Parents retain beneficial ownership of home despite adult daughter’s title registration

A New Brunswick court has ordered the sale of a home after finding that the parents who funded its purchase remained its sole beneficial owners, even though their adult daughter was also registered on title.

Justice Stephen J. Doucet ruled that Jillian Lee Gowanlock held her registered interest only as a bare trustee for John and Bonnie Gowanlock, while her spouse, Christian David Kuefler, had no legal or beneficial interest. The ruling distinguishes whose name appears on a property’s title from who is entitled to its economic value.

The August 14, 2026 decision of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick is John Gowanlock and Bonnie Gowanlock v. Jillian Lee Gowanlock and Christian David Kuefler, 2026 NBKB 166.

The parents’ sale application succeeded, but their request for occupational rent did not. The judge ordered each side to bear its own costs.

Family accommodation did not prove an indefinite contractual right

The parents bought the property in 2023, paying the approximately $125,000 purchase price and closing costs. Their daughter and her spouse occupied it while working toward moving to another property. The parties disagreed about whether the arrangement gave the occupants a legally enforceable right to remain until that other home was ready.

The occupants argued that an oral family agreement protected their continued residence in exchange for maintaining, repairing and improving the home. The parents maintained that the accommodation was temporary and that they had not surrendered their right to sell.

Doucet emphasized that the absence of a written agreement was not decisive: an oral contract can be enforceable. The difficulty was the lack of reliable evidence of objective agreement on essential terms, including duration, consideration and the parties’ respective rights and obligations.

Living in the home, paying utilities and performing some work established that a family arrangement existed. They did not establish the particular indefinite occupancy contract alleged. The judge also declined to admit recordings that added little to determining whether the original agreement had been formed.

Registered title was held in trust

On ownership, the court applied resulting-trust principles. Where one person supplies the purchase money and another receives title without providing consideration, the evidence of the purchaser’s intention matters to whether the recipient also receives a beneficial interest.

The parents had funded the acquisition, and the evidence did not establish that they intended an immediate gift of beneficial ownership to their daughter. Her registration therefore did not entitle her to a share of the sale proceeds. As a bare trustee, she held legal title for the parents’ benefit rather than for her own.

The court separately rejected Kuefler’s asserted interest. He was not on title and had not established a contractual or equitable basis for ownership.

Improvements did not establish unjust enrichment

The occupants also sought compensation for expenses and improvements. Doucet assessed that claim separately from whether an oral contract existed or an ownership interest had been transferred.

The evidence did not establish the required corresponding deprivation and unjust retention of a benefit. The known furnace replacement was government-funded without an out-of-pocket cost to the occupants, and there was no reliable before-and-after valuation showing a quantifiable increase attributable to their work.

The judge also considered the wider arrangement: the occupants lived rent-free while the parents continued paying ownership expenses. The law did not automatically turn work on the home into an ownership share or reimbursement entitlement.

Sale ordered, with time to relocate

The court found that the residential property could not reasonably be divided and that continued cooperation had become unworkable. It directed the parents and their realtor to manage a sale, with access for inspections, appraisal, photography and showings on 24 hours’ written notice.

The occupants were given 60 days from the stamped date of the decision to deliver vacant possession and seven days from that date to provide keys. The court also authorized the clerk to sign necessary transfer documents if the daughter refused. These were directions for the sale process, not findings that a sale or departure had already occurred.

The parents’ occupational-rent claim was dismissed because it had not been pleaded or adequately supported. In declining costs, Doucet emphasized that the ownership and occupancy issues genuinely required determination; losing those arguments did not make them frivolous. The family context and disruption of relocation also informed the decision to leave each side responsible for its own litigation costs.