Announcement

**FL_Needs_To_Change** · 04-22-2008, 06:47 AM

No one can say for certain that a lawyer would not take a case on contingency; anything is possible when dealing with human "greed".
If a lawyer sees the possibility that the client would win the unjust enrichment claim, he/she may take the case based on the share of entitlement.

I could not find any case law where costs were ordered on contingency of sale, but I did find a couple where the judge was looking for unjust enrichment. The second below is a case where one party in an unjust enrichment claim did not meet their verbal obligation. It's a little different from your position, in that the title was joint, you are at an advantage with only your name on title. Had your CL partner maintained his part of the bargain that you had with him IE to pay rent when he was working, and contribute to the upkeep and maintenance, he may have a claim of unjust enrichment. I feel that he would be hard pressed to convince a court that he is entitled. He barely contributed anything, either by way for actual rent, or labour and costs. You basically provided for him, and he should count himself lucky you are nor taking him to court for the costs of lost rent.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...canlii152.html

Before property can be equalized under s. 5 of the Family Law Act, 1986, a court is required by s. 4 to determine the "net family property" of each spouse on the valuation date. "Property" is defined as "any interest, present or future, vested or contingent, in real or personal property" and accordingly includes not only legal but beneficial ownership. The remedial constructive trust therefore should be included in the list of equitable principles or remedies that may be used to calculate the beneficial ownership of net family property. It can be recognized as having come into existence from the time when the unjust enrichment first arose, even though it is judicially declared at a later date.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...07bcsc994.html

At the time that the house was purchased and registered in joint title, it was clearly the intention of the parties, including Mr. Schultz, that both parties would benefit from any increase in the value of the house. However, I find that Mr. Schultz’s intention to benefit Ms. Landry, by advancing all the funds for the purchase of the home, was contingent upon her contributing funds to pay down the mortgage once her home in Edmonton was sold. Thus, it was not his intention at the time the house was purchased to make a gift to her of her interest in the house—it was the intention of both parties that she would receive an interest in the house in exchange for contributing towards the purchase price of the house. She reneged on her portion of the agreement. I find that Mr. Schultz did not intend to provide Ms. Landry with a beneficial interest in the house if she failed to contribute towards its purchase price.

**Lynda** · 04-22-2008, 10:46 PM

Thank you so much for your response....I know that greed is always an issue, and he is a great con artist so he could possibly convince a lawyer to take his case on the basis that if he is successful he'll get paid from the proceeds....I don't think he would be successful, but the way things go these days, nothing is certain!!! course should this happen, I'll have to contact the lawyer and let him know that the last lawyer didn't get paid!

this forum is really wonderful and it has really helped add to my own research....
Lynda

**used again** · 02-19-2009, 05:15 PM

Hello, FL needs to change, I have been reading your posts here for a while and was glad to see this comment. (See my recent post what are his chances for the low-down) Needless to say, a similar situation. It's more than confusing to wade through all this info and I was SOOO glad to find this forum. Keep up the good work and your encouragement means a lot!

Announcement

taking a case on contingency?

taking a case on contingency?

Comment

Comment

Comment