A verbal handshake wasn't enough to save this family's claim to the farm.
A family farm dispute is a plain lesson: verbal promises between relatives create no enforceable legal claim.
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled on July 29, 2026, that a family who believed they had an informal deal to reclaim a farm they once owned has no legal or equitable interest in it, because the arrangement was never put in writing.
The case, decided in the court's Vernon registry under file no. S57144, centered on a 50-acre property near Edgewood, BC. The plaintiffs had originally owned the farm but lost it to a bank foreclosure after falling behind on mortgage payments in 2013. Rather than see the property go to a stranger, the plaintiffs' relatives, the defendants, stepped in, secured financing, and bought it at a court-approved sale for $320,000 in November 2014.
The two families had agreed, the court found, that the defendants would hold the farm until the plaintiffs got back on their feet financially, at which point the plaintiffs could buy it back for roughly what the defendants had put into it. Nothing about price, timing, or the meaning of that phrase was ever written down or formally agreed. Over the following years, the plaintiffs paid the mortgage, taxes, insurance and other expenses while continuing to live on the property, and drafted four separate purchase contracts between 2019 and 2021. The first was signed by both sides but expired when the plaintiffs could not secure financing; the defendants never signed the other three.
The plaintiffs sued in June 2021, seeking a declaration that the defendants held the property in trust for them and asking the court to order specific performance of the buyback arrangement. The defendants argued they were the property's outright legal and equitable owners, since the court-approved purchase gave them clean title, and that the informal buyback plan was never firm enough to be enforceable.
Justice G.P. Weatherill sided with the defendants. He found the parties never settled on essential terms, including what the plaintiffs would actually owe, when a repurchase would happen, or at what price, so no enforceable contract existed. He also rejected the trust and unjust enrichment claims, finding no equitable basis for either, calling the dispute a case of family members who "fail to adequately document legal dealings among them."
The ruling did not leave the plaintiffs empty-handed. The court ordered new independent appraisals within 60 days, then gave the plaintiffs a further 60 days to arrange financing and buy the property back at the average of the two valuations. If they cannot, the defendants may list the property for sale, and the plaintiffs must vacate within 120 days while paying occupational rent of $1,200 a month in the meantime.
For advisors working with clients on intergenerational or intra-family property arrangements, whether a farm, a cottage, or a buyout between siblings, the case is a reminder that a handshake deal, however well-intentioned, creates no enforceable rights. A written agreement setting out price, timeline and payment terms is often the only way to protect a client's interest if family relationships later break down.
