Divorcing couple appeals B.C. home assessment, arguing it's both too high and too low

Denman Island is seen in this file photo from September 2018. (Shutterstock.com)

A Denman Island homeowner's appeal of her 2022 property assessment succeeded in reducing the home's value by a few thousand dollars, but not before her ex joined the appeal and attempted to raise the assessment by nearly $300,000.

Property Assessment Appeal Board panel chair Kenneth Wm. Thornicroft began his written decision on the appeal – which was posted online on Dec. 9 – by noting its "unusual" nature. 

"The two property owners have significantly different views about the actual value of the property," Thornicroft wrote.

The home in question is a one-storey wood-frame cabin with two enclosed porches and "a detached garage/carport," situated on a little more than 10 acres of land on Keith Wagner Way on Denman Island.

Owner Veronica Gventsadze appealed the property's $878,000 assessed value for 2022, arguing that it was too high.

"The property is jointly owned by the appellant and Peter Scheunert (the 'co-owner'), and the two of them are currently embroiled in divorce and property division proceedings," Thornicroft's decision reads.

"The co-owner says that this 'appeal was initiated by the appellant … without my knowledge, as part of a strategy to obtain an "unequal distribution of the assets" in the settlement of our divorce,'" it continues. "The appellant, for her part, says (and I agree) that 'the details of our divorce are not relevant to this appeal.'"

Gventsadze and the assessor reached an agreement to reduce the assessment to $850,500, a roughly three-per-cent reduction, according to Thornicroft.

Scheunert objected to this, however, arguing that "a substantial increase" in assessed value was justified. He submitted that the value should be raised to $1,171,000 to reflect work that had been done on the home since the then-couple purchased it on May 9, 2020.

Among the work Scheunert said should result in a higher value was, according to the decision:

• Painting and staining the residence and the garage/carport
• "Repair and preventative maintenance of the roofs, gutters and rainwater catchment systems"
• New fencing
• Resurfacing the driveway
• "Burying the previously on grade electrical armoured teck cable from the road to the buildings on the property"
• Removal of dead or dying trees that enhanced the ocean view

"The co-owner estimates that this work 'took at least 1,280 hours and would have cost over $111,000 if contracted to outside contractors,'" Thornicroft wrote.

In response, Gventsadze told the appeal board that Scheunert had "significantly exaggerated the scope of the work he undertook," alleging that there were "numerous features that are either not up to code or that require additional work to be operational," according to the decision.

The panel chair noted that none of the parties involved in the appeal had provided a direct sales comparison for the property's value, nor did Scheunert provide an independent appraisal to support his preferred assessment.

Ultimately, Thornicroft concluded that "the only cogent market evidence" presented was the price the then-couple paid for the property when they bought it, time-adjusted for increases in the overall real estate market since then.

"I also note that (Scheunert) appears to have an economic incentive to argue in favour of a higher assessment in light of the owners’ ongoing divorce and property division proceedings," Thornicroft wrote.

"The assessor, who is an independent party, submits that the actual value should be fixed at $850,500, a figure accepted by the appellant."