Legal battle over Valencia property settled

A legal battle over a building in Valencia has ended after a High Court judge approved an order of possession in favour of the owner of a chicken depot operating on the property.

In a written ruling, Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell declared Gregory O’Neil the equitable owner of the building at Eastern Main Road, Valencia, once he pays $55,000, which is the balance owed to the estate of the property’s original owner, Aubrey Pilgrim.

She also granted O’Neil an order for possession of the property and set aside a notice to quit. Pilgrim’s estate and his brother, Albert, were also ordered to pay nominal damages for trespass of $25,000 and $28,000 in costs.

O’Neil filed the claim for possession of the property, which is on state land, after Pilgrim’s brother sought arrears of rent and profits, despite O’Neil having vacated the property when he filed his lawsuit.

Pilgrim’s brother filed a counter-claim seeking to have a sale agreement between O’Neil and Aubrey declared void. The counter-claim was dismissed.

According to the evidence in the case, filed in August 2020, Aubrey and O’Neil discussed rental of a portion of the property in late 2018, so the latter could start his own business.

Aubrey took occupation of the land in 1985 and applied for regularisation in 2000. He developed the property, filling in the swamp.

O’Neil and Aubrey became close and in March 2019, Aubrey agreed to sell O’Neil the property for $100,000, once he was allowed to remain living there until his death. The two visited a commissioner of affidavit to confirm the terms of their sale agreement and also went to the Land Settlement Agency and the state utility companies to pursue change of ownership arrangements.

The written sale agreement was prepared and signed in April 2019. An initial payment of $55,000 was to be made with the remainder paid in parts.

O’Neil assisted Aubrey when the latter fell ill and also assisted Aubrey in suctioning mucus from his throat after he returned from the hospital. In 2020,

O’Neil received a rent-owed invoice for $30,000, a receipt for rent arrears for $45,000 and a notice to quit. He then locked out of entering Aubrey’s quarters and lost access to the water tanks and pumps he installed for his business.

He also said he always intended to pay the balance for the property and offered to do so in July and August 2020.

Aubrey died at hospital in April 2021.

In her ruling, Donaldson-Honeywell said there was no dispute over the initial rental agreement.

She pointed to inconsistencies in the defendants’ evidence on this issue.

On the sale agreement, the judge said while the defendants proved the relationship between O’Neil and Aubrey was one of influence (companionship and services), there was no “first-hand evidence” of “actual influence” by the former over the latter.

“The nature of the relationship was consistent with a very close companionship. On both sides, there was evidence of parties speaking to an uncle/nephew type relationship.”

She also said the agreement could not be set aside as an “unconscionable bargain,” as there was no proof the sale of the property was at an undervalued price.

The judge also said the two men appeared to be on equal footing as businessmen and there was no evidence Aubrey was “less highly educated,” since he ran a successful operation which also saw government ministers hiring him to accept apprentices to teach them welding.

And while she said legal advice would have been necessary, since Aubrey would have been relinquishing his rights to the property, her finding was that Aubrey intended to enter into a contract for sale with O’Neil.

The judge also held that the rental agreement stopped at the end of March 2019, when Aubrey “pellucidly expressed his intention not to treat the claimant as a tenant any more.

“He wanted him to have full ownership and control of his property, at a minimal cost and subject to the first defendant’s own life interest to remain there…He had said he would do for those who did for him.”

She said for this reason, there was no basis for Aubrey’s relatives to treat his $45,000 payment as rent or demand further rent.

She also said, “My finding is that the $45,000 payment was towards the sale, or at least the promise to sell, since the contract is flawed.”

However, Donaldson-Honeywell said although the sale agreement amounted to a promise as opposed to a contractual bargain, and O’Neil’s claim for equity based on promissory estoppel (a promise enforceable by law) had to be considered.

“Was there a promise? There was…The first defendant did want the claimant to own the property but he wanted to remain in possession of it as well, with the claimant also entitled to possession.

“Was there reliance on the promise? – Yes, by paying $45,000, giving companionship and giving up time from his business, the claimant relied on the promise…It is credible that there was a promise to rely on because it was in writing even though it was flawed in terms of being a contract...

“Unconscionability is another factor to be considered in the context of a claim for an equitable interest based on promissory estoppel. Here there was nothing unconscionable about the promise.

“My finding is that the equity arising from the promissory estoppel will be met by allowing him to have possession of the building. As the land is owned by the State, there will be no order regarding any rights to the land which the claimant may seek to pursue.

“The claimant is entitled to damages for trespass because there was no basis for serving him with a notice to quit when there was no continuing rent arrangement.

“The claimant was not a tenant. He was a friend or in a quasi-uncle/nephew relationship with the deceased. It certainly was not a landlord/tenant relationship.”

O’Neil was represented by Yaseen Ahmed and Tara Lutchman. Karen Gonzales appeared for Aubrey’s estate and his brother.