I wonder if the uncle understood the implications of the property being owned as 'joint tenants' as the article above seems to suggest?
"The younger Wortman, a Dartmouth denturist, was listed as a joint tenant."
I have a feeling we are not learning *all* of the details about GW's interest in the property at Orchard Beach Dr? I'm wondering if there was supposed to have been interest paid on the monies loaned? If the ownership was listed as 'joint tenants', then who knows, perhaps the uncle was supposed to pay back to GW the value of the property at the time he paid the monies back (ie if the property had substantially increased in value by the time the monies were paid back, GW may have wanted a cut of that in return for having provided bridge financing to the uncle?).. who knows what the deal was.. not that in any case it would provide justification for murder or for a murderous rampage, but perhaps somewhat of a further understanding of the unresolved anger issues that he seemed to have bubbling inside for years, building up to this explosion?
In the article quoted, who is 'Neil Wortman'.. I can't find another mention of that name in the article, but my eyes/brain could be missing it?
Nova Scotia gunman was involved in several disputes before shooting, RCMP says
----
Joint ownership of real estate can be tricky. Problems can often ensue between or among co-owners. One wants to fix the leaky roof; the other two co-owners cannot afford the repair. One wants to rent it out; another wants to live in it. Two want to sell; the third refuses. When joint ownership is simply no longer workable, a person with an interest in land can apply pursuant to Ontario’s Partition Act for an order that the land be partitioned or sold and for other related relief. de VRIES LITIGATION can help with partition and sale applications on behalf of joint owners.
A court application may also be necessary to determine how ownership to a property is held. You may know that jointly owned property can be held one of two ways: either as a joint tenant or as a tenant in common. But did you know that parties may, by agreement, unilateral conveyance, or through their course of conduct, sever a joint tenancy and convert it to a tenancy in common? This can occur without any change to the title documents. Whether the property is owned as joint tenants or as tenants in common can have huge implications for the administration of an estate. A court application may be necessary to determine whether a joint tenancy has been severed.
Severance of Joint Tenancy & Ownership of Property | de VRIES LITIGATION
Yes indeed, there’s always two sides to every story but as the NS Supreme Court heard both parties and granted an order releasing the sale proceeds to the uncle in 2015, so I’d find it hard to believe GW was unknowingly swindled. It would appear the uncle entered into the agreement believing his nephew was assisting him through kindness as is common amongst relatives but GW only had a self-serving motive, that of financial gain. It was fortunate the uncle did not pass away while the title was still joint, knowing what we now know GW was capable of, considering rights of survivorship and all that.
“In June 2015, Glynn Wortman filed an application in Supreme Court to have his nephew removed from the title of a property at 135 Orchard Beach Dr. in Portapique.
Gabriel Wortman had provided bridge financing to help Glynn Wortman buy the property in 2010. Glynn Wortman said he repaid his nephew the money, $165,000, in 2011.
Glynn Wortman said he also paid all expenses for Gabriel to travel to Edmonton to help him sell his condo and that he had footed the entire bill for heating, electricity, insurance, maintenance and taxes since buying the home.
He also said he had transferred $9,946 to Gabriel Wortman in 2012 to reimburse him for goods and services he had purchased for the property on his behalf.
In an affidavit, Glynn Wortman said Gabriel Wortman at one point in time, as a reason for refusing to release his name on the title to the property, claimed it was his uncle’s intention to give him the home as a gift, “but I have never had that intention.”
Glynn Wortman said that when his brother, acting as his power of attorney, asked Gabriel Wortman to remove his name, he gave various reasons at different times for not doing so: that he was kind of busy and would get around to it some time, that he intended to do so but first had to consult with his lawyer, that his uncle had never repaid the loan, that his uncle still owed him money for goods and services, and that his uncle owed him money for his negotiating a good price for the home...”
Nova Scotia gunman's past included questionable financial dealings | The Chronicle Herald
