Brady living in $350K per month apartment while unable to pay debt to FCJ

Embattled attorney-at-law Harold Brady, while declaring that he has no means to pay a $116 million-plus interest debt to the Factories Corporation of Jamaica (FCJ), claims that his rented Kingston apartment costs $350,000 monthly.

However, the attorney, who was disbarred in 2017 over a land transaction that led to the ballooning debt, and who was also evicted from his Cherry Gardens apartment for reportedly owing almost $8 million in rent, said he has an arrangement with his landlord.

The former top-flight attorney also claims that he has a similar arrangement with an individual from whom he rents vehicles to pay $15,000 weekly when he accumulates the funds.

At the same time, Brady has shared that he earns on average $350,000-$400,000 from a consultancy company, which he started after losing his law licence and that he operates the business from his apartment and has about five regular clients.

He made the disclosure in the Supreme Court where an application from the FCJ is being heard to commit him to prison for breaching the December 2018 order while being grilled about his current living expenses and earnings by FCJ’s lawyer, Amanda Montague.

Although Brady was given the option of paying $1 million per month, starting January 4, 2019, he admitted that he has not paid “a dime” towards the debt.

When asked if he has allocated any of his earnings to the debt, he said, “That’s not possible.”

Pressed further by Montague as to whether he had liquidated any of his assets to pay the debt, he explained that he had liquidated his assets to cover existing debt relating to his law firm when he was disbarred and had no money left over.

“So you view your priority as renting a Mazda cross-over SUV?” she asked after being told that he currently has a Mazda on rental.

“No, not a priority,” Brady replied.

“But the money that you spent to rent the Mazda, I know you have an arrangement with the owner or the car rental company, but when you amass enough money to pay, you pay it to that company but not FCJ?” she asked, to which Brady agreed.

“The next thing is, when you have enough money to pay your landlord the $350,000 per month when you have enough money, you allocated $4.2 million a year to your home office instead of the judgment debt?” Montague continued.

Brady, however ,said that that was not true but quickly agreed that he had not paid any money in the last six years towards the debt although he has paid portions of his rent since 2018.

The debt stems from the botched $140-million sale of an FCJ-owned property on Marcus Garvey Drive in St Andrew to late former JLP Cabinet minister Neville Gallimore, between 2007 and 2014. Brady, who did legal work for the FCJ during the period, handled the sale.

According to the FCJ, Brady collected the full purchase price for the property but only accounted for $70 million despite “numerous requests” to hand over the funds.

Further, the FCJ complained that Brady’s failure to hand over the file relating to the transaction “with due expedition” and to register the sale agreement within 30 days caused the company to incur interest and penalties that pushed the debt to $111 million.

Brady, however, during the hearing, admitted that he had collected in excess of $100 million for the transaction but indicated that he did not pay it over to FCJ as he was not required to. He claimed that he was instructed to hold on to the money as payment for his retainer fee for other jobs that he had done for the company.

BALANCE WITHHELD

Quizzed further by Montague as to what he had done with the proceeds, Brady said the funds were deposited but that he paid over $60 million to the FCJ, and the balance was withheld for legal work that he had done for FCJ.

It was for that reason, Brady claimed, that the FCJ had agreed for him to do an audit of his firm to determine whether he was owed by the company or vice versa, but he said the report was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

He, however, disagreed with the submission from Montague that there was no evidence before the Court of Appeal that the FCJ was indebted to him and that the audit report, which was done by a now disbarred accountant, is incapable of belief.

Brady maintains that the company is indebted to him.

“I don’t owe it. I can’t pay what I don’t owe. I don’t owe the FCJ, and they have acknowledged that,” he said.

Brady later told the court that he had not paid the judgment order because he did not have the means to do so and that at the time of the order, he was disbarred, his accounts were frozen, and he had lost his house and had to sell his car and attend to other personal things.

But he admitted to Montague that he had disobeyed four orders from the court to prepare an affidavit of means.

However, Brady, while apologising to the court, said it was not an unwillingness to file the affidavit of means as what he was trying to do was to genuinely find common ground, if any at all.

But Montague, in her submission, while emphasising that the judgment was sacrosanct, said there was an unwillingness on Brady’s part to pay the judgment order despite the fact that he has had reasonable opportunity to do so.

She also argued that any reasons submitted by Brady for the non-compliance were immaterial in the context of Part 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which gives the court the power to imprison an individual for breaching a court order. Additionally, she said the reasons supplied were not sufficient for the court to not grant the court order that he be committed to prison.

Meanwhile, Brady’s lawyer, Jerome Spencer, argued that there had been no judicial determination that the FCJ did not owe his client and that there was a pending appeal of the Supreme Court decision to refuse his application to adduce evidence pertaining to the audit.

Additionally, he said, his client was relying on the set-off defence against the background that he was contracted by the company and is reportedly owed outstanding sums.

A set-off is the ability of a debtor to reduce or eliminate entirely the debtor's liability to a creditor by taking into account monies owed by the creditor to the debtor.

Spencer is to conclude his submission when the hearing is resumed today.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com