A woman has sued her father over money she provided to him in 2014 toward a down-payment for a Surrey property he planned to flip.

鈥淭he outcome of her claim turns on the correct characterization of this transaction鈥� Justice Terry Schultes noted. The case was heard in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster. Stacey Ellen Grenier successfully sued her dad, Stanley Norman Williams, over $23,000 in April 2014 for a down-payment on a property he was trying to buy.

She said it was a loan, to be repaid with interest after her dad renovated the house and sold it for a profit. But he maintained it was a gift which he intended to return later, along with an additional sum as a 鈥渂enefit.鈥�

Williams told the court he returned $3,000 of it shorty after he received the cash, at his daughter鈥檚 request.

The court heard the money came from a settlement Grenier received for a motor vehicle personal injury claim of $29,662.81, for pain and suffering.

Grenier testified her father dropped by her house one day in April 2014 to tell her he had made a successful bid for a house he was planning to flip but was short on the down-payment and asked her if he could borrow her settlement money. 鈥淪he told him she only had $23,000 left,鈥� Schultes noted. 鈥淢r. Williams said that he could 鈥榤ake that work.鈥欌��

She testified that she trusted her dad and wanted to help him out. The court heard she told him a 10 per cent return on the loan was fair.

鈥淚n cross-examination she agreed that there is a difference between 10 per cent interest and a 10 per cent return, as well as between a loan and a 鈥榞ift with benefit,鈥欌�� the judge noted. 鈥淗owever, she denied the suggestion that this money was a gift and that Mr. Williams鈥檚 intention was to give it back later.鈥�

For his part, Williams said it was Grenier who suggested he use part of her settlement money for his real estate bid and he would not have shown up at her door asking for money, as she alleged. According to Williams account, Schultes noted, 鈥渉e agreed to meet, and after hearing her proposal and 鈥榙oing a mental analysis鈥� of what was being proposed, he accepted the money.鈥�

鈥淲hile he did not need the money to carry out the purchase, he thought that 鈥榓s a gift to be repaid at some future date with a bonus, it made sense,鈥� so he accepted what he described as 鈥榓 family gift process.鈥欌��

Williams told the court he maintained at the time of the transaction and repeatedly afterwards that it could not be a loan. But Schultes found otherwise.

鈥淚n short, I believe Ms. Grenier鈥檚 evidence on the nature of the transaction with Mr. Williams, and find that she loaned the money to him for one year, at an annual interest rate of 10 per cent,鈥� Schultes concluded in his

tom.zytaruk@surreynowleader.com
Like us on Follow us on and follow Tom on