# Buying Real Estate in holding company with minors...Need advice please!



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

I am planning on buying a piece of real estate next two weeks. It will be property I plan to resell for a profit within 1-2 years. I will buy it in a corporation for tax and liability reasons. I was planning on making my kids which are minors, non voting shareholders. Kids ages are 3, 7, 11, 15 and 17. Most will be many years away buy the 15 and 17 year old can start taking a dividend when they turn 18. I am not sure if I plan on buying more in this corporation but my plan is to setup a holding company eventually which will control this operating co. 

What is the best way to do this? Shall I bother making the other kids shareholders (I am charged $100/shareholder to add to the corporation at setup) since I plan to sell in 2 years? Can I create the holding company after or must it be done before?

Thanks!


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

So many views and no comments...please don't be shy!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

What's the goal? To pass income at a tax advantaged level to the kids?

This article highlights the passing dividends before 18 has extra tax but suggests that a reasonable wage paid to the minor may be worth exploring.
http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/should-you-have-minor-children-as-shareholders-of-your-family-business

The advantage to the wage that I can think of is that it will be earning RRSP contribution room for later high income times, where minimal tax would be paid.
http://business.financialpost.com/p...e-strategies-to-make-the-most-of-your-savings


Assuming the corporation is the main business where the RE is an investment of profits, this article says going with the holding company has benefits beyond passing dividends to the non-voting 18+ shareholders.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-companies-have-their-benefits/article786896/


I would assume two companies will add to the paperwork/expense a bit.


I would think setting up the holding company first would be better but I haven't found anything to suggest it is impossible or expensive tax wise to do the setup / transfer after the fact. This is probably worth discussing with an accountant or similar expert.


Cheers


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Without more details, all I see is a lot of misunderstandings about how things work...

First off, it's very difficult to resell real estate for a profit in 1-2 years. The acquisition and holding costs, not to mention the costs to sell, usually mean 7-10 years before profits can be realized. Maybe you're talking about flipping, but then your time frame is to long.

Next, you talk about this being an operating company, but if you are just holding properties in in, even if you are "actively" charging rents, it's still a holding company. An operating company has operations, active transactions like services or goods sold, maybe a management company, but that requires staff...

As for your kids, they don't really need dividend income at this point, you could always make them employees after they hit a certain age (which varies by province). They can then earn up to the minimum income levels tax free.

Setting up two corporations will double your accounting bill and may not give you any benefits. Adding your kids may, in rare circumstances, expose them to liability from a lawsuit. 

I think you need to give more details, or do some more research into what you think you are doing. As I said, from the sounds of things, you don't really seem to understand what you are doing and your assumptions seem wrong from what you described.


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Without more details, all I see is a lot of misunderstandings about how things work...
> 
> First off, it's very difficult to resell real estate for a profit in 1-2 years. The acquisition and holding costs, not to mention the costs to sell, usually mean 7-10 years before profits can be realized. Maybe you're talking about flipping, but then your time frame is to long.
> 
> ...


Sorry it was pas midnight and maybe I didn't explain well. Yes it's for flipping. I hope to do a couple per year and have been recommended to do 3-4 max in the same company for liability. After that it's a new company. Who know's though, I might only do 1-2 since deals are not as easy to find these days. My criteria is 30-50k profit per house. If it's less than that, I won't touch it.

So I figure if there is 50-100k in the company when my child turns 18 next year, I could give him a 20-30k dividend without any tax consequence. This will help pay for college/university or other things like deposit on first house, car, etc. I don't plan on giving the rest any dividends for years, but don't know if it's costly to add them later or if it creates any tax issues. Then again I am not sure if that particular corp will still be open by then. Can I only add them in the Holding company, transfer the money from operating corp and then pay dividends?

Now by having an operating company and a holding company, if ever I am exposed to a lawsuit from a house I sold, can I not transfer all assets to the holding company and leave the operating company with nothing ? They would not be able to come after me since the corporation sold it. Again I don't plan on doing anything illegal or screwing anyone, but just trying to protect myself and family.

Now the corporation I create, does the activity code change the way it's taxed or is it the operations really? For example, if I set the Activity code to Holding company instead of Real estate Investments

Yes it would add more fees, but do I really have a choice? Maybe I am making it more complicated than it needs to be. Are there a better solutions? I


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

plaza said:


> ... Now by having an operating company and a holding company, if ever I am exposed to a lawsuit from a house I sold, can I not transfer all assets to the holding company and leave the operating company with nothing?


Hmm ... I thought I read somewhere that transferring before a problem, where it's somewhat on a schedule is fine. Transferring after the lawsuit was filed was trying to cheat the plaintiffs.

I'll have to see if I can find the article.


Cheers


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Hmm ... I thought I read somewhere that transferring before a problem, where it's somewhat on a schedule is fine. Transferring after the lawsuit was filed was trying to cheat the plaintiffs.
> 
> I'll have to see if I can find the article.
> 
> ...


Yes I understand that after a lawsuit has been filed, it's difficult, but I would keep the minimum in there. I was told if I ever sensed any issues from someone, it would give the chance to get the current property sold/liquidated before lawsuit is actually filed


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Without more details, all I see is a lot of misunderstandings about how things work...
> 
> First off, it's very difficult to resell real estate for a profit in 1-2 years. The acquisition and holding costs, not to mention the costs to sell, usually mean 7-10 years before profits can be realized. Maybe you're talking about flipping, but then your time frame is to long.
> 
> My friend sold her house July 30 for $421,800 and on February 22 the person sold it for $597,600 ,My friend spent money on the house to sell it o all they did was add some potlights and took carpet up in bedrooms and put in hardwood floors. This house was in Courtice not Toronto .


----------



## Nerd Investor (Nov 3, 2015)

plaza said:


> Sorry it was pas midnight and maybe I didn't explain well. Yes it's for flipping. I hope to do a couple per year and have been recommended to do 3-4 max in the same company for liability. After that it's a new company. Who know's though, I might only do 1-2 since deals are not as easy to find these days. My criteria is 30-50k profit per house. If it's less than that, I won't touch it.
> 
> So I figure if there is 50-100k in the company when my child turns 18 next year, I could give him a 20-30k dividend without any tax consequence. This will help pay for college/university or other things like deposit on first house, car, etc. I don't plan on giving the rest any dividends for years, but don't know if it's costly to add them later or if it creates any tax issues. Then again I am not sure if that particular corp will still be open by then. Can I only add them in the Holding company, transfer the money from operating corp and then pay dividends?
> 
> ...


The activity code itself won't really change anything, it's the type of income you earn that dictates how it's taxed. If you were renting out the real-estate for example, this would be considered passive income. If you are flipping, that would generally be considered active business income. Have you thought of Family Trust at all? Depending on how long you plan to keep this in place, it might be more practical then having different classes of non-voting shares of each of your children. By having a Family Trust own shares, and your kids as beneficiaries you would have the discretion to allocate out dividends to whichever kids you choose in the proportion you choose.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

The holding company is your protection. The operating company your liability. The HOLDCO owns OPCO - or multiple OPCOs. The properties will be owned by the OPCO. Profits can be transfered to HOLDCO tax free since its CORP to CORP. Income will then be derived from the HOLDCO which will be taxed accordingly. 

This set-up is very costly. You need to be very active for this to be worth it. The idea is good, however it can be very risky to buy, hold and flip in today's environment. I think you can have better success if you buy run down properties, renovate and resell. But even then, its very risky if its not your domain. As was mentioned, you may be better off with a Family Trust.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

When it comes to liability, the plaintiff's lawyer will go down to corporate records and pull the owners and directors of the company they are suing. They will then list the owners and directors as part of their lawsuit. If you are found liable, they can then seize any assets of any of those listed, so your plan of a holdco to protect you won't actually work. It will also expose your children to the liability as I said before.

I've got a buddy who's going through a company lawsuit right now and found out he's not protected at all by the corporate wall. 

Again, 20-30k to your oldest, especially if he gets education tax deductions, could be paid as income and probably come tax free. If you pay dividends, each child would have to have different class shares, otherwise you have to pay dividends to all. You issue dividends on a class of shares, not on an individual holding shares. Everyone holding the same class, must get the same dividends/share. 

As for making it an operating company, there are criteria that have to be met...flipping 1-2 houses a year may not qualify it as operating...I'm not a flipper, so I don't know what the criteria is.

From a finance state, starting a new company every few years means you start from scratch with the banks, CRA, etc. This can cause you problems where a track record could be an advantage...


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Just a Guy said:


> When it comes to liability, the plaintiff's lawyer will go down to corporate records and pull the owners and directors of the company they are suing. They will then list the owners and directors as part of their lawsuit. If you are found liable, they can then seize any assets of any of those listed, so your plan of a holdco to protect you won't actually work. It will also expose your children to the liability as I said before.


What the HOLDCO protects is your personal assets. Any assets the HOLDCO owns at the time of the lawsuit are up for grabs. So although the corp owners are implicated, they are simply representing the HOLDCO. The plantiff cannot put a lien on your personal home for example. They can only touch assets in the HOLDCO's name - unless the judgement determines you acted maliciously. If you commit fraud, no one is protected.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

If it's a personal injury suit, you can be found liable as my buddy found out. Someone slips and falls outside your flip, you could be at risk especially if you have insurance...lawyers love going after insurance and judges have no issues compensating people because it's insurance money...

They'll list every person they can think of in a lawsuit. Not sure if they'll win, as they have to prove liability, but he was named as a director. Worst part is, if the holdco declares bankruptcy he would still be liable for the entire judgement according to his lawyer. The judgement is usually rendered against everyone, if one doesn't pay, the remainder pay more.

P.S. I've already had this arguement with muska in a different thread. He claims to be a lawyer and, while he initially said the same thing, when I explained my buddy's case, he later admitted it can happen in a personal injury case.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

^^^ thats because he has insurance.
No insurance, he can only go after the corp.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

No, they can go after everyone and they will...without insurance means bankruptcy and the loss of personal assets beyond a limit. If the guy has assets, they'll go after them and anyone else.


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

You guys sure? So what's the point of having a corp if they can come after you personally? I have read many books and spoken to many people and they all tell me corp protects you. I am not sure about personal injury though


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Plaza, I have yet to see good reasons expressed for going to this much trouble just to own a few properties. I'm sure the lawyers and accountants will be willing to help with whatever complex scheme you feel inclined to undertake, but IMO this is overkill.


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

Not sure about the rest of Canada, but in Quebec we have Hidden defects (vice cachee) lawsuits. Basically the person I sell a house to finds an issue years down the line to his house. He can come back and sue me and ask me to repair it. They have to prove that I knew about it and tried to hide it, but from what I hear, many lawyers specialize in this thing and still try and you have to spend 30-50k to defend yourself. 

So by setting up a corp, investors protect themselves to this stuff since we have no idea on the history of the building. Also the fact that I buy repos from the bank and that is sold as is, there is no one I can go after.

this is the main reason of setting up the corp and then some tax benefits like 20% tax as opposed to 40-50% personal since it's active income and not capital gains


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

The hidden defect civil code in QC is indeed a pain for sellers. The way most people protect themselves is by selling with no legal warranty. Since you are already buying without one (bank repos are always sold without legal warranty) then you have good reason to sell without one as well. 

If that's your main concern, I would still not go through the hassle of having the corps set-up. Waiving the legal warranty is enough protection.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> P.S. I've already had this arguement with muska in a different thread. He claims to be a lawyer and, while he initially said the same thing, when I explained my buddy's case, he later admitted it can happen in a personal injury case.


Here I am, still shamelessly claiming to be a lawyer. For anyone who would like to tune in on that previous thread where JAG thoroughly kicked my butt, forcing me to "later admit" that he was right, here it is:

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php/106618-Holding-Company-Now-or-Later

I have gone back and re-read that thread. Call it wilful blindness, but I cannot see that I admitted much apart from saying that some circumstances can be imagined where a corporate principal can be held liable in a personal injury case. I never said otherwise. These things are always fact-driven and possible scenarios are endless. But I remain firmly of the view that the concept of the limited liability corporation remains alive and well and it can offer protection against all manner of personal liability.

It is also the case that I remain of the view that JAG is dead wrong when he says 



Just a Guy said:


> the plaintiff's lawyer will go down to corporate records and pull the owners and directors of the company they are suing. They will then list the owners and directors as part of their lawsuit.


First off, going off to the company registry should be a job for an articled student. A lawyer's time is too valuable to be wasted on registry searches. Anyway, it's all available to lawyers online these days. As I said before:



Mukhang pera said:


> True, in some tort cases, where it is not clear at first blush where fault lies, some "shotgun" pleading might be called for. But the notion of keeping in the action to the end of trial every possible defendant is not a course responsible counsel would undertake. It will greatly protract the proceedings, drive up costs and, in the end, someone must bear those costs. I would not want to be the one explaining to my client just why it is that he is on the hook for the costs of a conga line of successful defendants. Moreover, if the court finds the action should never have been brought or maintained against some defendants, the award of costs might be punitive indeed, such as an award of "special costs" or "solicitor client" costs, etc.


Again, I'll support my views with a few cases. Below I offer a few B.C. case citations. Each follows a line or two stating what may be drawn from the case as far as corporate principal liability goes and how often corporate principals are or are not sued. JAG says it's always. I say BS. JAG also says where there is insurance, the plaintiff always wins. Nonsense.

1. Occupiers' liability, franchise restaurant, franchisee and franchisor companies sued; no personal defendants sued.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/15/23/2015BCSC2310.htm

2. Personal injury action against small hotel owner. No personal defendants sued. Action dismissed even though we can be pretty sure there was insurance.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/17/02/2017BCSC0274.htm

3. Personal injury action against small bakery. Only the company sued. Defendant company found 25% at fault at trial. On appeal, court finding clumsy plaintiff wholly at fault. No liability found against company, even though insurance was likely in place.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/13/08/2013BCSC0889.htm

4. Personal injury action against corporate owner of a small commercial building rented to tenants. Principals of the company not sued but one “personal defendant” was sued because she was a tenant of the premises, operating a business as a proprietor, not using a corporation. On plaintiff’s appeal, court finding landowner not an “occupier” under Occupiers Liability Act, s. 1(b), and agreeing tenant was not negligent. Action dismissed even though there was most likely insurance in the background.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/12/01/2012BCCA0108.htm

5. Next comes a personal injury case against a company operating a beauty shop. Again, company owners/directors/shareholders/ friends and relatives of same were not sued. However, the shop employee said to have been at fault was sued. This is normal in personal injury litigation. Where an individual is identified as being the causative agent, it is prudent to name them as defendant, on the principle that a tortfeasor is always liable for his own tort.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/16/2011BCSC1690.htm

That could well apply to JAG’s buddy for all we know. There might be facts that suggest personal fault on his part.


6. Next is an unsuccessful personal injury action against Canada Safeway. I’ll bet Safeway carries insurance, so why did the trial judge not nail them? Why did the appeal court uphold the trial judge? Imbeciles! On top of that, why did the plaintiff's lawyer not run down to the registry (even if living in a different town from said registry...always fun to bill for travel) and do a company search and sue officers and directors, etc. of Safeway? 

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/11/02/2011BCCA0202.htm

Oh, now I remember. JAG gave me a stern rebuke in the previous thread for mentioning a suit against the principals of Walmart:



Just a Guy said:


> Mukhang,
> 
> First off don't compare a Walmart shareholder to a single guy, who owns a company and is also the sole (or co-owner with family) the two are not the same by any means.


So it must be that when a corporation gets to be of a certain size or notoriety, that its principals gain shelter from personal injury lawsuits. I would ask JAG to expound in this thread at just where that point of non-liability begins. What size company? Size determined by # of shareholders, gross revenues, or what exactly?

I must also remember that JAG is able to draw on the considerable legal training he has received as a result of talking to his friend. I, on the other hand, am not talking of real word events. As JAG says:




Just a Guy said:


> You may be up on what's happening on the theory, but I'm watching it happen in real life.


So the court decisions I have cited, do not involve real lawsuits against real people. They are theoretical musings only. And, unlike JAG's pal, while the cited lawsuits would appear to have come to an actual conclusion, those conclusions are really conclusions in theory only. Now JAG's friend is, we are told, in for long years of torture before his case gets dragged across the finish line. By that time, no current CMF member will still be alive. Nor will JAG's pal. His grandchildren will inherit and perhaps see the denouement of the whole debacle.


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

Its right in one way but not the other. When you start doing flips you become a professional seller (All people or companies that takes regular profit from the purchase/sale) and the sold as is will not cover you from hidden defects. This is what was explained to me and I have the section of the civil code if anyone interested. I am not a professional just yet, but if I start doing this regularly, I will be one. 

You also pay 19-20% tax in a corp versus 40-50% depending on your tax bracket if you hold it personally.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

plaza said:


> Not sure about the rest of Canada, but in Quebec we have Hidden defects (vice cachee) lawsuits. Basically the person I sell a house to finds an issue years down the line to his house. He can come back and sue me and ask me to repair it. They have to prove that I knew about it and tried to hide it, but from what I hear, many lawyers specialize in this thing and still try and you have to spend 30-50k to defend yourself.



Here's a B.C. example:

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — Evidence showing defendant house vendors were aware of significant damage caused by water ingress into the home but failed to disclose their knowledge of latent defects in Disclosure Statements — Court awarding plaintiff purchaser repair costs of $140,005.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/23/2014BCSC2305.htm


----------



## plaza (Sep 16, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Here's a B.C. example:
> 
> SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — Evidence showing defendant house vendors were aware of significant damage caused by water ingress into the home but failed to disclose their knowledge of latent defects in Disclosure Statements — Court awarding plaintiff purchaser repair costs of $140,005.
> 
> http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/23/2014BCSC2305.htm


Thanks Mukhang! So had the house been in a corp, would the defendants been able to walk away if the company was closed or held no assets?


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

You cannot compare a BC case to QC because QC has the Civil Code which they abide to. In the above scenario, if the plaintiff can prove the seller was aware of a defect, then nothing can protect you - its considered fraud.

A hidden defect in QC is defined as being a defect which was present at the time the seller was the owner of the property. Regardless if the defect was known by the seller or not, the Civil Code will protect the buyer. For the buyer to win his case, he needs to prove when the defect existed and be able to pin it on the seller. If the defect dates back to the previous owners, then each party will need to sue their counter-part. Its not an easy process and not many cases are won by the plaintiffs.

Enter "Sale with Legal Warranty". The legal warranty is what protects the buyer from hidden defects. Bank repos, successions are automatically sold Without legal warranty making them exempt from such lawsuits. 

Selling yourself without legal warranty protects you as well - but not if the defect was intentionally hidden. One can ask, "why doesn't everyone sell without legal warranty then?" Well, it makes the property less attractive and will have to be offered at a big discount. Rentals are often accepted to be sold without legal warranty - but not owner-occupied properties.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

plaza said:


> Thanks Mukhang! So had the house been in a corp, would the defendants been able to walk away if the company was closed or held no assets?


That raises a neat question, plaza. It really yields of no clear answer. As Mortgage u/w points out, Quebec law differs, so I cannot address that aspect at all. Here in B.C. the answer would depend, at least in part, on how the representation or lack of disclosure came about. It might also depend on the actual involvement of corporate principals, and whether it was more in the hands of company employees or agents. A number of variables might come into play. Maybe best to take JAG's advice and sue everyone, including Donald Trump and HMTQ.

As I have mentioned, it is a general legal principle that a person who commits a "tort" will be liable for it, notwithstanding the interposition of a company. A failure to disclose a defect in a house being sold can, depending on facts, be seen as a fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Torts are divided into 2 categories: intentional torts (eg. assault and battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land or chattels, intentional interference with economic relations, etc.) and negligence. Fraudulent misrepresentation would be in the former category, negligent misrepresentation in the latter. The case law suggests that liability for negligent misrepresentation may be limited by contract, but not so in the case of fraud.

I spent a bit of time looking for a case of fraudulent misrepresentation brought against a company and its principals, but did not find one in the short time available (I have to do some paid work today). What I did find were some misrepresentation cases where only the company was sued. See, for eg.: 

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — Defendant purchasing 60-acre commercial development property from plaintiff — Alleging the property was worth much less than the agreed price due to several material misrepresentations, defendant refusing to pay final $2 million of purchase price and counterclaiming for damages — Trial judge finding no misrepresentation and awarding plaintiff judgment for $2 million — Court of Appeal finding plaintiff warranted the accuracy of information not known to it, and evidence showing 1/3 of the property could not be developed due to topographical problems and there was strong public opposition to a component of the proposed development — Court finding both were material facts the vendor was required to disclose — Court setting aside trial judgment and remitting matter to trial court for assessment of damages.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/13/03/2013BCCA0381.htm

The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the above Court of Appeal decision.

Here's another case of corporate liability for misrepresentation, with only the company sued:

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — • NEGLIGENCE — Negligent misrepresentation • CONTRACTS — Rectification — Plaintiffs purchasing residential lot and house under construction in defendants’ subdivision — Plaintiffs confirming with defendants at time of purchase and thereafter that a retaining wall at the rear of the property represented the rear boundary — Defendants later discovering wall built in wrong location, giving plaintiffs about 1,000 square feet more land than that included in their contract for a 6,000 square-foot lot — Defendants moving the wall much closer to plaintiffs’ house — Court finding plaintiffs not entitled to remedy based on rectification or estoppel — General entire agreement clause not precluding action for negligent misrepresentation by defendants — Plaintiffs entitled to damages totaling $75,255.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/14/2008BCSC1412.htm

A fraud case:

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — • FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS — Fraudulent misrepresentation • TORTS — Deceit — Plaintiffs purchasing 38-acre blueberry farm, in 2 parcels, from defendants in 2008 — At trial plaintiffs proving defendants represented that entirety of the 33-acre parcel was planted with “Duke” variety berries, whereas plaintiffs later discovering about 2 acres of a different inferior variety mixed in with the Duke plants, rendering mechanical picking of the whole impossible and posing other difficulties — Plaintiffs replacing the inferior plants and suing for damages — Court finding defendants fraudulently misrepresented the planting — Defendants liable in both contract and tort for agreed damages of $132,000.


The doctrine of caveat emptor remains of full force and vigour in B.C.:

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — Purchase price of commercial strata unit including a steel mezzanine structure erected inside the unit, creating additional floor space — Plaintiff purchaser learning after closing that the mezzanine had been installed without permits and without compliance with building code — Plaintiff spending $32,286 on corrective measures and suing for damages — Court finding no fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation and finding the matter a patent defect reasonably discoverable by a reasonable purchaser — Doctrine of caveat emptor applying — Action dismissed.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/14/2012BCSC1418cor1.htm


I'll throw this last case in a just a bit of something different:

SALE OF LAND — Misrepresentation — • TORTS — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Defendants dressing up old army barracks to look like a contemporary 3-bedroom rancher and falsely representing compliance with Building Code — Defendants liable to purchasers in damages in contract and tort. • SALE OF LAND — Real estate agents — Duties and liability — Listing real estate agent failing in duty to check client's representation regarding Building Code compliance of renovated old building and becoming party to client's misrepresentation. • SALE OF LAND — Remedies — Plaintiffs paying $80,000 for house represented as complying with Building Code — Representation turning out to be false — Court deducting residual land value of $18,500 from estimated repair costs of $88,214 in assessing damages at $70,262.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/95/17/s95-1788.htm


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Muska must be a lawyer, he definitely likes to look for little things and blow them up.

I never claimed to have kicked his butt, I just said you admitted it was possible. 

I also just used the word lawyer generically to represent a law firm...I agree a lawyer would never go down to registries themselves...their egos would never fit through the doors (it's a joke muska). 

As for your statements about what I said, they could equally be torn apart if we wanted to go back there (which I don't).

In the end, we both (seem to) agree that the corporate wall won't always protect you from a lawsuit. Whether or not they'll win and you'll lose remains in the hands of the courts, but that doesn't stop some lawyers from trying.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> In the end, we both (seem to) agree that the corporate wall won't always protect you from a lawsuit. Whether or not they'll win and you'll lose remains in the hands of the courts, but that doesn't stop some lawyers from trying.



Yes, on that we can agree. There are no absolutes. And yes, some lawyers will try. Nothing wrong with that either, provided one can muster some law to support one's position. No lawyer should assert a near-hopeless cause of action and expose their client to the attendant costs, at least not unless one is dealing with a sophisticated client to whom one can explain the risks. A duly-informed client cannot be heard to complain if made aware early on that their counsel was drawing a rather long bow.


----------

