A will leaves property equally to two siblings, but one wants to keep it and buy the other out. It may sound like a straightforward valuation problem. In law, there can be a prior question: who presently holds the property, and does the person applying have the right to seek the order?

Sangster-Rydzik v Sangster, 2026 BCSC 1985, illustrates why those details matter. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a petition concerning inherited property without ordering either a sale or the requested buyout.

The arrangement under the will

The will contemplated transferring the property to the deceased’s two surviving children equally as tenants in common. His daughter was the executor and trustee. At the time of the application, she held title as personal representative and trustee, rather than the siblings holding title in their personal capacities.

She brought the petition personally. Her preferred result was to purchase her brother’s interest and keep the property in the family. Alternatively, she sought a sale under the Partition of Property Act.

Why the application could not proceed

Standing means the legal entitlement to bring a particular application. For the remedy sought, the court examined whether the petitioner had an immediate possessory interest in the property.

Being a beneficiary was not enough on these facts. The will gave the trustee discretion to retain estate property in its existing form. The petitioner could not identify a term giving her the necessary immediate right to demand conveyance. The court dismissed the petition for lack of standing.

The judge recognized that the position might differ after title was transferred as contemplated by the will. That was not an order requiring the transfer or granting a future sale application.

A forced buyout is not the same as a public sale

The court also addressed the proposed remedy. If the petitioner became a 50% owner, section 6 of the Partition of Property Act—not the section 8 route she primarily relied on—would apply on the facts discussed.

The judge explained that, unless section 8 is engaged, the statute contemplates a public sale subject to market forces rather than forcing an objecting owner to sell privately to the other. The comments were made after the standing issue disposed of the petition; they should not be presented as a completed sale order.

Valuation evidence needs its own attention

The petitioner supplied an appraisal attached to a paralegal’s affidavit. The court found that expert opinion inadmissible in the form tendered. The appraisal was also dated, and updated evidence would likely have been needed.

The practical lesson is broader than obtaining a number from an appraiser. Evidence must be current enough for the issue and properly presented under the applicable court rules.

Before taking sides over the property

  • Review the will, probate documents and current title together.
  • Distinguish the executor’s role from a beneficiary’s personal wishes.
  • Obtain advice about standing and the precise sale or buyout remedy available.
  • Consider a negotiated arrangement supported by an appropriate valuation.

The takeaway

An equal inheritance does not automatically produce an immediate right to force the transaction one beneficiary prefers. Sinclair Centre Law LLP can assist with estate and property disputes in British Columbia. Contact us to review the documents and identify a workable route to resolving an inherited-property disagreement.

Sources and next steps