Lawyer can’t prove he loaned friend $150,000

A retired Kelowna lawyer couldn’t convince a judge he’d loaned two people $150,000 in cash and that they should pay him back.

BC Supreme Court Justice Thomas Crabtree determined there was an agreement that Martin Johnson would loan the money to Carol-Ann Wentworth and Jeffrey Bishop, but in a decision released last week, the judge concluded there was no proof, contrary to Johnson’s claim, the money actually changed hands.

“Mr. Johnson has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the loan proceeds, as contemplated by the December 5, 2012 agreement, were advanced to Ms. Wentworth and Mr. Bishop,” wrote Crabtree in the conclusion of a lengthy court decision.

“Mr. Johnson bears the onus to establish that monies were advanced pursuant to the loan agreement.”

Johnson did not obtain a receipt, claiming he and Bishop had a trustworthy relationship, the court heard.

In a long, twisting story, Johnson said agreed to loan money to Bishop, a long-time acquaintance, to pay off highinterest loans taken out to construct a building on his girlfriend Wentworth’s Spiers Road property — some witnesses said for a medical marijuana grow operation.

Bishop and Wentworth said the loan was for Wentworth, who wanted to replant her orchard and couldn’t get a loan from the banks.

The exchange was to be in cash, which court heard Johnson kept in a safe because he didn’t trust banks and believed a person should always have cash on hand for emergencies.

“Mr. Johnson testified he removed the sum of $100,000 in cash from the safe and arranged to meet Mr. Bishop at the office, to hand it over to him.” The $100,000 was to be the first payment.

In court, the parties agreed promissory notes were signed, but disagreed on whether the money actually changed hands.

“Mr. Bishop denied Mr. Johnson advanced any monies pursuant to the loan agreement to either him, or Ms. Wentworth,” the judge wrote, although he found Bishop wasn’t a totally reliable witness.

The judge said Johnson failed to recall some details, but he found Wentworth’s testimony to be reliable.

“The onus is on the plaintiff (Johnson) to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. The key issue is credibility. Mr. Johnson’s and Ms. Wentworth’s respective accounts of what transpired diverge dramatically,” the judge wrote.

“Mr. Johnson argues that the promissory note signed by the defendants supports his account of the loan agreement, and is an acknowledgement or receipt of the $100,000 previously advanced. In contrast, Ms. Wentworth and Mr. Bishop submit the promissory note was signed in anticipation of $100,000 being advanced, prior to Mr. Johnson departing on holidays.”

“In the final analysis, the frailties with respect to his testimony lead me to conclude that Mr. Johnson has failed to establish that the funds were advanced in accordance with the loan agreement.”