‘She is very dishonest’

Defendant Charlene Ashley has sought to paint developer Juliet Holness as “dishonest”, amid revelations that Ashley faced losing the entrance to her home to make way for the lawmaker’s $800-million apartment complex.

Holness is the director and majority shareholder of JAJ Development and Holdings Ltd, the real estate company that is suing Ashley for a splintered title for a property in St Andrew.

Ashley has countersued, accusing JAJ of trespassing.

The trial started in the Supreme Court before Justice David Batts last Tuesday.

JAJ bought a piece (lot two) of Ashley’s land (lot one) in Leas Flat, Red Hills in 2012 for $22 million. Under the sales agreement, Ashley is required to provide the title to JAJ within seven days of being requested.

But Holness has accused Ashley of failing to submit a title after an October 30, 2012 request that gave her 15 days, as well as rejecting one provided in December 2022.

The document, she said, has the width of an access road that she said runs between the two lots at three metres, or five metres short of what was allegedly agreed, and puts the development out of compliance with permits.

According to special condition 20 of the signed sales agreement, Ashley agreed to provide an easement from her lot, “provided that it is agreed that no such easement shall result in the removal or alteration of the vendor’s gateway, or any concrete structures” on Ashley’s property.

Ashley took the witness stand on Friday, a day after JAJ closed its case, to provide her defence.

She has insisted that she had problems with the subdivision, needed the drawings of Holness’ development before completing the process to get the splintered title and maintained that concrete structures were destroyed.

Among other things, Ashley argued that she and her husband, Earl, pursued the subdivision approval of the land “to protect their interest” after alleging that Holness indicated that she would not do so, despite an agreement in writing.

However, Ashley said even though Holness said she wanted nothing to do with the subdivision, she knew what was taking place at the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC), the authorising entity.

“As we were going through the process, Holness was able to and did advise us what was happening with the KSAMC. So even before we got any document in our hands, or any phone call or any communication, Holness would indicate the status,” said Ashley, a marketing consultant, who was communications director in the education ministry in 2008, when now Prime Minister Andrew Holness was the portfolio minister.

It’s on that basis that she rejected as “extremely misleading” Holness’ assertion that the subdivision was approved by the KSAMC in December 2011 and communicated to the Ashleys in January the following year. The assertion, Ashley suggested, left out critical information that she alleges contributed to the delay in producing the title.

“Holness is very aware … there are three clauses in there that essentially indicated that I could not, with the subdivision, technically enter or exit my property. In other words, it said I would need to abandon the use of my gate,” Ashley said.

After being shown the document, Ashley read out the three clauses which were that there should be no vehicular ingress or egress from her lot onto the Leas Flat main road; that the existing driveway be concealed and that a concrete wall within the 6.2m-wide access road for the apartment complex between the lots be demolished.

“I had discussions with Holness who reiterated that that’s not a concern because she would not be using that part of the property for two reasons, one, she again reminded me that her intent was to join lot two, which I was selling to her, with lot 21B and the entry would be on lot 21B,” Ashley added.

According to her, Holness said a section of the access road on the border with her property was “extremely steep” and “it would have been exited in a corner or bend”.

Justice Batts on multiple occasions questioned the relevance of some of the evidence including Ashley’s repeated references to discussions with Holness.

But her attorney, Aon Stewart, from the firm Knight, Junor & Samuels, argued that “circumstances surrounding the signing of the agreement would be relevant because it speaks to things that should have been done and requests that were being made from the claimant for which the defendant was taking issue with and as a result of that an agreement for sale couldn’t have been finalised in the context of time”.

 

STONE WALL ISSUE AFFECTED SPLINTERING OF TITLES, SAYS DEFENDANT

Defendant Charlene Ashley insisted on Friday that developer Juliet Holness was “not truthful” and “very dishonest” in claiming that stones that piled up at the back of Ashley’s property were there before JAJ started development of its $800-million apartment complex.

This is considered crucial since Ashley is claiming that the stony issue affected the splintering of the titles as pegs put in place for the subdivision could not be accessed to complete a verification needed to pursue the titles.

“There are parts of the back of lot one that are on the exact level as lot two. When Holness initially started work on lot two, as she dug down and those stones would pile up, they were rolling on to lot one. Initially Holness’ response to me was that she would address it. However, the issue was not addressed,” she said.

Holness has argued that the stones did not come from her development and if stones were on lot one, they were there before her company entered the land.

Meanwhile, “untrue and very dishonest” was how Ashley characterised Holness’ claims that she requested multiple favours from JAJ for its workers to use their backhoe to remove a section of a stonewall in October 2019. She also rejected Holness’ assertion that she had gone overseas at the time and did not respond to a request for additional instructions from the workers.

“At the time when Holness removed this wall, she had already hit down a terrace. I had previously reported that to the police and there were numerous communications with regard to not trespassing or destroying anything on the property (lot one),” she said.

Ashley further contended that she was in Montego Bay, St James and not overseas.

She rejected Holness’ claim that she accused JAJ workers of trespassing, saying instead that she asked her lawyers to write to Holness.

“The thought of having … to ask the same person who has been very aggressive towards anybody on my place to remove a stonewall that has no problems for me simply to pay millions to put it back. That is very, very dishonest,” she said.

Ashley has claimed that sections of her property, including the 10-15 feet of border wall, a doghouse, and several layers of terracing were destroyed by JAJ in a bid to claim portions of lot one that she alleges Holness always wanted.

In her testimony, Holness rejected claims her team destroyed any wall. She admitted to giving instructions for the removal of the doghouse after waiting three to four years for the Ashleys to deal with the issue. She has also insisted that the structure was not “concrete” and was located on the access road which she said runs alongside both lots.

And Ashley said she was left “flabbergasted” on realising that drawings of the development she long requested from Holness, and received in 2019, were approved from 2014.

“All of this could have been avoided had the drawings simply been shared,” she said, calculating that that the splintered titles could have been ready from 2016.

Holness’ land surveyor, Donovan Simpson, has dismissed Ashley’s view that the drawings were required to get the titles. He said the drawings would speak to the “future of the development” which was not necessary to get the titles.

Holness has told the court that in 2013, she discovered that some drawings contained Ashley’s property and were used by the KSAMC to approve a greater number of habitable rooms for the apartment complex than would have been allowed if Ashley’s property was not involved. Holness said the amendment was done in June 2021.

The $800-million complex is about 60 per cent complete with work, according to Holness, stalled since February 2020.

“I cannot complete the development,” she told the court last Wednesday, citing the title issue. She said funds came from investors as she could not use the property as security for loans based on an agreement with Ashley.

The trial will resume on Friday with Ashley continuing to comment on Holness’ witness statement. After that she’ll be cross-examined by Holness’ legal team which is being led by Sidia Smith and Rose Bennett-Cooper from the firm Bennett Cooper Smith.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com