A former couple who bought a boat together took their post-breakup fight over its expenses to B.C.’s small claims tribunal.
Andrew Alexander Cook and Danisha Drury lived together in a marriage-like relationship from March 2021 to October 2022, and purchased the boat in June 2021, according to a Civil Resolution Tribunal decision published online Friday.
‘Gift’ was not accepted
Both parties signed the agreement to buy the vessel, a 1999 Four Winns 278 Vista power boat, for $52,000 plus applicable taxes and fees, notes tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak, in the decision.
They paid a $15,000 deposit and received $45,592.76 in financing from Royal Bank of Canada to complete the purchase.
According to the decision, Cook and Drury split the expenses for the vessel evenly, with Cook making the monthly payments toward the loan and Drury reimbursing him via e-transfers.
In March 2023, however, after the couple broke up, Drury stopped sending payments for the boat expenses.
Cook brought the matter to the CRT, seeking $2,654.80 for moorage and loan payments that Drury never made.
Because Drury didn’t provide the CRT with a title or pronouns, Drozdiak’s decision refers to them as “the respondent” and “they,” throughout.
Drury told the tribunal they had “gifted” the boat to Cook and were therefore no longer responsible for the payments, but Drozdiak rejected this argument.
For a gift to be legally valid and enforceable, the tribunal member noted, three conditions must be met.
First, one party must have an intention to give the property “without receiving any compensation in return.” Second, the receiving party must accept the gift, and third, there must be “a sufficient act of delivery” – a transfer of the property – to complete the transaction.
“I accept that the respondent intended to give the boat to Mr. Cook without receiving any compensation in return,” Drozdiak’s decision reads.
“However, I find the respondent has not satisfied the other two requirements for giving a gift.”
The decision notes that Cook told the tribunal the market for selling the boat has dropped since the couple purchased it.
“He claims that if they sold the boat, they likely would not make enough money to pay off their loans,” the decision reads. “In these circumstances, I find it unlikely that someone would accept a gift, and the associated loan payments, for an item with allegedly no value.”
Similarly, Drozdiak found there was no evidence that Drury had ever formally transferred their ownership stake in the boat to Cook.
“Without legally transferring the boat, I find the gift was not valid and not legally enforceable,” the decision reads.
Efforts to sell
Drury also argued that Cook had refused to co-operate in the couple’s effort to sell the vessel.
The pair signed a broker agreement in April 2023 to market the boat for sale for 90 days.
Drury told the tribunal that the broker sells vessels out of Sidney Marina, rather than Brentwood Bay Marina, where the boat was moored. According to Drury, Cook refused to move the vessel, thwarting the sale efforts.
Drozdiak interpreted this claim as an allegation that Cook had breached the parties’ agreement regarding joint ownership of the boat and joint responsibility for expenses associated with it, thus entitling them to terminate the agreement and stop making payments.
The tribunal member rejected this argument, too, noting that Drury had presented no evidence from the brokers about why the boat didn’t sell.
“I find that evidence from the brokers is crucial in proving Mr. Cook’s actions prevented the parties from selling the boat,” the decision reads. “Without this evidence, I find the respondent has not proven Mr. Cook breached the broker agreement.”
Having concluded that there was no evidence of a legally enforceable gift or a breach of the parties’ agreement, Drozdiak granted Cook the compensation he was seeking.
The tribunal member ordered Drury to pay Cook $2,654.80, plus $212.92 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in CRT fees within 30 days of the decision.
