Roommate disposes of friend's belongings, gets sued in BC legal fight

A roommate dispute pitted two ex-friends against each other in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing after one was sued for keeping the other’s belongings.

Dylan Grandinetti sued Telman Asencio for keeping some of his belongings and refusing to return them after Grandinetti moved out.

Grandinetti sought $5,000 in compensation for the belongings.

In defence, Ascencio said that Grandinetti moved out everything that he wanted to take and that anything left behind, Grandinetti either gave to Ascencio or abandoned. He claimed he was entitled to dispose of the items and owed Grandinetti nothing.

Here’s who the tribunal sided with.

You might also like:
• Lawsuit backfires on BC moving company who sued a client for unpaid debt
• BC renter pop quiz: Do you know your rental rights?
• Busy travel day on BC highways could be impacted by protest

Grandinetti and Ascencio moved in together in November 2022. In March 2023, Grandinetti left BC for family reasons. Asencio helped coordinate movers and sell some of his roommate’s items.

Grandinetti told the BC tribunal that the movers didn’t pick up all his things and that Ascencio refused to help him sell the rest of his items or even let him pick up the remainder.

Grandinetti was upset about some specific things: Ascencio kept an HVAC fan coil, an HVAC heat pump, a couch, a dining table, a desk, and an entertainment centre.

As a result, Grandinetti asked the tribunal for either the return of those items or $5,000 in compensation.

As mentioned, Ascencio told the tribunal that Grandinetti essentially abandoned or gifted the remaining items but also told the tribunal that he has since disposed of the leftover belongings.

The tribunal references the “law of gifts,” and it was on Ascencio to prove that Grandinetti gifted him the leftover items.

“The movers attended the property on March 27, 2023. Later that same day, Mr. Grandinetti texted Mr. Asencio to advise him the movers did not get all of his belongings. He asked if Mr. Asencio would let them back in to collect the things they missed. Mr. Asencio did not respond. Mr. Grandinetti followed up again on March 30 and April 1. Mr. Asencio did not respond, and Mr. Grandinetti says Mr. Asencio blocked him,” the tribunal reports.

Ultimately, the tribunal found that Ascencio “wrongfully interfered” with the ownership of Grandinetti’s things and used marketplace listing prices to determine how much he was owed.

Ascencio was ordered to pay Grandinetti $3,175 within 21 days of the decision.