... Stone wall issue affected splintering of titles, says defendant
DEFENDANT CHARLENE Ashley insisted on Friday that developer Juliet Holness was “not truthful” and “very dishonest” in claiming that stones that piled up at the back of Ashley’s property were there before JAJ started development of its $800-million apartment complex.
This is considered crucial since Ashley is claiming that the stony issue affected the splintering of the titles as pegs put in place for the subdivision could not be accessed to complete a verification needed to pursue the titles.
“There are parts of the back of lot one that are on the exact level as lot two. When Holness initially started work on lot two, as she dug down and those stones would pile up, they were rolling on to lot one. Initially Holness’ response to me was that she would address it. However, the issue was not addressed,” she said.
Holness has argued that the stones did not come from her development and if stones were on lot one, they were there before her company entered the land.
Meanwhile, “untrue and very dishonest” was how Ashley characterised Holness’ claims that she requested multiple favours from JAJ for its workers to use their backhoe to remove a section of a stonewall in October 2019. She also rejected Holness’ assertion that she had gone overseas at the time and did not respond to a request for additional instructions from the workers.
“At the time when Holness removed this wall, she had already hit down a terrace. I had previously reported that to the police and there were numerous communications with regard to not trespassing or destroying anything on the property (lot one),” she said.
Ashley further contended that she was in Montego Bay, St James and not overseas.
REJECTED CLAIMS
She rejected Holness’ claim that she accused JAJ workers of trespassing, saying instead that she asked her lawyers to write to Holness.
“The thought of having … to ask the same person who has been very aggressive towards anybody on my place to remove a stonewall that has no problems for me simply to pay millions to put it back. That is very, very dishonest,” she said.
Ashley has claimed that sections of her property, including the 10-15 feet of border wall, a doghouse, and several layers of terracing were destroyed by JAJ in a bid to claim portions of lot one that she alleges Holness always wanted.
In her testimony, Holness rejected claims her team destroyed any wall. She admitted to giving instructions for the removal of the doghouse after waiting three to four years for the Ashleys to deal with the issue. She has also insisted that the structure was not “concrete” and was located on the access road which she said runs alongside both lots.
And Ashley said she was left “flabbergasted” on realising that drawings of the development she long requested from Holness, and received in 2019, were approved from 2014.
“All of this could have been avoided had the drawings simply been shared,” she said, calculating that the splintered titles could have been ready from 2016.
Holness’ land surveyor, Donovan Simpson, has dismissed Ashley’s view that the drawings were required to get the titles. He said the drawings would speak to the “future of the development” which was not necessary to get the titles.
Holness has told the court that i n 2013, she discovered that some drawings contained Ashley’s property and were used by the KSAMC to approve a greater number of habitable rooms for the apartment complex than would have been allowed if Ashley’s property was not involved. Holness said the amendment was done in June 2021.
The $800-million complex is about 60 per cent complete with work, according to Holness, stalled since February 2020.
“I cannot complete the development,” she told the court last Wednesday, citing the title issue. She said funds came from investors as she could not use the property as security for loans based on an agreement with Ashley.
The trial will resume on Friday with Ashley continuing to comment on Holness’ witness statement. After that she’ll be cross-examined by Holness’ legal team which is being led by Sidia Smith and Rose Bennett-Cooper from the firm Bennett Cooper Smith.