Hay River (Sep 27/04) - A Hay River family is facing eviction from the land on which their house sits, but they are vowing not to go quietly.

Donna Nessel, who owns the house with her husband Greg, says they don't have the money to move the house.

If the Town of Hay River is successful in forcing them to leave the sub-leased West Channel land because of unpaid lease fees and property taxes, she says the house will not be left behind.

"I will burn it," she says.

She estimates it would cost up to $50,000 to find new land and move the house.

The Nessels claim their eviction for the roughly $5,000 they owe the town would be unfair.

They claim to have tried to make payments, but have been refused by Town Hall because the matter is before the courts.

Greg Nessel, 40, is unemployed and lives on the property with three of his children. His 37-year-old wife lives in Edmonton. The Nessels are separated, which they partially blame on the stress of the eviction proceedings.

The family received an eviction notice from the town in December. The town is the lessee of the land, which is owned by the Commissioner of the NWT.

The town has taken the matter to court, with the latest Supreme Court hearing held on Sept. 13. Town lawyer Michelle Staszuk told Justice John Vertes there is no hope of an out-of-court settlement.

Staszuk said the town is unwilling to enter into a new lease assignment and seeks a deadline for the Nessels to move. The judge gave the two sides several months to prepare documents outlining the series of events in the case.

The town must also prepare a written argument on the legislative authority by which it seeks eviction. "Don't give up on trying to resolve this thing outside of court," Vertes said.

The family is already packing up and selling some of their belongings.

A 'For Sale' sign is also on the side of the house, which Greg Nessel estimates is worth between $120,000 and $130,000.

In 1999, Greg Nessel sub-leased two side-by-side parcels of land -- one residential and the other storage -- from the previous sub-leaser.

The sub-lease for the residential lot expired in August 2001. The sub-lease for the storage parcel was valid until June 2002.

"The respondent (Nessel) has never executed renewals of either one of his sub-leases, despite having been requested to do so by the applicant (the town)," reads court documents filed by the town.

However, Donna Nessel says the couple have had nothing but trouble dealing with the town. "We're totally confused. We have been for six months," she says.

For example, they say there are conflicting dates on when the sub-leases expired and uncertainty over which lot is residential and which is storage.