Woman gets $1.6m share of poultry business profits in court battle with ex-partner

The Supreme Court has ruled that while a woman did not contribute money to a St Andrew poultry business she operated with her former spouse, her non-financial contributions entitle her to $1.6 million of his share in the business.

"The claimant (Creslyn Thomas) has failed to prove that she made any financial contribution or contributed any start-up capital to the business Ina’s Farm. I find that she has failed to prove that she was a partner in the said business,” stated Justice Andrea Thomas in her decision handed down last month.

For her contributions, the judge said Thomas was entitled to 25 per cent ($1.6 million) of Carlos Casserly's share of the farm's annual profit from 2016 to 2019.

Thomas sued Carlos Casserly in 2017, seeking a declaration that they were equal owners of unregistered Ina’s Farm, which she claimed they built together after establishing the farm in 2005.

She also sought a half share of the net income and payment for occupational rent, arguing that she had been forced to leave the family home in 2016.

The court, however, rejected her claim of joint ownership, accepting Casserly’s evidence that he and another man, Delroy Roberts, were the only partners in the business. Roberts, a cousin of Thomas, had helped secure access to land owned by his mother, Ina Bennett, after whom the farm is named.

The judge dismissed Thomas’ claim of financial investment in the business, noting that her evidence "does not point to her having intimate knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the farm or the intricacies of the business."

"It is significant that she said Delroy loaned the business money to purchase a vehicle, yet she cannot recall the sum that was loaned or repaid. She does not remember the lease amount for the land from Biggs in 2009. She does not know if there was any loan to the business. She does not remember Delroy Roberts’ salary. She does not remember the circumstances of his employment," the judge said.

In her testimony, Thomas also told the court that she disliked the foul smell of the chicken coop but remained deeply involved in the business, held a full-time job, and was taking care of her triplet daughters, who were not Casserly's biological children.

Justice Thomas ruled that Thomas made other contributions to the business, including doing physical work on the farm and securing Progressive Grocers, the operators of a supermarket chain, which began purchasing eggs in 2015.

"Thomas, in feeding the chickens, despite not doing so as often as a regular worker, did amount to a small contribution to the development of the business," the judge said, pointing to other contributions such as helping in egg delivery.

The judge also said Casserly attempted to diminish Thomas' role by stating that their 20-year relationship ended in 2016 and that by then the "few" customers Thomas had introduced had stopped doing business with the company.

However, the judge noted that Casserly admitted he initiated contact with the major customer and that the relationship continued up to 2018. Records showed sales totaling $7 million from 2015 to 2018.

Casserly also argued that the business did not generate any profit for the first five years and that “whatever surplus was there” was put back into the business.

But the judge noted that with those comments, Casserly "has in fact admitted that profit was in fact made during the first five years, which was reinvested in the business."

"Even if Progressive Grocers had ceased to be customers in 2016, the contribution of the claimant (Thomas) in this area would still be impacting the business in the form of the surplus or the profit, of which none was paid to Thomas, but was reinvested into the business."

Thomas had also argued that the business started to thrive after she introduced customers, though the judge pointed out that she was only able to provide evidence about Progressive Grocers.

Her attorney told the court that Ina’s Farm was a profitable business, with earnings of approximately $13.1 million 2016 and 2019, despite a loss in 2017, and that she was asserting her rights to the entire amount.

The judge concluded that Thomas "has proven that she has made non-financial contributions to the said business amounting to 25% of the defendant’s share."

Using a court-ordered financial statement for the period 2010-2019, the judge determined that 2016-2019 was the period to be used to determine Thomas' share of the net profits.

Casserly's attorney challenged the report as biased, but the judge dismissed the concerns and ruled that since the business was jointly owned, Thomas was entitled to 50 per cent of Casserly's half.

"Thomas' share in Ina's Farm as at the year ending December 31, 2016, was 25 percent of Casserly’s portion of the net profit," she said. "I calculate 25 per cent of half of the total net profit between 2016 and 2019 to be $1,642,776.87. I therefore hold that the value of Thomas' share in Ina’s Farm is $1,642,776.87."

To arrive at those figures, the judge said she calculated the percentage of the total sales to Progressive Grocers in 2016 ($4,618,458.31) to the total sales ($35,895,600) which amounted 12.8 per cent. "I then add a further 12.2 percent for her total contribution to the delivery of eggs, physical work on the farm and materials."

The judge explained that because the business is a partnership, she only focused on Casserly's share of the profits which explains why Thomas' amount is "minimal".

On the issue of occupational rent, Thomas claimed she was entitled to payment from Casserly since she was forced to vacate the family home. But the court found she failed to prove she had continued contributing to the mortgage after moving out in September 2016. Casserly denied forcing her to leave, saying he returned home to find her gone.

“Thomas has failed to prove that she continued to pay her portion of the mortgage. As such, I accept the assertions of Casserly as the truth, that since Thomas left the family home, she has not contributed to the mortgage payments,” the judge ruled.

That aspect of the dispute had been resolved before trial, with a consent judgment confirming the house was jointly owned and entitling Thomas to half the value of the household furniture.

Casserly has been ordered to pay Thomas $1.6 million, representing her 25 per cent share of his interest in Ina’s Farm, within 120 days of the date of judgment on February 14.

Attorney Tamiko Smith, instructed by Balli & Associates, represented Thomas. Casserly's case was argued by Arnaldo Brown, instructed by Arnaldo Brown and Co.

The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.