Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks AD. IMO, when WM died, DM was probably executor and sole beneficiary of the estate. I believe that WM's estate would include 1) Cash in the bank 2) stocks & bonds 3) real estate including mortgages 4) outside income such as royalties for patents, etc.
If DM was the executor and sole beneficiary, IMHO, he wouldn't be too concerned about honoring the mortgage WM held on Riverside. If I wanted to really get suspicious, I'd speculate that DM may even have wiped out WM's accounts before the bank even knew WM was dead. After all, it was pretty clear that the "suicide" had been accepted by TPS and he would only have been answering to himself. JMHO
The Distillery Condo sale makes sense. DM obviously had money to close the condo just days after TB's murder- meaning he had hundreds of thousands of dollars one week but yet a week later, right after a long interrogation, a time of great duress, he signs a POA?
Just can't figure that one out. I keep thinking that if he was my son and all that was going down, wouldn't I be thinking that it was all just a big terrible mistake? That he was obviously innocent and be getting out on bail quickly? Could I even process the whole thing in the matter of a day or two? I don't even know how that POA could be legal due to the duress that DM or MB for that matter, were under. Even if the bank had decided to call in a demand note, it would be far from instant. Really seems bizarre and bothers me as much as EG's pony!!
Certainly a possibility. However, IMHO, I'd be surprised that the Bank would move that fast. For example, if you had a mortgage or LOC with RBC or any bank for that matter, and got tossed in jail, they have absolutely no rights to call in the loan or mortgage. Remember, you're innocent until proven guilty. As long as you're making the mortgage payments or paying the interest, they wouldn't have a problem. Now, 6 months down the road, perhaps your bank accounts are a little bleak and you can't service your debt anymore. At that point, the Bank would start to apply pressure.The mortgage held by WM on riverside was only $1.1 million. Where did the $3.8 million charge come from? We know WM had to put some of his own money into the hangar when it went over budget. Could that be the $3.8 million? If so, maybe that was the urgency. DM may not have been concerned about repaying the mortgage after WM's death, but maybe he was paying WM's loan for the hangar until the estate settled. Could Riverside have been put up as collateral for that loan, now that there is no longer an income source for the payments?
JMO
OK was the truck discovered yet when the first property transfer/POA occurred? He was arrested on the Friday and the trailer with truck was discovered by LE on the Sunday at his mom's. Did he phone her when he was arrested? Where was she and was she involved in any wheeling and dealing on these properties before the truck was discovered? I would love to see all your great sleuthing on this added to the timeline or compared to the timeline if it hasn't been already.
<bbm>http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01r28_e.htm
(b) preventing persons who engage in unlawful activities and others from keeping property that was acquired as a result of unlawful activities;
I'm not an expert in law, but if 5 Maple Gate belonged to WM, and it was acquired by DM through inheritance, if DM is eventually found guilty of the murder of WM - would the property be deemed 'unlawfully acquired'?
"... the slayer rule says that a murderer cannot retain a property interest in his victim’s estate ....
Canadian courts have frequently engaged similar doctrines in the estates/trusts context. It is well founded that no murderer can take under the will or life insurance of his victim (Lundy v. Lundy [1895] S.C.J. No. 44). It is established that a beneficiary will not inherit where the beneficiary perpetrated a fraud on the testator to obtain a legacy by virtue of that fraud (Kennell v. Abbott 31 E.R. 416), or where a testator was coerced by the beneficiary into a bequest (Hall v. Hall [1868] L.R. 1 P.& D. 48).
These “rules” are equitable, legal and founded in public policy by virtue of the legal maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no right of action arises from a base cause). The maxim is a defence to bar a plaintiff’s claim where the plaintiff seeks to profit from acts that are “anti-social” (Hardy v. Motor Insurer’s Bureau [1964] 2 All E.R. 742) or “illegal, wrongful or of culpable immorality” (Hall v. Hebert [1993] S.C.J. No. 51) both in contract and tort. Simply put, a court will not assist a wrongdoer to profit from a wrongdoing.
First, it is shown that the concept or its
consequences already exists under Canadian Common Law, because under the slayer
rule, a court can declare a murderer unworthy to inherit from his or her victim
Not necessarily. The "Ontario Succession Law Reform Act governs how your property will be distributed to your surviving relatives. Even if you want your property divided according to provincial law, you should still have a Will because it will reduce delays and expenses involved in wrapping up your affairs." IIRC, WM does have living relatives and the succession rules would apply because the beneficiary named in his will may no longer be eligible. MOOOh I get it, DM could lose everything he inherited upon the death of WM if DM killed WM. MB wouldn't inherit because she's an ex. So it could go to the province or the victim's (LB, TB) families.
So the properties jointly owned by WM and DM, DM might lose half. At the time of TB's death, accounts and so on jointly held by WM and DM may still have been frozen. The cost overrun on the hangar ate the 6-plex. That used to be an income-producing property. The hangar is a white elephant that can't be sold, but that's where all the money went. DM now faces large legal fees. All of these things describe a dramatic reduction in net worth.
If a joint tenant is responsible for the deathof another joint tenant then they stand to benefit from the survivorship ruleunless another legal response deprives them of that benefit. The criticalquestion is how best to deprive a felon of that benefit. Various responses areavailable including the use of a constructive trust, an automatic severance of the joint tenancy, either at law or in equity, or some other outcome arrived at by making an assumption, for example that the felon died before the victim even if the felon is in fact still alive. Cases that have adopted these various alternatives will be examined in this article ...
<bbm>2 Canada
In Canada in
Re Pupkowski
79
Macfarlane J did not have to decide whether anact of murder would sever a joint tenancy but suggested that a severance atlaw might be the appropriate response.
80
However, in
Schobelt v Barber
81
Moorhouse J favoured the use of a constructive trust whereby, in a two-person joint tenancy, the felon would hold the property on trust equally for himself and the estate of the victim. Moorhouse J rejected any notion that the courtshould assume that the victim died after the felon and suggested that such anoutcome ‘could only be accomplished by legislation’.
82
Moorhouse Jconcluded that a constructive trust where the benefit of the property was heldequally for the felon and the victim’s estate ‘more closely meets the demandsof justice on the facts present than any other avenue open to me’.
83
Thedecision in
Schobelt
was followed by Osler J in
Re Gore
.
84
Despite these developments, in
Novak v Gatien
85
Hunt J without reference
72 Ibid, at 653.73 (1931) QWN 17.74 [1969] Qd R 145.75 Ibid, at 149.76 [1988] 1 Qd R 351.77 Ibid, at 352.78 [2004] QSC 480; BC200409705 at [10]. See also
Public Trustee v Evans
(1985) 2 NSWLR188;
Ekert v Mereider
(1993) 32 NSWLR 729; and
Neubacher v Good
(2003) 11 BPR20,877; [2003] NSWSC 379; BC200302129 at [10].79 (1957) 6 DLR (2d) 427. See R St J Macdonald, ‘Real Property — Joint Tenancy — Murderof One Tenant by Another — Share of the Survivor’ (1957) 35
Can Bar Rev
966.80 Ibid, at 430.81 (1967) 60 DLR (2d) 519.82 Ibid, at 524.83 Ibid.84 (1971) 23 DLR (3d) 534.85 (1975) 25 RFL 397.
234 (2008) 15 Australian Property Law Journal
to
Schobelt
, or any other authority, held that the killing of one joint tenant byanother ‘immediately severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy incommon’.
86
However, in the following year in
Re Dreger
87
Estey CJHCapplied the constructive trust approach of
Schobelt
noting that such anapproach was ‘now settled law’.
88
This approach is now consistently appliedin Canada.
Two Jeeps, which also appear to be housed at the Millard family's hangar, went up for sale on a site called RacingJunk.com in October, after Millard, 28, was arrested for Bosma's murder.
Sorry for the dog's breakfast of a quote, LOL
Chuckles, surely one can stay within this case for a dog's breakfast, imo.