Maria and Panagiotis Pappas, who own a home at 3257 West 2nd Avenue, filed a lawsuit against their neighbours, Jordan Mark Bower and Maureen Culver Elworthy.
The owners of one half of a Vancouver duplex who are being sued by the owners of the other half of the property deny a claim that they scuttled a $1.8-million real estate sale following a “toxic” dispute over common property.
A dispute arose when Bower and Elworthy proposed what the plaintiffs are calling a “complete” redrawing of all common property space on the ground-floor outdoor areas of the home.
The plaintiffs say they consider the proposals to be completely one-sided and beneficial to the defendants.
As a result, say the plaintiffs, they offered to simply sell their property and move to allow Bower and Elworthy to negotiate with new owners as to any changes of common property.
The offer was partly contingent on the buyers receiving confirmation from the defendants that a civil resolution tribunal case that had been filed against the plaintiffs would be, or already was, discontinued, says the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The plaintiffs alleged that Bower and Elworthy displayed a “confrontational” attitude with the buyers, and as a result, the sale collapsed.
But in a response to the lawsuit, the defendants say that the proceedings concern what they consider to be the plaintiffs’ unauthorized use of common property in violation of the bylaws of the strata corporation.
The two properties are collectively a strata corporation, although the corporation has never complied with strata laws and there have never been annual general meetings. There is no budget or council meetings, according to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
They say they attempted to negotiate with the plaintiffs to find an amicable solution to the issues, but were ultimately unsuccessful and as a result commenced proceedings in the civil resolution tribunal.
Bower and Elworthy deny that the plaintiffs were selling their home in a bid to get away from them and were instead selling it for financial reasons.
They deny that they were unreasonable or confrontational with the prospective buyer, or that they caused the offer to be withdrawn or the contract to collapse.
“At no time did the defendants seek to scuttle the contract. At all material times, the defendants negotiated in good faith with the prospective buyer and had only communicated with the prospective buyer because the plaintiffs (through their realtor) requested them to.”
“In furtherance of that desire, the defendants spent many hours communicating with the prospective buyer and obtained legal advice to assist with reaching a solution so that the bylaw violation could be addressed and the (civil tribunal) claim withdrawn.”
