Mae’s school litigation settled – Hughes

Attorney Nigel Hughes says that the civil action brought against him by the Proprietress of Mae’s School over a Subryanville property was settled yesterday with the paying of arrears to him which were then paid over to the Hand-in-Hand Mutual Life Insurance Company.

Hughes had sold the Lot 29, Third Avenue property in 2006 to Mae’s Proprietress, Mayfield French-Rodrigues with an existing mortgage on it. Only a portion of the purchase price had been paid by French-Rodrigues to Hughes and the mortgage to Hand-in-Hand remained unsettled. Hand-in-Hand  was later granted a foreclosure order, putting a wing of the school in jeopardy. French-Rodrigues then moved to the  court against Hughes and Hand-in-Hand.

In a statement yesterday at an AFC press conference, Hughes said that  “The civil action brought by the purchaser was today settled with the purchaser paying me the balance of the purchase price along with the arrears  which were paid over to Hand in Hand Mutual Life Insurance Company which has agreed to cancel the mortgage forthwith. The transport is to be passed to the Purchaser by the Registrar of the High Court.”

Nigel Hughes
Nigel Hughes

He also took aim at reports in the Guyana Chronicle on the matter and provided details on the transaction. Hughes, Chairman of the Alliance For Change (AFC)  charged that the expressed statements and inferences related in the various Chronicle publications are that the purchaser was unaware of the existence of a mortgage on the property at the time of her purchase  of it or at any time after that.

He said that on the 24th day of February 2006, he sold the aforementioned property to the purchaser for the sum of twenty million dollars.

“There was an express reference in the agreement to the existence of the mortgage under the heading “special condition”.  A copy of the agreement of sale signed by the parties highlighting this is attached.

“It is useful to note that in the ex parte application to the court in the civil proceedings brought by the purchaser against me, no reference is made to the fact that the purchaser was aware of the existence of the mortgage or that there was reference to it in the agreement of sale. It was conveniently omitted.

“The purchaser  was clearly aware at the time of the purchase of the property that there was an existing mortgage on the property  as this was recorded on the transport since the execution of the mortgage on the 16th February 1998.  A copy of the transport with the mortgage annotated thereon is attached”, he stated.

He said that the most important fact which seems to have escaped the PPP and their propaganda machinery  is that at the time of the signing of the agreement a  deposit of $4 million was paid and the outstanding balance of $16 million was in excess of the sum owing on the Hand-in-Hand mortgage. He said that an additional $8 million was paid when French-Rodrigues took possession of the property in 2006, leaving a balance owed of $8 million.

He said that the conveyance of the property was advertised in the Official Gazette on the 3rd February 2007 and was not opposed by Hand-in-Hand or any other person.

However, the balance of the purchase price, ($8 million)  owing on the agreement since 2006 was not paid to him until yesterday. He said this is despite the millions the purchaser stated she invested in the property.

“This  payment  along with the arrears in mortgage payments were paid over to Hand-In-Hand Mutual Life Insurance Company yesterday  to liquidate  all the outstanding sums due owing on the mortgage”, he said.


About these comments

The comments section is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity.