Levasseur v. Levasseur Date:, 2015 BCPC 247

Citation: Levasseur v. Levasseur Date: 20150903 2015 BCPC 0247 File No: 40419 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims Court) BETWEEN: DON JOSEPH LEVASSEUR CLAIMANT AND: JUDITH ANN LEVASSEUR DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. Don Levasseur Appearing on their own behalf: Ms. Judith Levasseur Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 28, 2015 Date of Judgment: September 3, 2015

Corrigenda were released by the Court on September 10, 2015 and September 16, 2015. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigenda are appended to this document. [ 1 ] This is a claim by Don Levasseur against his former wife, Judith Levasseur, for repayment of a promissory note in the sum of $11,498.95, plus interest. The promissory note itself is not in dispute. The terms of repayment were that, upon her selling her house, she would repay the promissory note to Mr. Levasseur in full within seven days. The house sold on September 25, 2014. This triggered the seven day period for full repayment.

Not only did Ms. Levasseur not advise Mr. Levasseur of the sale, she did not repay the promissory note. [ 2 ] Ms. Levasseur counter claims for damages to her property incurred while she was away starting her new job in Alberta and Mr. Levasseur was looking after her home. On one occasion, he was at the property filling the pool. Mr. Levasseur, who professes to be forgetful, began filling the pool. He went home, having forgotten that the water was still running on the pool. The following day, his son called to say that there was water in his bedroom. Mr. Levasseur realized he had left the water on the pool.

He immediately returned to Ms. Levasseur’s home. He turned off the water, called a restoration place, and called Ms. Levasseur. He paid the deductible for the restoration people to remove the water and dry out the room. He also arranged for the insurance company to process the claim. [ 3 ] Ms. Levasseur said that this meant her realtor was unable to show the house and opportunities were lost to sell the property for proper market value. [ 4 ] Leaving aside some inconsequential distractions about a washing machine flooding (while Ms.

Levasseur was in the home) and the occasions when sprinklers were left on causing similar damage (also caused previously by Mr. Levasseur), Mr. Levasseur does not really dispute that the water that came into the basement of the home was caused by him leaving the water on the pool. He acknowledges the house was listed for sale during this time. He claims the home was shown during the repair period. He acknowledges there were no showings during the time he was in the house. [ 5 ] Ms.

Levasseur said that she listed the property in April, 2014 with the expectation based on the realtor’s feedback that the home would sell in 30 to 90 days. Because of the flooding in the basement, the house was damaged and could not be shown between June 20 and August 5. She maintained, although she produced no expert evidence, that the prime time for selling a home is in the summer. She knew that the only other house in the area with a pool had sold in this time. [ 6 ] Ultimately, Ms. Levasseur received an offer at the end of September for $20,000 less than the appraised value.

In the meantime, she had to carry cost of a five bedroom home at approximately $3,000 per month. The mortgage was $1,800, taxes were $175 and utilities brought the figure to $3,000 per month. [ 7 ] Her employer’s relocation package covered the loss between the appraised value and the actual sale price of the home. However, Ms. Levasseur felt the delay of the sale of the home caused her to have to carry the home longer than anticipated. [ 8 ] I was provided with an appraisal and comparable market analysis which showed her home was listed in the appropriate price range.

There was a realtor’s price marketing strategy report produced to the relocation company showing the market activity. The feedback indicated the property needed to be priced more competitively in order to sell. Those feedback reports confirmed that the property could not be shown for a period of time due to water damage and the insurance claim. There should have been no reason the property could not be shown at least from August 5 onward. There is no evidence before me that the property sold for less because of the water damage.

There is also no evidence that there were any offers made in August, which serves to show that the market was not as robust as may have been expected. No offers were made in the listing period up to the flood at the end of June. Again, regardless of the market activity and showing her property, offers were not made, confirming the market was not as robust as she had hoped. [ 9 ] Ms. Levasseur concedes that no one rejected the home because of the flood. She said this was because not all of the realtors were knowledgeable about the flood and she only had to disclose it after an offer was advanced. [ 10 ] Mr.

Levasseur cross examined Ms. Levasseur with respect to a conversation they had at the time of the flood. She had acknowledged that it was an accident and said that it would be okay. She said this was because he said he would take care of the deductible and the flood. Mr. Levasseur was confused about the meaning of negligence, believing that it required intent. [ 11 ] Ms. Levasseur claimed that she should be awarded a judgment reflecting the amount of time she had to carry the property up until it sold from the date of the flood.

This is premised on the fact that his negligence led to her having to carry the costs of owning the property for that entire period of time. However, it is for her to bring evidence to show that the property would have sold but for the damages. Some evidence of market activity in that time suggests that it would have been beneficial to have the property available for viewing at least during the month of July.

However, there is no evidence of the actual length of time from the date of the flood at the end of June to the completion of the repairs at the beginning of August that shows the house was not available for showing for the entire six weeks. [ 12 ] A person whose negligence causes damage to another person’s property is liable for those damages. Mr. Levasseur has already compensated Ms. Levasseur for the deductible she was to pay on her insurance. There is no evidence before me of how this will impact her future insurance premiums, if at all.

However, there was a period of time when the carpet was dried out, the drywall had to be replaced and the restoration had to be completed. That period of time was not six weeks but was certainly for the month of July. That period of time is a direct result of Mr. Levasseur’s actions, albeit not intentional. I am awarding by way of counterclaim Ms. Levasseur’s claim for the $1,800 mortgage that she had to pay for the month of July, as well as taxes in the sum of $175, for a total of $1,975. This is set off against Mr. Levasseur’s claim on the promissory note, leaving a balance owing to Mr.

Levasseur in the sum of $9,523.95.

[ 13 ] Both parties have been successful to some degree in their respective claims. If there were no formal offers exchanged between the parties, I award costs to neither party. If formal written offers were exchanged under the Small Claims Rules , I give liberty to the parties to bring the issue of costs before me on notice to the other party. ________________________ S.D.

Frame Provincial Court Judge CORRIGENDUM - Released September 10, 2015 [1] Please note the corrected paragraph [1] of the original Reasons for Judgment issued September 3, 2015 as per the following: [1] This is a claim by Don Levasseur against his former wife, Judith Levasseur, for repayment of a promissory note in the sum of $11,498.95, plus interest. The promissory note itself is not in dispute. The terms of repayment were that, upon her selling her house, she would repay the promissory note to Mr. Levasseur in full within seven days. The house sold on September 25, 2014.

This triggered the seven day period for full repayment. Not only did Ms. Levasseur not advise Mr. Levasseur of the sale, she did not repay the promissory note. CORRIGENDUM - Released September 16, 2015 [1] Please note the corrected paragraph [12] of the original Reasons for Judgment issued September 3, 2015 as per the following: [12] A person whose negligence causes damage to another person’s property is liable for those damages. Mr. Levasseur has already compensated Ms. Levasseur for the deductible she was to pay on her insurance.

There is no evidence before me of how this will impact her future insurance premiums, if at all. However, there was a period of time when the carpet was dried out, the drywall had to be replaced and the restoration had to be completed. That period of time was not six weeks but was certainly for the month of July. That period of time is a direct result of Mr. Levasseur’s actions, albeit not intentional. I am awarding by way of counterclaim Ms. Levasseur’s claim for the $1,800 mortgage that she had to pay for the month of July, as well as taxes in the sum of $175, for a total of $1,975. This is set off against Mr.

Levasseur’s claim on the promissory note, leaving a balance owing to Mr. Levasseur in the sum of $9,523.95.