Man Gives Woman $130K: Was it a Post-Infidelity Symbol of Commitment? Or Was He Buying an Interest in Her Home?
During the course of their 6-year relationship, the man moved into the woman’s home, which she had owned for 10 years. He gave her $130,000, and contributed to her expenses. When the relationship ended due to the man’s infidelity, a dispute arose as to what they each intended the $130,000 payment to represent. Had they agreed that the man was buying half the woman’s home, as he asserted? Or was the money simply a gift, as the woman claimed? This was the main question for the court to decide.
Essentially, this was a “he said/she said” exercise: In assessing the facts and credibility of the party’s evidence – a task the court found “neither simple nor scientific” – the court found that it made no sense that someone with the man’s credentials would ostensibly advance $130,000 to purchase a share in the legal title in the woman’s home and yet fail to document it properly.
The court recounted the man’s self-described achievements this way:
The [man] … describes himself as a highly educated and sophisticated businessman, a recognized pioneer of financial planning in Canada and an offshore private banker.
Wright has a Bachelor of Arts, a Master’s in Business Administration, certifications as a Registered Financial Planner, Certified Planner, and Certified Fraud Examiner and has received a Canadian Forces decoration medal for service in the Canadian Navy. He has authored a book entitled “Demons in the Financial World and How to Spot Them” and was a lecturer at both Seneca College and Centennial College. He states that he has been working on his Ph.D., but that he had to recently withdraw from the course due to what he describes as post-traumatic stress disorder suffered as a result of issues pertaining to this lawsuit.
Yet the man’s version of events was incredible, and the documentation he produced as being all that remained of a massive computer failure was “at times riddled with implausible error”, according to the court. Further, in his dealings with third parties (for example bank employees from whom he was applying for a mortgage), he had self-servingly called his interest in the home “contingent”; conversely he did not declare any interest in the woman’s home in a later application for subsidized housing. In other words, the nature of his professed legal interests in the woman’s home seemed to shift to suit his own needs at any given time.
Similarly, the court pointed out that it did not make sense that the woman, who owns a successful design-services business and had an 11-year old daughter to support, would not want to document the same transaction.
This lack of documentation not only supported the woman’s version of events, but made even more sense in light of the more personal side of her story: She claimed the $130,000 was a gift representing a symbol of the man’s commitment to the relationship, since he had recently proposed to her after being unfaithful. (The man denied any infidelity, but the court found that the evidence showed otherwise). The court elaborated:
I accept the evidence of [the woman] that she did not tell her family and friends because she was embarrassed; embarrassed by the infidelity in February 2007, embarrassed that she forgave [the man] for it and accepted his proposal, embarrassed that he paid her a large sum of money as an apology and a symbol of commitment. I also accept the submissions of [the woman’s] counsel that if [the woman] was going to make up a story that the $130,000 was a gift she would also have made up the details surrounding her receipt of the money.
The court found the man had effectively used the money and a marriage promise to “secure” the woman in a relationship that he felt would be financially beneficial to him: He knew the woman’s parents had given her financial gifts in the past, and he had concluded that they were wealthy.
The court accordingly declared that the woman remained the sole owner of the home, and accepted her evidence that the $130,000 was a gift. It also dismissed the man’s claim for expenses during the time they lived together, and in fact ordered him to pay the woman $3,000 for damage he had caused to the property.
For the full text of the decision, see: