Bank of Butterfield (Cayman) Ltd v Pamela Hue and Dahlia Jones - Ruling

¶ IN THE GRANT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS 22 OF 2014 BANK OF BUTTERFIELD (CAYMAN) LTD. DAHLIA LAWRENCE HUE DAHLIA NICOLA JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS IN CHAMBER THE 24TH M BEFORE THE Appearance:

¶ [1] Mr. Allen 'few mo- be estab- lished in Cause 43 of 2014 is refused. Even if a claim lished in that action on the basis that the Bank has bre- ilien observing) nited at time to a for damages can reached its duties as chargee chargee applicati- Road pre- chargec the same about the Ruling Bank of But- Coram: The Hon. A. owed to the Plaintiffs, there is no basis for denying the over the Moxam Road property which is the subject claim in Cause 22 of 2014. The Bank's right as chargee party is not contingent upon the manner of the exer- ver the commercial property and I cannot now treat that But that does not mean that the Court may not act Bank's exercise of its rights and duties as chargec (Hayman) Ltd. v. Pamela L. Hue & Dahlia N. Jones C 2/21, the Supreme Chief Justice, Date: 24.03.14. Bank's rights as set of the Bank's to sell the Moxam be of its rights as issues as one and upon its concerns over the Moxam 7/21 1 of 5
Road pr relief wi

¶ [2] The first Defenda had ob- Mr. Ash perty and there are such serious concerns arising from rich the Bank now seeks. is that upon taking over the process of marketing the bias, the Bank adopted the valuation of CIS445,000 whi- lding on 14 January 2013 and their listing at more of Capital Realty. A special assumptions sale pr the nature of the property from the ch the Defendants CIS335,000 with ce of CIS355,000 was also within a

¶ [3] There wi Road pr valuation the Bank fully sec-

¶ [4] By Augu- absence o market so then noted, but this was on the basis that the proper- tion of course, no such assumption applicable to the se- s of course, no such assumption applicable to the sa- party at that time, among other things, because it was a good deal more than twice the amount said to have In other words, there was no urgency to sell, the Ba- red. st value, the Bank had reduced the listing price to CIS31 of offers at higher prices and it was then, according to Mr. aried to show some interest. However, then it was, by had to be sold le of the Moxam worth, on primary een then owed to ik was more than 0 million because of ir Moses, that the according to Mr. Moses, (i to allow a

¶ [5] Eventual accept an February then adj- settlement Ruling Bank of Brit- Coram: The Hon. A at the Bank started getting obstruction from the Defen- dings of the property. dy, I am told, there was an offer of CIS335,000 which the and Mr. Moses brought an application for vacant p 2014; but no order for sale by private treaty was sought named by me for discussions between the parties to wa- ters of the matter, with the undertaking of the Defendants (ref: Rayman) Ltd. v Pauela L Ine & Dalita N Jones G 22/2014. ant who refused e Bank wished to possession on 17 The matter was rds a consen- sual to allow the Bank 9/6 2 of 5
to show were for to the B Bank en-

¶ [6] Today I respect a the property to prospective purchasers (of whom the CJ r(4)). In the meantime, payments of $2,600 per month ink, with the balance to be cleared once an apartment joined from exercising its power of sale within one month and that the Defendants have failed to comply with I am bound to conclude that they are in breach of ourt was told there h were to be paid was sold; and the th this order in any he Order. This is another r because court can

¶ [7] What I a only for leave to s match the offered $ request for

¶ [8] I am far reason for my refusal of the stay which Mr. Allen sec- do not believe that parties who are in flagrant breach of respect to invoke the process of the Court in aid of their n left with then is Mr. Moscs' application on behalf in order for vacant possession of the Moxam Road pro- cell by private treaty at a reserve price of $300,000 - a pr offer the Bank now has from a prospective purchaser 825,000. His offer was reduced to $300,000 simply in an extension of time to closing for a few days. from assurance about the fairness of approving a sale bys on their behalf s on their behalf of an order of the own action. of the Bank, not erty, but also for rice which would who had earlier upstate Bank's private trusty in these cir- do so. I which, w assumption last reduce

¶ [9] The speci- days of th Ruling: Bank of Butt Colum: The Hon. Ar instances. There is no up-to-date valuation upon whic h am perturbed by the valuation of 19 March 2014 to file opining an open market value of CIS435,000, recor- in price of only $300,000 - a value which happens to be al assumption used - which is that the property must be valuation date of 19 March 2014 - is old, to say the (from Cayman) Ltd v. Pamela L. Hue & Dahlia N. Jones G 22/2 Hony Smellie, Chief Justice. Date: 24.03.14. h I could rely to put before me amends a special match exactly the c sold within 90 at least when the 74 3 of 5
valuation market sold with noted, the

¶ [10] In short sanction otherwise assumes that the property would be listed in and there is no basis for thinking that on the open mar- hin 90 days. This is a property in respect of which I were already at least four offers between $360,000. I do not accept the valuation report as a proper ba- sale by private treaty at the price of CI$500,000. or sale on the open set it might not be m told, as already and $325,000. is proper which to

¶ [11] As to this possibility, This app- bring be- decision

¶ [12] Section sufficient

¶ [13] Section upon a be-

¶ [14] That, on the other aspect of the Bank's application for an on, nor am I satisfied that it would be appropriate to valuation explains nothing about the case this applica- tion before the Court; other than that it would be an "appeal fore the Court; other than that it would be an "appeal 18 of the RLI is clear that the default of the chargor is to to give the chargee a right to vacant possession. 50 provides that the chargee shall become entitled to and being accepted upon an auction sale. the evidence before me, has not yet occurred as I do not order for vacant take such an order if would wish to from a tribunals not in and of itself, vacant possession at sanction the bid of CI$30

¶ [15] The only is, the Defen- viewed shall all treated as entitled Ruling: Bank of Bu- Corain: The Hon. J. 9,000. order I consider I can properly make in the present en- dants shall provide access to the Moxan Road proper- ly prospective purchasers. In this regard, I direct the w inspection upon 24 hours' notice and that failure is a contempt of court and result in the Plaintiff Bank to an order for vacant possession. To enable viewing by the Defendants, I hereby summons Ltd. v. Pamela L. Hue & Dahlia N. Jones C 22/animbly Smellie, Chief Justice, Date: 24/05/14. circumstances, is that y so that it can be at the Defendants to do so will be being immediately s, the Defendants order.
will pro- ensure a

¶ [16] No orde- r as to costs. who, in turn, will provide a key to the property to their realtors at Century 2 access as to costs. Smellie Ruling: Bank of But- Coron: The Hon. A. er (Brown) Ltd. v. Pamela L. Ihe & Dahlia N. Jones G 22/2014, Chief Justice. Date: 24.03.14. 91 of 5