McLiberty v Arnold et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Shanks, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2000
• Court: High Court (Belize)
• Docket Number: 290 of 1998
• Date: 11 April 2000

High Court

Shanks, J.

290 of 1998

McLiberty

and

Arnold et al

Appearances:

Ms. Merlene Moody for the applicant.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the defendants.

Practice and procedure - Enforcement of judgment — Application for an order of sale of land fraudulently transferred by second defendant — Finding that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge over the land which constituted an overriding interest under section 31(1)(e) of the Registered Land Act — Order for sale granted.

Shanks, J.

1 This is an application for an order for sale of a large parcel of land (No–440) to enforce a judgment obtained in action 290 of 1998 by Mr. Mcliberty against Michael Arnold and Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd. In a previous case, I ordered that the transfer of that parcel of land by Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd. to a company, Best Lines Ltd., was done with intent to defraud creditors and that the transfer was void. Parcel 440 is therefore now the property of Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd. That company represented by Mr. Dons Waithe, does not oppose the making of an order of sale so enforce the judgment.

2 However, a Mr. John Trummer, Jr. who is represented by Ms. Merlene Moody has applied and been joined as defendant in the action and clams a right over a small section of parcel 440 and he says that there shouldn't be an order for sale or that any order for sale should be subject to his rights. The right that he claims comes about because on the 28th of May, 1999, he agreed with Mr. Michael Arnold who was acting for Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd. to purchase one section (which is No. 149) out of the parcel 440. He handed over a cheque to Mr. Arnold for $5,000.00 and was given a receipt in the name of Corozal Free Zone Development Ltd. He was also given a title document for another parcel of land as security, but it appears he has lost that security in the meantime. The plaintiff in this action obtained judgment in the Court of Appeal in July, 1999, and it is that judgment which he now seeks to enforce.

3 Ms. Moody states that her client claims a beneficial entitlement to parcel 149 pending subdivision (which has not yet happened in relation to parcel 440) and, as say I say, she claims that any sale of parcel 440 should be subject to Mr. Trummer's equitable interest in parcel 149. Mr. Barrow has referred me to the various passages in Megarry and Wade on the Law of Real Property and he points out that a right...