Husband of deceased wage fraud, theft suspect loses bid to claim ownership of B.C. family home

The family home on Tennyson Crescent in North Vancouver is seen in this BC Assessment photo from 2009. (BC Assessment)

The husband of a woman whose estate owes more than $1.2 million to UBC and Vancouver Coastal Health has lost his bid to claim an ownership stake in their $2-million family home in North Vancouver.

Miroslaw Moscipan petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court for a declaration that he owns the home on Tennyson Crescent that was held by his wife Wanda Moscipan before her death in 2012.

Wanda Moscipan worked as an administrator for both the university and the health authority from 1997 through 2011, holding a dual role that offered her “substantial administrative autonomy,” according to previous court decisions on the matter.

During that time period, she engaged in numerous fraudulent activities, including paying herself 180 per cent of a full-time salary without authorization, forging signatures of supervisors to give herself unauthorized pay raises and stealing money from a dormant bank account.

• Read more: Dead woman’s estate ordered to pay B.C. university more than $650,000 for wage fraud, theft

Wanda was fired for cause in late 2011 and died of cancer the following year. In 2017, VCH won a judgment against her estate for $574,646.51. UBC won a similar judgment for $651,117.21 last year.

In each case, Miroslaw was also ordered to pay his wife’s former employers. He was ordered to pay $246,073.23 to VCH for “knowing receipt” of Wanda’s ill-gotten gains, though that amount was later reduced to $130,295.74 on appeal.

He was also ordered to pay $15,073.55 in the UBC case, which remains under appeal, according to the latest court decision in the matter.

The latest decision, issued by Justice Ward K. Branch on Tuesday, dealt with Miroslaw’s assertion that he holds at least a 50-per-cent interest in the North Vancouver home that is the “only major asset” in Wanda’s estate.

‘Seller’s remorse’

At one time, Miroslaw was an owner of the home. Branch’s decision indicates the couple purchased it together for $118,000 in 1984, and resided there as “joint tenants.”

Under such an arrangement, when one tenant dies, ownership of a property automatically transfers to the other.

Unfortunately for Miroslaw, he and his wife did not remain joint tenants on the title to the property. Instead, in 2001, Miroslaw transferred his interest in the property to Wanda.

He did this – according to various statements quoted in Branch’s decision – to “assuage (his) guilt” over a failed attempt at developing a property on Citadel Court in North Vancouver in the mid-1990s.

According to the decision, the Moscipans borrowed $600,000 against the Tennyson Crescent and Citadel Court properties to fund the construction project. The Citadel Court property was eventually sold in foreclosure, and that sale did not raise enough funds to cover the Moscipans' debts.

Miroslaw was the driving force behind the failed development effort, and told the court he transferred his interest in the Tennyson Crescent property to Wanda as “an apology” and to “protect” the family’s main asset.

A decade later, as Wanda was facing an audit from a new department head at VCH and UBC in 2011, she transferred a joint interest in the property back to Miroslaw.

In both the VCH and the UBC court cases, this transfer has been deemed a “fraudulent conveyance” – one done in an attempt to shield assets from creditors.

The end result is that when Wanda died, ownership of the home transferred to her estate, rather than to Miroslaw.

In his petition to the court, he made a variety of arguments about why he should be entitled to at least a 50-per-cent interest in the property, if not 100 per cent of it, but Branch rejected each of them.

Miroslaw argued that the 2001 transfer did not end the joint tenancy “in equity,” and that he retained “both a beneficial interest in the property and the right of survivorship,” according to the decision. The judge disagreed.

“I find that there was an intention to part with the beneficial interest in 2001,” the decision reads. “There is now clearly ‘seller’s remorse,’ but it is the intention at the relevant time that matters.”

Branch also disagreed with Miroslaw’s assertion that Wanda’s estate holds 50 per cent of the property in trust for him either as a “resulting trust” that came about because of the 2001 transfer or a “constructive trust” that came about because Wanda was unjustly enriched by work he did on the property after transferring it to her.

For each of these arguments, the judge’s reasoning came back to Miroslaw’s intention with the 2001 transfer. The apology conveyed by transferring his interest to Wanda would not have been meaningful if it resulted in a trust, according to the decision.

“I find that the petitioner’s intention (of providing a meaningful apology and protecting his family from his financial mismanagement) would not be realized if the plan was that he would simply regain his interest in the property through later work in the home,” the decision reads.

“Further, there was no evidence that either the petitioner or Ms. Moscipan had an intention or expectation that the petitioner was earning back his property rights during the renovations.”

Accordingly, Branch dismissed Miroslaw’s petition.