Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Airplane ownership tiff triggers legal action

A part owner in an aircraft has filed suit against a co-owner, alleging breach of the terms of an ownership agreement.
gv_20130212_biv0107_130209942
air transport, Airplane ownership tiff triggers legal action

A part owner in an aircraft has filed suit against a co-owner, alleging breach of the terms of an ownership agreement.

Plaintiff Aero-Nautica Ventures Corp. filed suit November 14, 2012, in BC Supreme Court against 0912382 B.C. Ltd. and Jamie Horner, director of the numbered company.

The suit alleges that the defendants have breached "express or implied" terms of a 2007 agreement for the plaintiff to purchase a half share in a 1977 Grumman/American General AA5B Tiger Aircraft.

The plaintiff alleges that, under the agreement:

  • The aircraft would be stored in a Pitt Meadows hangar;
  • The plaintiff would conduct repairs and maintenance to the aircraft at a discounted rate; and
  • The defendant company and the plaintiff would share the costs of repairing and maintaining the aircraft.

The plaintiff alleges that the terms of the agreement remained unchanged when the defendant bought a further 25% ownership share in the aircraft in 2011.

However, the suit alleges that, in the wake of that second agreement, the defendant Horner removed the aircraft from the hangar and has refused the plaintiff access to it. He further alleges that the defendant company hasn't paid its share of maintenance costs.

The plaintiff is seeking an order for payment for his 25% share in the airplane or an order for sale of the aircraft and payment of a 25% of the sale price to the plaintiff. He's also seeking $3,782 for maintenance costs, an accounting and damages.

In a response to the suit filed December 21, 2012, the defendants oppose the granting of any relief sought. The response claims that the plaintiff breached the ownership agreement by acting in bad faith. It further claims that the plaintiff has not provided invoices for alleged maintenance. Additionally, it claims that the plaintiff has listed the aircraft for sale at a price set by the plaintiff, but has received no "serious enquiries" from potential buyers at that price.

None of these allegations has been proven in court.