Defendant’s application for extension in property dispute denied

A defendant who is blaming her mother for transferring the title to a property in her name has been denied an extension of time by the Supreme Court to file a defence in a claim alleging fraudulent transfer of the property.

Maria Angelina Stoner, who applied for the extension, and her mother, Zela Jahari, have been named as defendants in a claim filed by Roy Burn Johnson in April 2021.

Johnson is seeking to recover a property in Radlin-bell, Clarendon which he contends he had occupied before moving to the United States of America. He was convicted and incarcerated in the USA between 1998 and 2004 and then deported. On his return to Jamaica, he resumed occupation of the property.

He states in court documents that sometime in 2013 he received word that his former spouse Jahari was saying he had transferred the property to her daughter Stoner. Johnson later discovered that the transfer from him to Stoner was effected in April 2000 and thereafter the property was transferred from Stoner to Jahari. He is alleging that the transfers were fraudulent and is seeking a declaration from the court that he is the true and lawful owner of the property.

Attorney-at-law George Clue, who is representing the claimant Johnson, said today that since Stoner's application was denied Johnson can apply for default judgment to be entered against her. He said the case against Johnson and Jahari is to be set for case management hearing so that a date can be set for the matter to proceed to trial.

Jahari filed a defence and counterclaim in July 2021 alleging that during Johnson's incarceration, the mortgage payments were in arrears. Johnson, she contends, requested her assistance to make a payment of $750,000 in an effort to avoid foreclosure but the property eventually went into foreclosure. 

She is alleging that Johnson transferred the title to Stoner to avoid any legal issues and Stoner thereafter signed a document acknowledging that she held the property on trust for Jahari.

Jahari filed a suit against Stoner, and the Supreme Court, on July 4, 2018, declared Jahari to be the exclusive beneficial owner and on the strength of that order, the property was transferred from Stoner to her mother.

Stoner, who was served with the claim form in November 2021, had said in her affidavit in applying for an extension of time that when she filed an acknowledgment of service in February 2023 she was not aware of court procedures. It was only when she retained a lawyer in January 2024 that she became aware of the correct procedure.

Master Christine McNeil, in refusing on July 31 to grant the extension, said Stoner “has unequivocally denied involvement in the fraud upon her. In the proposed defence she has cast responsibility for the fraud upon her mother, Ms Jahari. It is a defence which raises mainly issues of fact.”

“The court is of the view that even though the threshold of proof for Mr Johnson might be high, Ms Stoner's defence is one of shunting blame for the alleged fraudulent transfer to Ms Jahari exclusively. While this does not diminish the potency of the defence, the defence has not sufficiently address the question of the property being transferred to her,” Master McNeil said.

Johnson had filed a notice of consent for Stoner to file her defence out of time. The Master said a cursory look at the proposed defence revealed that it conferred both a tactical and strategic advantage to Johnson as against Jahari.

“The court is, however, concerned less about tactical and strategic legal advantages enjoyed by the parties involved in the litigation and more about justice, even-handedness and fidelity to the law. In the result, the confessed absence of any prejudice to Mr Johnson and hence the consent to the application, does not impress the court at this time,” the Master said.

In refusing Stoner's application, Master McNeil said “considering all the factors, this court is not satisfied that the criteria set down by the law for an extension of time within which to file a defence have been met.”

Attorneys-at-law Annaliesa Lindsay and Josemar Belnavis instructed by Lindsay Law are representing Stoner.

Jahai is being represented by attorney-at-law Denise Senior-Smith instructed by Oswest Senior-Smith & Company.

Follow The Gleaner on X 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.