NASSAU, BAHAMAS — A “bitter impasse” over the ownership of the Old Fort Bay Club and Marina has ended with the community’s developer being confirmed as its owner.
The ruling on January 5 by Justice Indra Charles has brought to an end an eight-year legal battle. Justice Charles rejected the bid of Old Fort Bay Property Owners Association (POA) to claim ownership of the exclusive Old Fort Bay Club and the Old Fort Bay Marina.
The judge ruled that the Old Fort Bay Club and the Old Fort Bay Marina are owned by the developer, Old Fort Bay Company Limited.
Justice Charles said: “I am of the opinion that the developer, who is the owner of all lands within Old Fort Bay remains the owner and unless and until a conveyance of land is entered into, all of the land remains in the Developer’s ownership and the Developer has the right to sell, develop or retain the land.”
The attempt by the Property Owners Association to lay claim to the Club was spearheaded in court by Richard Schaden, a director of the Property Owners Association and a lawyer himself who “insisted that the Club belongs to the POA”.
Justice Charles found Mr. Schaden to be “an unimpressive and unreliable witness” who “was not being honest with the Court” and she rejected the claim that the Club belongs to the POA.
The judge also ruled that the Marina is the property of the developer, and while the canals and waterways and boat basin are common areas, the developer has the right to install docks, jetties, moorings etc. in the waterways. With regard to the developer’s proposed installation of 17 additional floating docks in the marina, Justice Charles has given directions which include the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Report, and she has also requested that a site visit by the Court to the Marina as well as the neighboring marinas of Albany and Lyford Cay be arranged.
The developer was represented in the litigation by Gail Lockhart Charles QC and the POA and homeowners, Mathew Hudson and Zsuzsannna Foti, were represented by Krystal Rolle QC. The property owners association’s main argument was that all land within Old Fort Bay Subdivision not developed as lots for sale must be considered “common area”. The developer, who has been trying for years to conclude the handover of common areas to the POA, was strongly opposed to these demands. Justice Charles ruled in favour of the developer on this key point saying: “For my part, I find the submissions advanced by Mrs Lockhart-Charles to be very attractive. In my judgment, the POA’s core submission that all lands within the Mauve Line of the OFB Subdivision which was not developed as lots for sale are “common area” is untenable and must fail.”
Justice Charles also rejected the POA’s claim that the land on which the Pineapple Grove and Pineapple House office developments have been constructed was “common area”.
The judge held that this land was owned by the Developer, who had the right to sell it.
The judge did however hold that the POA was entitled to be compensated for the loss of 0.765 acres of land which she held was identified on the subdivision plans as a “beach reserve” and therefore formed part of the “common area”.
The ongoing dispute over the POA’s entitlement to levy assessments against the developer was also resolved by the Judge, who ruled that the POA is not entitled to levy assessments against the developer with respect to the properties owned by the developer within Old Fort Bay.
The Court pronounced that such claims by the Property Owners Association against the developer are invalid. The Court also awarded the developer damages and costs in this regard.
