ONE West Vancouver family's decision to build an illegal coach house on their property landed them in court after the elderly mother who paid for the coach house sued her son and daughter-in-law for a share of property value.
The 87-year-old argued in both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal that when her son and daughter-in-law sold their property - for about $1 million more than they spent on it - she should have a share of the profit. But in a recent B.C. Court of Appeal decision, a panel of judges sided with the son - ruling his mother was only entitled to the depreciated value of the coach house structure itself.
According to court documents, the family drama began in 2001 when Michael and Carolyn Scholz invited Michael's mother Ruth Scholz to build the coach house on their property in West Vancouver. At the time, the older Scholz was recovering from surgery and needed some assistance. Ruth Scholz accepted the offer, paid more than $94,000 for the coach house construction and in 2002 moved in. Both Ruth Scholz and her son knew that the coach house was illegal under West Vancouver's zoning bylaws.
According to court documents, Ruth Scholz lived in the coach house for the next nine years while her son and daughter-in-law paid property taxes, utilities and insurance.
In 2007, the couple decided to sell their house and build another one on a different property. By this time, the family relationship between the two generations had deteriorated and the younger couple decided it would be better not to live on the same property.
When the couple sold the first property with the coach house for approximately $3 million in 2011, Ruth Scholz sued, asking for a share of the approximately $1 million increase in market value of the property.
She argued there had been an oral agreement, giving her an ownership share in both the coach house and the land underneath it.
But the trial judge disagreed, saying there was no evidence of a deal. The judge added there was also no evidence the coach house had improved the value of the property, noting it was not even shown to prospective buyers.
The trial judge noted neither the son nor his mother ever discussed ahead of time what would happen if he asked her to leave the coach house.
But the judge agreed it was unlikely the mother would have paid for the coach house if she thought she would never be able to recoup any of the costs.
He awarded her $36,000 as the depreciated value of the coach house.
Ruth Scholz appealed that decision, with her lawyer arguing "she would not have agreed to a scheme in which she lost her savings for her old age."
But the appeal court upheld the original decision, noting the legal resolution imposed on the family by the original trial judge was appropriate and as fair as possible to both parties.
