Offers on a Matrimonial Home by the Co-Owner Spouse

Rastkar v. Soltani, 2024 ONSC 1384 addresses a dispute over the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home. The parties separated on July 30, 2020 but the Respondent wife continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their two children. The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed and sold in a final order. The Applicant husband argued that the Respondent wife was occupying the home rent-free and prevented him from bidding on their home. She refused to accept his offer of $650,000 as well as a third-party offer of $680,000. He argued that her conduct breached the terms of the order and the parties’ agreement for a closed bidding process. The court was to determine whether the Applicant husband was entitled to bid on the matrimonial home and whether the Respondent wife obstructed that right, as well as whether she breached the terms of the order or the parties’ listing agreement.

The Final Order listed conditions for the sale of the home, which included the minimum listing price of $630,000, the date that the home was to be listed, as well as how the sale proceeds would be distributed between the parties. However, the parties later signed an agreement with the listing agent to list the home for $799,000. The parties also agreed that there would be a closed bidding process for the sale of the home that would occur on October 17, 2023. On October 17, 2023, the bidding process took place, and the sole offer made on the home was made by the Applicant husband. His offer was $650,000 which was above the minimum listing price of $630,000, however it was below the valuation offer of $799,000. As such, the Respondent wife declined the offer. On October 21, 2023, another offer was made by a third party of $680,000 which was also refused via counter proposal.

The court agreed that the Applicant husband was entitled to participate in the bidding process. The court confirmed that either party is entitled to make an offer on the property, in which they will compete with the other offers, and that each owner will get the fair market value for the property. However, the question arose as to whether the Respondent wife was obliged to accept his offer. The Applicant husband argued that the Respondent wife breached her duties of honesty and good faith under the contract by rejecting his offer based on flawed market value. The court found that the Respondent wife did not affect the Applicant husband’s ability to genuinely participate in the bidding process. While the agreement set out a process to deal with offers, it failed to specify that those offers have to be accepted by the joint owner, and within what price point of the listing. The Respondent wife was entitled as a joint owner to wait for the highest offer on the property. An offer made by the Applicant husband, although it was above the minimum price, did not oblige the Respondent wife to accept it. While the Applicant husband argued that the valuation price of $799,000 was excessive, he accepted it as his agent believed that was the market value. The Respondent wife was entitled to wait for a higher offer based on the information that was provided to her and was trying to maximize the price received on the home as a joint owner. To resolve matters, the court stated that the property would be listed at a fair market value of $750,000 in accordance with the appraisals and would be continually reduced by $20,000 every thirty days.

Connect with us today at 416 927 0891 or hello@dicksonappell.com with questions and inquires!