Land surveyor rejects defendant’s claims

A LAND surveyor has dismissed a claim by a property owner that drawings of the $800-million apartment complex being built by developer Juliet Holness’ company were needed to deliver a splintered title required by a sales agreement.

Donovan Simpson made the assertion yesterday while giving expert testimony at the trial involving JAJ Development and Holdings Limited, in which Holness is a director and majority shareholder.

JAJ is suing Charlene Ashley, the owner of a parcel of land (lot one) Leas Flat, Red Hills, for the title of the property – a piece of which it bought in 2012 for $22 million. Payment includes giving Ashley one of the apartments from the complex. JAJ’s portion is Lot Two.

Justice David Batts is presiding over the trial, which started on Tuesday. JAJ, which is represented by the law firm Bennet Cooper Smith, closed its case yesterday afternoon, paving the way for Ashley to start mounting her defence. She has also countersued, accusing JAJ of trespassing on her property.

Simpson was among three expert witnesses called by JAJ with the other two being real estate valuer Gordon Langford and chartered quantity surveyor Kelvin Kerr.

Ashley has contended that she could not fulfill the title obligation before getting updated drawings from Holness, a lawmaker and wife of Prime Minister Andrew Holness.

Holness has admitted in the trial that she had to update the drawings after realising in 2013 that they included Ashley’s lot, which was also used in the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) approval of more habitable rooms than would have been allowed if Ashley’s lot was not included. The changes were approved in June 2021.

“‘With the updated permissions, it was clear that copies of the drawings for the development were needed in order to splinter the title and for me to access my home. In this regard, I therefore requested copies of the drawings on numerous occasions to no avail’,” read JAJ’s attorney Sidia Smith from Ashley’s statement.

Smith continued: “‘It should be noted that for the splintering of titles, the drawings for the development will need to be sent to the land surveyor to allow him to validate and write the necessary letter needed for the subsequent survey of title from the KSAMC and in turn for the splintering of the title to take place’.”

But Simpson dismissed Ashley’s reasons, noting that for splintering, the tasks include a “pre-check subdivision plan” that he said would have to conform to the one approved by the KSAMC, which it did in 2011.

“This is a two-lot subdivision … For a development which Holness is trying to complete, it wouldn’t be necessary,” he replied when Smith asked him whether development drawings were needed in order to get the splintered title.

He added: “You have to get those titles first before you can even start discussing the future of the development … . We’re dealing with a two-lot subdivision. My concern is to conform with that subdivision. We don’t business with the future development. We are separating two lots … nothing more.”

Holness has confirmed receiving a title last December from Ashley, but she said that the document did not comply with the sales agreement as the width of an access road that she said runs between the two lots is three metres, or five metres short of what was allegedly agreed.

As a result, the title provided last year, she said, “does not allow, in any way” for the development to “abide” by the laws of Jamaica as the KSAMC’s minimum requirement is 6.2 metres.

Holness, who has had to fend off claims from Ashley that she and her company’s workers are bullies, has said that her development has been stalled since February 2020 and cannot be completed because of the title issue.

She has said that money to fund the development came from investors, and she is at risk of being sued by a neighbouring property owner with whom she entered into a joint venture.

... JAJ accused of destroying defendant’s doghouse (for online)

Under cross-examination yesterday, at the trial involving JAJ Development and Holdings Limited, land surveyor Donovan Simpson said it was difficult to determine whether a drawing of the subdivision included items on the same level as a border wall that ran from defendant Charlene Ashley’s property and connected with an access road leading to the property owned by JAJ.

Simpson also said the drawing would not show some items such as small trees but would include “substantive trees”, which he defined as trees with a girth or circumference in excess of four-six metres.

Ashley claims that sections of her property, including 10-15 feet of a border wall, a doghouse, and several layers of terracing were destroyed by JAJ to make way for additional portions of her property that she said would have had to be purchased.

The destruction of concrete structures would be in breach of the sales agreement.

Developer Juliet Holness’ father, Stephen Landell, who has acted as an overseer for the development since 2017, also took the witness stand yesterday.

He told the court that JAJ’s CCTV footage shows workers hired by the Ashleys using a backhoe to fix a pit located on JAJ’s land during the holiday period December 24-25, 2020. He said there was an overflow on sewer lines from Ashley’s residence connected to the pit.

Landell said on returning to the site after the holiday, he also observed debris on the lot and that he took photos and shared them with Holness. Ashley’s attorney, Aon Stewart, denied there was debris.

During cross-examination from Stewart, who is instructed by the firm Knight, Junor & Samuels, Landell admitted seeing saw a doghouse, what he described as a “fenced-up area” with a “concrete” base on Lot One (Ashley’s property). Later on, he said he that understood the area to be part of the access road.

Holness has admitted giving instructions for the doghouse, which she said was on the access road and not Ashley’s land, to be destroyed by JAJ’s team after waiting three to four years for Ashley to deal with it.

Justice David Batts ruled against admitting JAJ’s surveillance videos in the trial on the basis that footage either did not reflect what Landell was alleging or that the court was not satisfied with chain-of-custody issues.

Ashley’s lawyer has started mounting his client’s defence, opening with claims that Holness did not “act in good faith” in meeting conditions under the sales agreement.

“The defendant will also contend and prove that the claimant, through its representative, Juliet Holness, acted unreasonably and is culpable for conduct which delayed the defendant’s ability to perform the contractual obligation that was applicable to her,” he said in reference to the issue over the title.

Ashley is expected to take the stand today.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com