Landownership dispute: How much are these landowners prepared pay to own this bit of land? Is it worth it?
It never fails to amaze me why landowners spend tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting over ownership of a tiny sliver of land.
The latest example of this type of litigation came from the British Columbia Supreme Court in June 2024. The story dates back to 1910 when a parcel of land in Victoria described as lot 1959 was registered with dimensions of 60 feet wide and 120 feet deep. No survey was conducted at the time.
The then-owner subdivided the land into two parcels which were registered in the Land Title Office and described as the west 40 feet, and the east 20 feet of the original lot. Unfortunately, the original lot was less than 60 feet wide — it was several inches narrower. What the judge had to decide in June was which of the two present adjoining owners should suffer the shortfall.
Laurie Abel now owns the portion described as the east 20 feet. Lenore Harlton owns the adjoining part described as the west 40 feet.
The measurement shortfall did not become apparent until Abel decided to replace her house on the east 20 feet. In 2019 she commissioned a land survey of her parcel and registered it at the Land Title Office, establishing a new legal description and title.
Based on her new survey, Abel constructed a fence down the boundary line. Harlton obtained her own survey along with a surveyor’s letter critiquing the Abel survey. She maintained that the fence encroached on her property by four to five inches.
Eventually, Abel applied to court to determine which survey was correct and where the boundary line should be located.
In a 13,000-word analysis, Justice Diane MacDonald reached back in time to the original division of the lot into two parts. She reasoned that when the first deed of the divided lot was registered in 1912, the buyer acquired the full east 20 feet. When the second deed was registered, the new buyer could not acquire all of the east 40 feet as the remainder of the lot was no longer 40 feet wide.
The timing of the first registration took priority over the second registration, and Harlton had to bear the shortfall.
The court awarded Abel the four-to-five-inch discrepancy, and an easement over the land where the fence posts encroached onto Harlton’s property. The fence posts area measures 0.2 cm to 1.5 cm. Abel had to pay Harlton $5,000 compensation for an easement over this area, but nothing to acquire ownership of the historical discrepancy.
Years ago, a client of mine was involved in a lawsuit over a tiny parcel of land. When it was all over, he wrote to me about the experience: “If you firmly believe in the justice of your position and don’t lose too much sleep over wasting enormous amounts of money and spending a huge amount of time worrying over a confrontation, then go for it. Otherwise, get what settlement you can and get out!”
This article was first reported by The Star
