and that there are no relevant facts that modify them, it would appear that the Father (F) committed forgery (of court documents), trespass (by entering the property without legal authority or the permission of the lawful owner), breach of contract (by not honoring his obligation to transfer clear title when the price had been paid in full), and probably fraud (for lying to the movers to induce them to assist him in gaining a financial advantage). F is also in unlawful possession of the property. Forging the court documents may also be contempt of court, or another offense. The actions of F probably also constitute theft. The Daughter D would have a claim against F for trespass and improper and Unlawful dispossession. D could also report F for forgery and any other offenses committed, which might include criminal fraud. D probably also has a claim against the movers for damage due to negligence or carelessness.

The measure of D's claim against F would be the value of the property as of September 2019 F, probably plus statutory interest from that date. Additional incidental damages would probably also be included, but I don't think the later value of the property would be relevant.

All these claims would be subject to the BC statute of limitations ([SBC 2012] CHAPTER 13) which would cause the claims to expire in September 2021. However, all such periods of limitation were paused for one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic (see "Suspension of Limitation Periods Set to End in British Columbia on March 25, 2021" which extends the period of limitation to September 2022. Moreover, Part 1 Division 3 section 1(b) of the Limitation Act provides that:

(3) This Act does not apply to the following:


(b) a claim for possession of land if the person entitled to possession has been dispossessed in circumstances amounting to trespass;

It might be possible to set aside the sale on the ground that F did not have, and therefore could not sell, good title to the property. A proper title search should have revealed that D had at least a co-ownership of the property, even if D's sole title was never registered. Any bona-fife purchaser would have noted this, and reused to proceed without evidence that F held sole title. (Of course such evidence might perhaps have been forged or otherwise invalid.)

D would be wise to promptly consult a lawyer and bring suit before any limitation period ends. Indeed D would have been wise to start action sooner than this. If the facts in the question are accurate and complete, D should have a good claim.

  • The facts above were things i could confirm. I left out one detail on basis of speculation, yet, perhaps it is worth mentioning? The Father offers Daughter "Tax Free Deal Just Repay Principle Amt. Perhaps there had been or some requirement for D to be named under his Dev. Company as an employee to do this? F could claim Tax related benefits, and D would not need to pay tax? Leaving Title to Remain under the namesake of F's RE Development Co.? I am curious as to how this situation would affect the Daughters Case, Her Right To Remedy and The overall strength in her Claim against the Father?
    – Miles
    Commented Jul 19, 2022 at 12:07

The daughter needs local legal representation. Your presentation of facts says there was fraud, theft, breach of contract, and likely several torts.

Any remedy will be through the courts.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .