Farm buyback deal claim rejected by court

The British Columbia Supreme Court on July 29, 2026 dismissed a family’s attempt to reclaim a farm they once owned, ruling that a verbal agreement with relatives did not create a legally enforceable interest.

Background of the dispute

The case, filed in the Vernon registry under file no. S57144, involved a 50‑acre property near Edgewood, BC. The plaintiffs originally owned the farm but lost it to foreclosure after missing mortgage payments in 2013. Relatives of the plaintiffs, the defendants, intervened and purchased the land at a court‑approved sale for $320,000 in November 2014.

According to the court record, the two families discussed an informal arrangement in which the defendants would retain the farm until the plaintiffs recovered financially, after which the plaintiffs could repurchase it for roughly the amount the defendants had invested. No written contract captured the price, timing, or any other essential terms.

Over the next several years the plaintiffs continued to occupy the property, paying the mortgage, taxes, insurance and other expenses. They drafted four separate purchase contracts between 2019 and 2021. Only the first was signed by both parties; it later expired when the plaintiffs could not secure financing. The defendants never signed the remaining three drafts.

Court’s decision

In June 2021 the plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaration that the defendants held the property in trust and asking the court to enforce the alleged buyback arrangement. The defendants countered that the 2014 purchase gave them clear legal title and that the informal plan lacked the certainty required for enforcement.

Justice G.P. Weatherill sided with the defendants, finding that the parties never settled essential terms such as the amount owed, the repurchase date, or the price. Without those elements, the court concluded no enforceable contract existed. The judge also rejected the plaintiffs’ trust and unjust enrichment claims, describing the dispute as a situation where “family members fail to adequately document legal dealings among them.”

The ruling did not leave the plaintiffs without any recourse. The court ordered independent appraisals within 60 days, after which they have another 60 days to arrange financing and buy the property back at the average of the two valuations. If they cannot do so, the defendants may list the farm for sale, and the family must vacate within 120 days while paying occupational rent of $1,200 per month.

In practice, the decision highlights a recurring risk in informal family transactions. Even when parties act in good faith, the lack of a written agreement can render promises meaningless in a court of law.

Advisors should always use written contracts for family property deals.