The Court of Appeal has set aside a Supreme Court ruling that a property in Golden Acres, St Catherine, was transferred to family members to defeat the execution of a $6 million judgment debt.

Supreme Court Judge Courtney Daye had ordered that the transfer be rescinded and the lands sold to satisfy the judgment debt. However, the Court of Appeal, in setting aside the ruling, held that no fraud was committed when the transfer was done.

Albert Smith (now deceased) had transferred his property by way of a gift to his wife, Anita, and son, Trevor, in December 1993.

Hazel Steer brought a claim against Smith's estate in September 2007 seeking a declaration that the transfer was intended to defeat the execution of a judgment against him.

On June 21, 1982, Steer was a passenger in a motor vehicle which was owned and driven by Albert Smith. She was injured when the motor vehicle collided with a stationary tractor trailer along the Christian Pen main road, St Catherine.

Denying liability

She sued Smith in March 1983 seeking damages for negligence. Smith filed a defence in January 1984, denying liability.

Smith, who subsequently became very ill, transferred his property to his wife and son in December 1993.

Judgment was handed down in Steer's favour in October 2001. She was awarded a total of $6 million with interest.

The judgment remained unsatisfied and Smith died in July 2006 and his wife and son were appointed representatives of his estate in February 2007.

Steer filed a claim in September 2007 seeking a declaration that the transfer of the land was intended to defeat the execution of the judgement.

Smith's widow said in an affidavit that she and her husband worked in England for 12 years and when they returned to Jamaica, they pooled their resources and purchased the property in 1974. She said that although the title was issued in her husband's name, there was an understanding between them that the property was jointly owned by them. She said the transfer of the property was as a result of her husband's illness and incapacity to manage his affairs.

Indefeasible title

Patrick Foster, QC, who represented the Smiths, argued on appeal that under the Registration of Titles Act, a registered proprietor was vested with an indefeasible title which could only be defeated by evidence of fraud. Foster argued that the transfer was lawful and valid.

Attorney-at-law Leroy Equiano, who represented Steer, submitted that the judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that the transfer was fraudulent because the transfer was done while a judgment was pending.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Algernon Smith, Hazel Harris and Dennis Morrison, upheld Foster's submissions. The court said it was open to Smith as the duly registered proprietor to deal with his land as he deemed fit because the Registration of Titles Act clearly bestowed on him such a right.

It was the court's finding that there was no pleading before the court outlining any allegation of fraud and there was no platform from which proof of fraud could have been launched.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com