Disclaimer: This question is based on a real case but one which I am not involved in. I am not seeking legal advice.
Facts:
[ul]
[li]Person A commits assault on multiple younger persons[/li][li]Person A is convicted [/li][li]Person A serves time and is released[/li][li]Person B sues Person A for the assaults[/li][li]Person B wins civil case[/li][li]Jury awards Person B large damages, judge adds significant punitive damages[/li][li]Damages awarded exceed Person A’s available funds[/li][li]Person A agrees to satisfy judgment by turning over large piece of property to Person B[/li][li]Judge orders Person A to vacate premises by Date D[/li][li]On Date D+1 Person B arrives at premises and finds significant vandalism and damages to property[/li][/ul]
Hypothetical assumption: Person A is responsible for the damage (in real life, this is unproven)
Question: When did Person A lose legal ownership of the property?
It appear to me that possession was transferred on Date D, but legally did Person B own the property on that day or on the day when the judge ordered the property to be turned over? Even if Person A still legally owned the property when the damage occurred, is that not vandalism? They knew they were turning the property over to Person B, after all.
It wouldn’t be considered vandalism legally but it would be considered a failure to satisfy the judgment of the civil trial and probably earn a contempt of court charge. By agreeing to turn over valuable property as part of the settlement and then reducing the value of the property through malicious damage just prior to the transfer, person A would have nullified the agreement and sent the whole thing scuttling back to court.
In Alberta during the bust of the early 1980’s this was a common problem - people about to be foreclosed did as much damage as they could to “get even”. Not exactly the same since the bank owned a mortgage (interest in property).
Part of the problem is of course proving that the person in fact did the vandalism. Odds are they were pretty stupid, but any fingerprints would be explained as “I lived there for 5 years, of course you’ll find my fingerprints” - unless it’s on the tools used to destroy the place, and even then it’s iffy.
I suppose B could re-sue and get judgement for the additional costs associated with the damage; the setlement was for an intact piece of property and tthi is not… in which case you WANT to have the transfer of title date to be after the damages.
Ultimately, the question would likely be what date is on the title transfer document? You don’t “own” anything until the date the title is transferred.
Otherwise it happened after transfer, so it’s vandalism to B’s own property and if B was not lookingout or insured then that’s their problem. The question is - would A be considered a tenant in the building then and therefore responsible for any damage. Did A have insurance, and if the insurance company cannot prove that A did it, they would have to pay for the damages? Can A be charged under city bylaws for alterations or demolition without a permit, especially if electrical or gas were damaged?
Ultimately, if A was so broke to start with, then they have no money to go after anyway; B can take satisfaction in having taken the building, usable or not. And… get a future judgement against A so that they can nail him again if/when he builds up equity anywhere else. (Talk to a lawyer - if you get a judgement but don’t seek to collect, can you avoid having A declare bankruptcy and nullify that debt so it’s hanging there until he has assets again? I don’t know…)
Or were they released on parole after 1/3 of their sentence? I hope so. If they are still on parole, vandalism should be sufficient to get them sent back. Not cooperating with the investigation into vandalism might also get them sent back to jail.
Just for clarity – I am not going to talk to a lawyer (other than the one that post here) because I am not involved in this case in any way, shape, or form. I am neither Person A nor Person B in the OP.