1 week ago
5
Justice Westmin James. - A man who sent money from Canada to a woman he said was his romantic partner to purchase a vehicle during the covid19 pandemic remains its rightful owner, the High Court has ruled.
In a written decision, Justice Westmin James rejected claims that the funds sent by Steffon Belfon in 2020 were an outright gift to Marva Khan, as she claimed.
The judge found that Belfon proved the bulk of the money he transferred to Khan was for the specific purpose of buying a vehicle, giving rise to a resulting trust in his favour.
“On a balance of probabilities, the court finds that the CAD$50,000 transferred by the claimant to the defendant was intended for the purchase of a vehicle for the claimant’s benefit, and not as an outright gift.
“The presumption of a resulting trust has not been displaced. The defendant’s use of the surplus funds for her own purposes, without agreement or authorisation, further supports this conclusion,” the judge held as he ruled that Belfon remained the lawful owner of the Honda Vezel hybrid SUV and was entitled to possession. He also ordered Khan to transfer the vehicle to Belfon’s name within 30 days.
The dispute arose after the breakdown of a romantic relationship between the parties. Belfon, a self-employed contractor, said he transferred about CAD$50,000 in October 2020 and a further CAD$10,000 in December 2020 while stranded in Canada, so Khan could buy a vehicle for him ahead of anticipated post-budget price increases. Khan maintained that the money and the Honda Vezel purchased with it were gifts promised to her during their relationship.
The judge accepted that the Honda Vezel, bought for about $185,000 and registered in Khan’s name, was intended for Belfon’s benefit. Justice James noted that Khan admitted under cross-examination that the initial transfer was for the express purpose of purchasing a vehicle and that there was no evidence that the money was intended as an unconditional gift.
However, the court dismissed Belfon’s claims for the return of several household items and for repayment of $120,400, which he alleged was the balance of unused funds. Justice James found that a later CAD$10,000 transfer was more consistent with a gratuitous payment arising from the parties’ personal relationship and that some items were intended for Khan’s business or her daughter.
According to Belfon’s evidence, he was in a romantic relationship with Khan, and while they never lived together, he financially supported her and her daughter. He travelled to Canada in late 2019 and became stranded there during the pandemic. After settling for the Honda Vezel, he claimed Khan registered it in her name against his explicit instructions and refused to hand it over and the remaining funds when he returned to Trinidad in 2021. He also alleged Khan retained several household items and electronics he shipped from Canada, prompting him to seek a declaration of ownership from the court and orders to return his property and money.
Khan admitted the relationship’s history, but contended it ended in mid-2022, not 2017 as Belfon claimed. She said the money was a gift for her personal use, and Belfon had agreed to buy her one as hers had been stolen in 2016 with funds from a lottery he won. She also alleged the household items were voluntary gifts intended to entice her into marrying him.
Khan contended Befon’s legal actions were a retaliatory response to her rebuffing his romantic advances, and the letters sent by his attorneys were ignored as “childish temper tantrums.”
In his analysis of the evidence, Justice James noted that the burden was on Khan to establish that the money was intended as an outright gift.
“This burden is made more onerous by the defendant’s own admission during cross-examination that the initial funds were transferred for the express purpose of purchasing a vehicle.” He also noted that Khan’s evidence was undermined by inconsistencies revealed during cross-examination.
He also held that several factors supported the conclusion that the transferred money was for a specific purpose. Justice James said that while the first transfer of CAD$50,000 bore the “clear hallmarks of a purpose-specific payment intended for the acquisition of the motor vehicle, the second transfer of CAD$10,000 stood on a different footing and was more consistent with a gratuitous payment.
Given that each side succeeded in part, the court made no order as to costs. He also dismissed Belfon’s claim for the TT$120,400 allegedly remaining from the balance of the money after the vehicle purchase.
Belfon was represented by attorneys Sunil Seecharan and Vanita Ramroop, and Khan was represented by attorney Shawn Fulchan.
English (US) ·