Many in the Lower Mainland dream of owning property, but one Coquitlam couple immediately caught a whiff of buyer’s remorse – literally.
On April 17, Morteza Mohamadighanatghestani and Mana Novin were awarded more than $25,000 in damages by a provincial court judge after taking ownership of a townhouse plagued by urine-soaked carpets, foul odours, and a host of other issues.
Justice Robin McQuillan found that sellers Jae Hwan Lee and Hyeyoung Park had breached multiple terms of their contract after they handed over the Southview Street property in July 2022.
“Mr. Lee’s denial of the problem with the carpets is simply unsupported by any evidence,” McQuillan said in his ruling. “Had the defendants truly believed that the carpets were perfectly fine, they could have engaged with the claimants, investigated the carpets themselves and come to a solution. But they chose not to.”
The plaintiffs testified that when they took possession of their $1.26 million home, the master bedroom reeked of urine, the carpets were heavily stained, and the residence had not been professionally cleaned despite contractual obligations. They also testified there were dead bugs, greasy fingerprints and hair on surfaces.
.png)
A Realtor’s assistant who accompanied Novin during the key exchange described the smell as so intense she had to leave the bedroom immediately. Multiple other witnesses had similar reactions.
When the plaintiffs had their real estate agent reach out to the defendant’s Realtor, they denied there were any problems. After reaching out a second time, the Realtor demanded they cease communication, and refused to provide any contact information for the sellers.
Even after retaining a lawyer to assist in resolving the issues, the defendants declined to respond. The plaintiffs eventually had to hire a tracking service to serve the defendants the civil suit.
The couple provided the court with photographs showing clean carpets at the time of their March 2022 viewing, compared to visibly stained and patched carpets after they took possession.
They paid for a second home inspection in July, which noted urine odours, carpet patches, missing carpet sections, and even a stain on the living room ceiling that corresponded to damage in the master bedroom above.
Cleaning professionals refused to service the carpets.
One company used UV lights to confirm extensive urine contamination, and recommended a full carpet and underlay replacement, subfloor sanitization, and even wall and ceiling treatment due to evaporated urine. The report described the master bedroom as “not livable.”
Another company declared the area a “biohazard,” warned that cleaning would worsen the smell, and also recommended a full replacement of the carpet and underlay.
“In 43 years of cleaning carpets, the smell and staining in the carpet in this master bedroom was one of the worst we have come across,” the company stated.
In response, the plaintiffs removed the carpets and discovered the urine had soaked through to the subfloor. Despite running fans and applying disinfectant, the smell persisted. They eventually hired contractors to replace the subfloor, repaint affected walls, and repair ceiling damage caused by the renovation work.
They testified that they had to move all their belongings into a storage garage while the remediation work took place, and only moved in some essential living items like a mattress and some kitchen utensils.
Justice McQuillan accepted their evidence in full, calling it “considerable and compelling.” He noted that multiple witnesses corroborated the plaintiffs’ claims and described the condition of the home as significantly worse than during the initial inspection.
By contrast, Lee, the only witness for the defence, did not submit any documents or photos and was unable to explain the state of the property. He claimed pre-existing stains were missed by inspectors and said the home had been professionally cleaned months earlier – a point the court found irrelevant, as the contract required cleaning after the sellers had vacated.
As a long-haul trucker, Lee testified he was mostly on the road during the months the mysterious mess occurred. He said he visited the home two or three times before the handover took place, but never noticed any strong odor.
Park, his wife, had lived in the home during the two months leading up to the sale, but declined to testify.
Lee told court he did not see how his wife could cause such extensive damage in that time. He said he was surprised when he heard of the allegations, and his Realtor advised him he did not have to do anything in response.
In cross examination, Lee admitted a Siberian Husky had lived in the home for seven months, but insisted it left in August 2021 – a claim contradicted by a neighbour’s letter stating the dog was still at the residence in mid-2022.
Justice McQuillan ruled the sellers had breached multiple clauses of the contract, including: failure to professionally clean the home prior to possession; failure to leave included fixtures; and delivering the home in a materially different condition than during the initial viewing.
In total, the court awarded $25,412 to the plaintiffs.
