REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   PoCo Couple Ordered to Sell Condo Over Abusing Visitor Parking Spot (https://www.revscene.net/forums/695320-poco-couple-ordered-sell-condo-over-abusing-visitor-parking-spot.html)

Traum 05-17-2014 05:12 PM

PoCo Couple Ordered to Sell Condo Over Abusing Visitor Parking Spot
 
There is a video of the story in the link below:

Port Coquitlam couple must give up condo over parking spot - British Columbia - CBC News

A Port Coquitlam, B.C., husband and wife are losing their condo following a six-year court battle involving 50 appearances before 28 different judges in dozens of courts — all over their apartment's parking spot.

In a 14-page ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Christopher Grauer says the problems began in August 2006 when a dispute over parking at the condo complex at 2378 Rindall Ave. led the strata council to declare the parking area common property and assign specific parking spots to units.

Cheng-Fu Bea and his wife, Huei-Chi Yang Bea, would not accept their strata's decision and launched a petition in B.C. Supreme Court, which Grauer says was their right.

The court ruled the strata was well within its jurisdiction to implement the new parking regime.

Instead of appealing the decision, the couple launched a series of new petitions, all of which failed because the argument had already been heard. The petitions were followed by various appeals that, according to the strata's lawyer, Phil Dougan, eventually involved 28 different judges in dozens of courts. The couple lost all the appeals.

Meanwhile, Grauer says in his ruling, the Beas continued to disobey the order restricting them to their assigned parking spot. The strata, which Dougan says has incurred $173,000 in legal costs defending itself from the Beas' court actions over six years, finally applied for a contempt of court ruling.

The Beas also owe $53,000 in court costs.

"There's no rhyme or reason to it," Dougan told CBC News. "It's simply been Mr. and Mrs. Bea trying again and again to find any judge they could, who might agree with them in several petitions that all argue the same thing."

Contempt of court

In a sternly worded judgment, Grauer says a person's property rights would usually be irrelevant to an appropriate sanction in a contempt of court proceeding, but "this case is not normal," wrote Grauer.

"Here, the property interest in question is precisely what fuels the Beas’ contemptuous acts and gives rise to the injustice that results."

"In this case, it appears certain that Mrs. Bea is destined to lose her property in any event through the enforcement of the many judgments for costs registered against it.

"The question is whether the owners should be put through the additional expense and frustration of proceeding in that way in the face of the Beas’ unremitting pattern of abuse of the court process, and the ever-mounting costs of dealing with them. I think not. The time to end their abuse of the court’s process is now."

The judge has given the Beas until June 15 to vacate the property and has authorized the RCMP to remove them by force if necessary.

Dougan says his clients are pleased, but fear an appeal.

As for the parking spot, it sells with the unit.

:lawl:

I am just beyond words...

nabs 05-17-2014 05:22 PM

What was the original argument about?

Presto 05-17-2014 05:33 PM

From reading the comments in that article, I believe the whole problem was started with the Beas owning 3 vehicles, but only had one private parking spot. They took up 2 visitor parking spots for their other 2 vehicles. They were fined by the strata, and in response, they sued. Again, and again, and again, etc...

Gucci Mane 05-17-2014 05:36 PM

guy is an idiot. kept parking in a visitor spot in the underground parkade and was advised by strata to stop but kept doing it anyways. then got fined etc, took strata to court and lost and keeps parking in the spot. all because he feels he has the "right" to park in the visitor parking stall because he owns a unit on the property.

320icar 05-17-2014 06:05 PM

lol, what an entitled prick. dont like strata rules? move to a new building.

SkinnyPupp 05-17-2014 06:39 PM

I'm sure once they "lost face" it was no longer a matter of not liking the rules or anything like that. It was all about getting their "win" back in any way possible. Stubborn fucks just couldn't accept that they were in the wrong :lawl:

punkwax 05-17-2014 07:11 PM

Stratas :fuckthatshit:

fliptuner 05-17-2014 07:11 PM

Eats up $173k of strata money, can't afford a lawyer.

bing 05-18-2014 01:01 AM

Here's a video of Mr. Bea, a stubborn old man.

Court orders couple to sell condo following a costly parking war - BC | Globalnews.ca

Mancini 05-18-2014 06:08 AM

He screwed himself with some severe overreaching. The strata is well within its rights here.

PeanutButter 05-18-2014 07:32 AM

Can the strata sue Mr. Bea for the $170k they incurred during this legal process?
If I were living in that building I would be choked that my money had to find this futile court process.

jdmhaze 05-18-2014 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeanutButter (Post 8473299)
Can the strata sue Mr. Bea for the $170k they incurred during this legal process?
If I were living in that building I would be choked that my money had to find this futile court process.

Court has ordered the property be sold to cover the costs

320icar 05-18-2014 09:15 AM

^ the justice system works!

vitaminG 05-18-2014 09:41 AM

Except only 53k is covered out of 173k. Probably still a couple grand for each unit to pay cause of this asshole. Plus all the taxpayers money wasted on the court resources he used.

SB7 05-18-2014 11:08 AM

What a fucking moron, glad to see that they got owned by the judge in the end :woot2:

Mr.HappySilp 05-18-2014 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Presto (Post 8473123)
From reading the comments in that article, I believe the whole problem was started with the Beas owning 3 vehicles, but only had one private parking spot. They took up 2 visitor parking spots for their other 2 vehicles. They were fined by the strata, and in response, they sued. Again, and again, and again, etc...

WTF does he needs 3 car? One for his wife and one for himself....... Also if he really wants I am sure he can rent other parkings from other people or just park on the streets. Well at least they are force to sell their place and settle the bill.

Manic! 05-18-2014 12:11 PM

It's not over yet. They still got to get him out of the place.

fliptuner 05-18-2014 01:00 PM

I wonder what would've happened if the strata got the car(s) towed every time.

Mr.HappySilp 05-18-2014 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8473365)
It's not over yet. They still got to get him out of the place.

Well if they refuse to move out the strata can get the RCMP to help remove them. I would love to see that happens lol. Remove to move and get taze by the police.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICE BOY (Post 8473388)
I wonder what would've happened if the strata got the car(s) towed every time.

I would think they try that as well. If someone parks in my parking spot I would have to car tow right away. Easiest way people will learn not to park at other's parking spot.

GLOW 05-18-2014 02:45 PM

In my sisters condo I forgot the visitors pass and got towed once. No sweat of the strata back.

Ch28 05-18-2014 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 8473395)
I would think they try that as well. If someone parks in my parking spot I would have to car tow right away. Easiest way people will learn not to park at other's parking spot.

Issue with towing right away is that the person will know where you parked and likely key or damage your car :heckno:

Manic! 05-18-2014 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp (Post 8473395)
Well if they refuse to move out the strata can get the RCMP to help remove them. I would love to see that happens lol. Remove to move and get taze by the police.

.

RCMP is not a moving service. For renters you have to hire a sheriff. They charge around 2k if you can find one. Then you have to store there stuff for 90 days.

fliptuner 05-18-2014 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch28 (Post 8473434)
Issue with towing right away is that the person will know where you parked and likely key or damage your car :heckno:

Except in this case, I know exactly where they live.

Inaii 05-18-2014 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8473436)
RCMP is not a moving service. For renters you have to hire a sheriff. They charge around 2k if you can find one. Then you have to store there stuff for 90 days.

Quote:

The judge has given the Beas until June 15 to vacate the property and has authorized the RCMP to remove them by force if necessary.
In case you missed it

PiuYi 05-18-2014 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vitaminG (Post 8473317)
Except only 53k is covered out of 173k. Probably still a couple grand for each unit to pay cause of this asshole. Plus all the taxpayers money wasted on the court resources he used.

173k is the outstanding legal costs of the strata
53k is the outstanding legal costs of Bea

with condo prices the way they are i'm sure selling the condo will cover all legal costs and then some


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net