Son asks court to sell B.C. home he co-owns with his mother, despite her objections

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered the sale of this home on 72 Avenue in Surrey. (BC Assessment)

A B.C. judge has ordered the sale of a Surrey home despite the objections of the woman who lives there, who owns it jointly with her son.

Rahim Ramzan Punjani petitioned the court to sell the 72 Avenue property, which he and his mother Malek Aminmohamed Dhanani have owned as joint tenants since December 2015.

Punjani told the court he made the $132,000 down-payment on the property, and that his mother was only listed as a joint tenant "for estate planning purposes and to reduce the tax burden."

For her part, Dhanani argued that she had allowed her son to use $400,000 in proceeds from the sale of her previous home to purchase two other properties, and told the court he had never repaid any of this money.

She claimed that the Surrey home was solely hers, despite her son's presence on the title.

In a decision issued last week and published online Tuesday, Justice Ward K. Branch granted Punjani's petition for a court-ordered sale of the house, while noting that the underlying question of how much each party is entitled to receive from the proceeds of such a sale remains open.

Home's value has soared

According to Branch's decision, Punjani and Dhanani purchased the home for Dhanani to live in with her second husband, Punjani's stepfather, who died last year.

Punjani works in the financial services industry, while Dhanani "is a 73-year-old widow with a limited educational history" and "an array of health problems," the decision reads.

"She deposes that her late husband handled all their financial affairs," it continues. "She has always been a homemaker."

In addition to claiming that he made the down payment and paid closing costs on the property, Punjani also told the court he has paid for "all of the mortgage payments, insurance, property taxes and utilities," as well as repairs to the property since it was acquired.

"The respondent seeks to explain away the petitioner’s substantial expenditures on the property by alleging that the respondent agreed to pay these expenses because she and her husband were senior citizens and Mr. Dhanani was in poor health," the decision reads, adding that Dhanani claimed that she and her late husband had also put money into improving the property.

Currently, Dhanani resides in the home with her friends and their son. There are also tenants living in a basement suite, according to the decision.

"The respondent has not paid any rent to the petitioner, nor has she forwarded to the petitioner any portion of the rent paid by the tenants," the decision reads.

Punjani told the court he can no longer afford to cover the expenses on the property – specifically mentioning the need for a $40,000 roof replacement. For her part, Dhanani said she would be unable to pay for the cost of maintaining the property on her own.

The four-bedroom, four-bathroom home has more than doubled in value in the less than nine years since mother and son purchased it for $675,000.

Its assessed value for 2024, according to BC Assessment, was $1,593,000.

• The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

No 'good reason' to decline sale

Under B.C.'s Partition of Property Act, a party or parties with at least a 50-per-cent ownership interest in a property can request that the court sell it and distribute the proceeds. The court must make such an order when it receives such a request, unless it sees "good reason" not to do so.

"A joint owner of at least 50 per cent has a prima facie right to an order for sale unless justice requires that no order should be made," reads Branch's decision, summarizing the law.

In this case, the judge could see "no practical alternative" to ordering the sale.

Branch's decision notes that there was no evidence presented to show that there was a "binding and enforceable agreement" requiring the parties to hold onto the property for a set amount of time, nor did Dhanani claim she had a right of first refusal on a potential sale of the property.

Dhanani argued she would suffer hardship if the court ordered a sale, claiming that her age and health – and to a lesser extent her financial situation – should constitute a "good reason" for the court to exercise its discretion and decline to sell the home.

Branch was unpersuaded by this argument, concluding that "refusing the application for sale will not save the respondent from hardship."

"The reality is that neither party has both the desire and the resources necessary to maintain the property," the decision reads.

"It would not be appropriate to require the petitioner to continue to pay the expenses on a home in which he does not live. If neither party is willing and able to maintain the property, then the respondent is almost inevitably going to have to move. She will face certain financial and emotional challenges irrespective of the outcome of this application."

Branch further noted that Dhanani's hardship argument was "more than offset or undercut" by the fact that she can still participate in the sale process and acquire her son's interest in the property if she can afford it, as well as the fact that proceeds from the sale will be held by the court, potentially allowing her to claim 100 per cent of the sale price if she is successful in her claim that the home was solely hers.

"Looking at it from the other direction, the petitioner may sustain potential financial hardship if the order is not issued, because he may have to maintain a property in which the respondent argues he has no interest," the decision reads.

"The respondent could not 'reasonably think' that the petitioner would continue to pay all expenses associated with the property when he is not living at the property and his legal title is under attack."

The judge granted an order for the home to be sold according to the terms Punjani set out in his petition.