BC man sues deceased man’s son after failing to claim item at the funeral

Vintage cars are prized possessions for many motor fanatics, including the unique accessories that come with them.

Sometimes, people will go the extra mile to protect or claim what they consider to be their prized possession. That was the case for Douglas George Smith when it came to a car grille from a 1954 Chevrolet.

According to a recent decision by the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, Smith showed up at the celebration of life for a man identified as BW and tried to claim back the car grille, which he said was rightfully his.

Talk about a time and place.

To Smith’s dismay, he was told a few days later by the deceased man’s son, Levi Woods, that the car grille had been sold for $100. In response, Smith decided to sue Woods for the return of the item or the alternative of a $2,000 payout.

Woods told the court that his father had owned the grille for over 20 years and that he had sold it alongside other collected car parts when he acted as the executor of his father’s estate. Before BW’s passing, the grille had been hanging on the wall of his shop.

You might also like:
• Road rage incident leads to battle of blame in BC court
• Suing $30 for cigarettes? BC woman turns to court for return of unpaid loans
• Used car buyer sues after vehicle broke down while he was learning to drive stick

Smith tried to argue his rightful ownership to the court by giving a timeline of how the grille ended up in BW’s possession.

He told the court that the grille was a gift from his sister sometime after 1986. At the time, he shared that he did not have space for it and, as such, gave it to BW to hang on the shop wall where their car club met.

Unfortunately for Smith, he failed to provide evidence that there was an understanding that the grille should be returned to him at any point.

According to the court, Smith took no steps to “confirm his ownership of the grille during that time, such as by taking it back, or asking BW to sign an agreement stating that the grille would be returned.” Not only that, but there was no practical way of getting it back to Smith since the item had already been sold.

The court decided that the lack of evidence essentially showed that Smith abandoned the grille, and his claim was dismissed.