Fletcher _Franz_ V Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation.pdf

ut the mortgagee is informed of the sale and through arrangements and undertakingsthe transaction is concluded. However in this sale the mortgagee was insisting that theirformal consent was required and that having not been obtained he was in breach of theterms of the mortgage. He did not think that the position taken by the mortgageecould have prevented him from concluding the sale as he had been advised that itoperated as a bar on his ability to redeem the mortgages. He contended that themortgagee has however, unreasonably persisted with its stance. In the interim the 2 ndclaimants have since repaired the property which the mortgagee would have beenaware of. Notwithstanding all of that, the mortgagee, he said, sought to sell theproperty, firstly by public auction, and then by private treaty, for the sum of US$350,000.00, which would have included the enhanced value of the property.[5] Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it was only the mortgagee’s stance whichprevented the completion of the sale to the 2 nd claimants. He exhibited certain items ofcorrespondence between the attorneys representing the claimants and the mortgagee’sin-house attorney, indicating the purchasers’ financial ability to close the sale, therequest for the relevant documents including the certificate of title and discharge ofmortgage from the respondent, and the respondent’s clear communication that theterms for the release of the title had not been met. The notice to complete and makingtime of the essence was duly served on him.He could not do so, owing, he said, tothe recalcitrance of the respondent. He said that he had even assigned the equity ofredemption to the 2 nd claimants, by authorizing them to pay the closing costs to therespondent and releasing their attorneys from their undertaking to pay those costs to