BC homeowner sues neighbours for not paying for 'their share' of a fence

New Africa/Shutterstock

A woman in BC has taken her neighbours to small claims court because she said they all agreed to share the cost of replacing the fence between their properties, but the couple next door has not paid her back for “their share.”

Joycelynn Chisholm said she is out $1,835.30 and is claiming the amount Andre and Teresa Girard owe her, according to a Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) decision posted online.

However, the Girards said they never agreed to pay for a portion of the replacement fence and denied owing anything. While Teresa said she remembers talking about “pitching in” for the fence’s cost with Chisholm, she said she did not agree to the final cost.

Neighbour argues she did not sign an agreement

In making the decision, Chisholm relied on Facebook messages between her and Teresa, which started in January 2022. In the messages, the two talked about the price, fencing materials, size, and timelines.

In the messages, Chisholm suggested that the new fence “would not be cheap,” but Teresa mentioned she would need to make a payment arrangement as she probably would not have the budget for it until late 2023.

Chisholm said the quotes she received were over $10,000, but the Girards’ portion maybe $2,000 to $2,300.

Later, Chisholm messaged Teresa to say that she had received a quote for completing the fence and that her portion would be $1,760 plus tax. After asking if it was a doable amount, Teresa responded by asking about upgrading the fence to be taller and saying that the price sounded doable. However, she added that she did not know if she would have the money ready when the fencer began their work.

“Ms. Chisholm responded that she was sure they could work something out, and Mrs. Girard thanked her,” the decision reads.

You might also like:

After some back and forth, eventually, messages showed that Teresa agreed to pay $1,760 plus tax, the tribunal member said.

“In later messages, Mrs. Girard asked if the $1,760 was for a 6-foot fence. Mrs. Chisholm confirmed that it was, and Mrs. Girard responded, ‘Lovely!!'”

After the fence was installed, Chisholm sent Mrs. Girard copies of the invoices, receipts for the fence materials and installation, and some handwritten calculations showing that Mrs. Girard’s portion of the installation was $1,835.30.

“Mrs. Girard responded ‘Thanks’ with a smiley face,” the CRT document reads.

Later, Teresa asked Chisholm if she could wait a few months for the full payment, and she agreed. However, no payment was made.

The following year, Chisholm followed up, and Teresa said that she still intended to pay but had limited funds.

“Mrs. Girard undisputedly has not paid Ms. Chisholm anything for the fence to date,” the decision added.

Teresa argued that she did not sign any agreement to pay for the fence.

However, the tribunal member said, “A contract can exist without a signed document. For a valid contract to exist, the parties must agree on all essential terms, and those terms must be reasonably certain.”

CRT decision

“I find the parties agreed on the essential terms of the contract. Specifically, I find the parties agreed that Ms. Chisholm would pay to construct a 6-foot cedar panel fence and that Mrs. Girard would pay a proportionate share of the overall cost of the fence for the portion between the parties’ properties. I find the messages show that Mrs. Girard agreed to pay the quoted amount of $1,760 plus tax,” the tribunal member added.

Teresa made several other arguments about why she shouldn’t have to pay for the fence replacement. Some of the reasons included claims that the fence was on Chisholm’s property and that her neighbour chose a fence that was “fancier than necessary.”

However, the tribunal member found that Teresa should pay Chisholm $1,760 plus tax for the portion of the fence.

With tax, Teresa was ordered to pay $1,835.30 in debt, $126.67 in pre-judgment interest, CRT fees, and dispute-related expenses.

Meanwhile, the claims against Teresa’s spouse were dismissed because the tribunal member, who agreed with Andre, did not agree to pay for a portion of the replacement fence since the Facebook messages were between his spouse, Teresa and Chisholm.

While the Girards are spouses, “this does not necessarily mean that Mrs. Girard had the authority to bind Mr. Girard to an agreement,” the tribunal member said.

Since Wake did not find evidence to suggest Girard would have agreed to pay for anything, “I find that Mr. Girard was not a party to any alleged agreement, and I dismiss Ms. Chisholm’s claims as against Mr. Girard.”

You might also like: