Supreme Court orders US-based J’can to relinquish claim to Hanover land

A JAMAICAN living in the United States was forced to relinquish possession of a piece of land, which he claimed was a part of a plot of land that he had purchased in Hanover, after the Supreme Court found that he had fraudulently obtained the title for the land.

Following an over 20-year battle between the two overseas residents over the ownership of a quarter acre of land at Haughton Close in the parish, the Supreme Court earlier this month ordered the self-professed landowner, Desmond Greenfield, to immediately transfer the lot to Eral Barton free of mortgage and all other incumbrances.

The court also ordered, among other things, that Greenfield hand over the certificate of title and that it be cancelled.

The former local businessman and his agents, servant or heirs were also restrained by the court from entering or remaining on the parcel of land or from interfering with anyone who Barton had given permission to occupy the lot.

The lot in question, lot 5, was a part of a little over four-acre plot of land which was originally owned by the late Altamont and Rose Brown.

Barton, who had purchased a piece of the land from the couple for $6,000, filed a claim against Greenfield in 2002 after he took his tenant, Loraine Whittingham, to court to have her forcefully removed from the land, claiming that she was trespassing and that he was the owner of the entire plot of land.

He sought several remedies from the court, including a declaration that he is the owner of lot 5, that Greenfield had used fraudulent means to register the land in his name, and an order for the cancellation of the duplicate certificate of title.

Ignoring a court order

Greenfield, in return, filed a counterclaim in which he contended that he owned all of the lands, including lot 5, and that Barton had trespassed on his property. He also sought to have Whittingham and her house removed from the property, noting that she had been ignoring a court order that was issued in 1995 for her to quit.

Greenfield also sought damages for the use and occupation of the land between 1992-2002.

Barton’s evidence was that after paying a $4,000 deposit in 1979, he resided on the property with his family in a mobile home until 1982, when they return to England.

Further, he said at the time of the purchase the Browns’ plan was to subdivide the property, and part of their sale agreement was that he would pay the remaining sale cost after the land was approved for subdivision and he gets the title.

Barton, however, returned to England before obtaining the title.

However, he further posited that in 1984 while he was away, Greenfield entered into an arrangement to purchase the remaining portion of the land for $65,000 and to obtain subdivision approval. But Greenfield, he claimed, took possession of the land after depositing only $32,000.

According to Barton, Greenfield paid a further $10,000 and had never completed the payment for the land.

Duplicate certificate

While insisting that the Browns never transferred the land to anyone, Barton averred that the Browns gave a developer, Beresford Miller, duplicate certificate of title to obtain splinter titles as soon as Greenfield obtained subdivision approval.

However, Barton further submitted that the duplicate title was stolen from Miller’s car and that Greenfield used documents that contained false information to apply for and obtain a title.

To assert his interest in the property, Barton said he lodged a caveat against the registered title, but Greenfield or his agent or servant had fraudulently caused that caveat to be withdrawn.

“Greenfield fraudulently, by trick and deception, illegally caused himself to be registered as proprietor of the entire subject property including the portion belonging to Mr Barton. The fraudulent withdrawal of the caveat facilitated the transfer to Mr Greenfield,” Barton maintained.

In 1991, Barton said that Greenfield applied for and was granted approval for the land, including his lot, to be subdivided and in that same year, tried to shift the boundary fence that he had erected when he purchased the land.

On the other hand, Greenfield’s evidence was that in 1984 he purchased the entire plot of land from the Browns and that the title was transferred to him. He also contended that he was told then that other persons had made deposits but that they were refunded, except for Barton who had refused to accept his. But Greenfield claimed he was later told that Barton was refunded in full via a bank deposit.

He denied using any deception or trickery to obtain the land.

Greenfield submitted that the Browns “parted with possession of the subject property when they sold it to him”.

He also denied Barton’s contention that he forged his signature on a letter to the Register of Titles to have the caveat against the subject property removed.

Committed fraud

Greenfield further contended that the mere presence of a caravan and wire fencing on the subject property without more did not constitute notice of Barton’s ownership of lot 5 or prove that he had committed fraud.

But the judge, in allowing the claim brought by Barton and dismissing the counterclaim, accepted that the signature on the instrument of transfer purportedly signed by Altamont Brown was forged.

“The person who had written on the names of the Browns on to the instrument of transfer failed to capture all the subtle features or the fluency of execution which characterised their original signatures,” the judge noted, while adding that the JP who signed could not be identified.

The judge also observed that the sale price for the land was recorded as being $5,000 instead of $65,000, which Greenfield said was a mistake.

The court also observed that while Greenfield had acknowledged that the land title had been stolen from Miller’s briefcase, he had submitted two statutory declarations in support of his lost title application in which he asserts that he was the registered owner of the land and that his duplicate copy of the title was stolen from his briefcase along with other items.

The court, in its conclusion, said Greenfield was not credible and rejected his evidence.

“He gave his evidence in a manner that did not lend itself to any positive assessment of his credit. He was shifty and evasive, seeking to distance himself from what were clearly acts for which he was solely responsible.

“It is not difficult to find that the defendant’s audacity was only rivalled by his mendacity,” the court added.

The court also said that it was clear that the statutory declarations that Greenfield relied on were false.

“The defendant has relied on outright falsehoods and ignored the interest of the claimant which has the effect of dishonestly misrepresenting the facts. The obvious denial of the claimant’s interest could only have inured to the benefit of the defendant,” the judge further concluded.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com