The Financial Tangle

Andrew Alexander Cook and Danisha Drury bought the vessel for $52,000, financing over $45,000 from the Royal Bank of Canada after putting down a $15,000 deposit. They had initially agreed to split all expenses evenly, with Cook making the loan payments and Drury reimbursing him through e-transfers. However, once they parted ways, Drury ceased payments, prompting Cook to seek resolution through the CRT and recover $2,654.80 for unpaid moorage and loan payments.

A “Gift” That Didn’t Stick

In a twist of irony, Drury claimed that they had “gifted” the boat to Cook and thus claimed to be free of financial obligations. However, tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak dismissed this assertion, outlining the requirements for a valid gift: intent, acceptance, and a formal transfer of ownership. While acknowledging Drury's intention, Drozdiak noted they had failed to meet the other conditions, making the alleged gift unenforceable under the law.

Market Value and Lack of Ownership Transfer

Adding complexity to the matter, Cook informed the tribunal that since their purchase, the market value of the boat had decreased significantly. He highlighted that selling the boat might leave them unable to repay their loans, which would likely deter anyone from accepting it as a gift. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Drury had ever formally transferred their ownership share to Cook, solidifying the tribunal's decision.

Failed Sale Efforts and Blame Game

Drury argued that Cook had impeded their attempts to sell the boat, pointing to a broker agreement they signed to market the vessel. Allegations arose that Cook refused to relocate the boat to a different marina preferred by the broker, potentially blocking sale efforts. However, the tribunal ruled that without substantial evidence from the broker to substantiate Drury's claims, it was impossible to prove Cook had violated their agreement regarding joint ownership.

Final Verdict: Pay Up or Else!

Finding no grounds for a legally enforceable gift and insufficient proof of a breach of agreement, Drozdiak sided with Cook. The tribunal ordered Drury to pay Cook the claimed amount along with additional fees, totaling $2,654.80 plus interest and costs, within a month. This ruling brings to light the complexities of joint ownership and the importance of clear agreements in relationships. Not only does it underscore the legal nuances surrounding gifts, but it also serves as a warning for couples considering shared purchases. Would you risk financial turmoil as a testament to a relationship gone awry? Let us know your thoughts!