In the recent unreported case of Cauz et al v. Cauz et al, Mr. Cauz, a widower with six children, gave approximately $80,000 to a younger friend who was living with him, plus transferred to her a 45% ownership interest in his home. Mr. Cauz’s litigation guardian sought an order for this transfer to be set aside and for his father’s friend to vacate the property.
Mr. Cauz’s friend filed no responding materials or submissions. Nonetheless, she indicated that the court did not have all of the relevant evidence and that she was being characterized unfairly. When asked what order she wanted the court to make, she asked for an adjournment to provide evidence of Mr. Cauz’s wishes. The court declined the request, as the matter had been outstanding for three and a half years and a court-ordered deadline had already come and gone for the delivery of any evidence.
Regarding inter vivos gifts, if suspicious circumstances exist and the evidence shows a potential for domination between the giver and the recipient due to the nature of the relationship itself, undue influence is presumed. The onus then moves to the recipient of the gift to rebut the presumption.
The Court noted Mr. Cauz’s cognitive decline and the control his friend exercised over his finances, finding that a relationship of dominance existed. Because his friend, who was self-represented, failed to file any evidence, the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted and the transfer was set aside.
This case highlights the importance of tendering evidence to rebut any legal presumptions.
Thank you for reading,