Facts
Procedural History
Issue
As the first applicant received the item that will, later on, be referred to as the immovable property into their possession, the decision regarding its transfer into the possession of the second party (Moore) was considered. The specified procedure was carried out under the aegis of the organization that performed the basic tasks of the third party and arranged the financial issues. The transfer of the property under the new name was followed by a mortgage bond.
However, the bank denied its customer the loan after a careful analysis of the applicant’s financial record and concluding that the recent problems in the economic area. Particularly, the bank doubted the customer’s solvency even though the client submitted payment within the deadline set. More importantly, the subsequent application filed by the customer was declined by the bank along with the rescission request. As a result, a legal motion was filed.
Holding
The key reasons for the court to rule in favor of the applicants concerned the application of rule 42(1)(a) or the common law (Moore and Another v Sheriff 2014, par. 68). Accordion to the above regulation, the following concept needs to be applied to the case to consider it objectively and pass an adequate judgment: “mistake by attorneys – order not erroneously granted – good cause not shown for rescission at common law” (Colyn v. Tigerwood Industries, Ltd. 2002 par. 1).
It should also be mentioned that the fraudulent actions, which the bank took to take illegal possession of the property mentioned above were related to the infamous Brusson scheme, in the course of which “Hundreds of poor people were swindled out of their homes, which they were duped into offering as security to obtain cash” (Rose, Hofstätter, & Plessis, 2010, par. 1).
Judgment
The court ruled in favor of the first applicant. However, the decision made by the judge was made after long considerations of the issue, mainly because of the ambiguity of the issue: “However, I found the applicants’ claim that they had no intent to transfer ownership of the immovable property difficult to reconcile” (Moore and Another v Sheriff 2014, par. 43). Nevertheless, the decision made by the court stated clearly that the applicant was supposed to retrieve the rights for the property, whereas the defendant was supposed to return the latter into the applicant’s possession.
The decision made by the court aligns with the basic principles of the Roman-Dutch Law, particularly, the part of it that addresses the issues concerning mortgage (Shutte, 2012). According to the current interpretation of the subject matter in the stated legal system, “if the acquiring party in good faith obtained a property right from a person lacking the power of disposition, he is protected by law (Article 3:86 DCC)” (Legal system of Civil Law in the Netherlands, 2016, par. 81). The above statement, however, implies a correction, which assumes that the property return is only possible in case of an impeccable financial record of the client.
Analysis (Rationale)
As it has been stressed above, the decision passed by the court aligned with the standards dictated by the Roman-Dutch Property Law, which states that the parties of an agreement are eligible for a reimbursement in case the latter was made as a fraudulent action and, therefore, are eligible for a return of the property under analysis in their possession. Therefore, the Roman-Dutch Property Law mentioned above, in general, and its clause addressing the mortgage issues, in particular, needs to be referred to as the primary reason for the verdict passed by the court.
The lack of clarity in the actions of the bank and the fact that some of the parts of the agreement were not disclosed to the participants served, thus, as the primary reason for the court to rule in favor of the applicant. The court decision can be viewed as sensible and based on a set of reasonable arguments (Mian & Sufi, 2015).
Dicta
Regarding the matter under analysis, the dicta issued by the Supreme Court of Appeal were considered closely so that the decision concerning the case could be made. Although the specified information was not viewed as the primary foundation for making the choice, it, nevertheless, added to the overall assessment of the situation and the understanding of the fraudulence carried out by the organization.
Dissent
As it has been stressed above, the subject matter can be deemed as highly arguable due to the consensual agreement between the parties involved. Therefore, the opinions provided by the opponent do not seem fit for being used as a legitimate dissenting opinion. Although the supposition made by the defendant regarding the possible willingness of Moore and Moore to retrieve a more substantial revenue for the property may be deemed as credible, the lack of proof thereof along with the evidence that supports the plaintiff’s claim serves as sufficient argument against the defendant.
Party’s Arguments
To the credit of the opponent, the arguments represented by both parties could be deemed as well put together. According to the existing transcript of the court procedure, the stance that involved the statement regarding the spate of agreements was very straightforward. In other words, the applicant claimed that selling the property to the defendant was not the target of their negotiation. More importantly, Moore made it very clear that they were unaware of the fact that they were selling the property to the specified party up until the latter came in force and the defendant claimed their right to the property.
The organization representatives, in their turn, argued that the list of primary information concerning the outcomes of the agreement was provided to the parties in question in time. Moreover, Brunson’s strategy incorporated allegations concerning the transparency of the opponents’ motives. Particularly, the entrepreneurship representatives pointed to the fact that the property value may have increased since its purchase. In other words, the company suggested that the applicants filed the motion being fully aware of the agreement implications and willing to earn the benefit on the change in the price for the premises.
Comments
The verdict passed by the jury seems rather sensible given the circumstances. Although the defendant made a rather valid point regarding the awareness of the applicant about the implications of the agreement, the latter still implied concealing essential information from the customers and using their lack of awareness to carry out a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the court ruling seems to be reasonable enough. Moreover, the applicants should have been provided with reimbursements for moral distress. In light of the issues that the specified agreement has triggered, the above step can be viewed as legitimate. By declining the payment submitted by the customer and questioning the solvency of the latter without proper reasons for these doubts, the organization infringed the customer’s rights and, thus, was supposed to be held responsible.
Finally, the fact that the applicants, who suffered from the actions of the organization, had to face a counterclaim filed by the bank can be viewed as the grounds for accusing the latter of a vexatious lawsuit. Therefore, the issue could have been pushed even further, and the applicants could have had an opportunity to receive compensation for the moral distress that the opposing party had exposed them to.
Nevertheless, the overall ruling can be viewed as quite legitimate in terms of Roman-Dutch property law principles. Preventing the further fraudulent actions of the criminals and allowing the people who suffered because of the identified organizations to receive their property back, the court decision can be viewed as fully reasonable and adequate. Therefore, the application of the Roman-Dutch Property Law, particularly, the clause regarding the mortgage issues, can be interpreted as rather legitimate.
In other words, the solution found by the court can be considered a sensible means of addressing the subject matter. The solution located by the court also factors into the framework of the Roman-Dutch legal system with its principles regarding the mortgage-related processes. By ruling in favor of the applicant, the jury showed that the current legal system is founded on sensible concepts and only needs further enhancement so that the possibilities of a mistrial could be driven to zero and that justice should be promoted as the primary concept.
Reference List
Colyn v. Tigerwood Industries, Ltd. 127/2002 (2002).
Legal system of Civil Law in the Netherlands. (2016). Web.
Mian, A., & Sufi, A. (2015). Fraudulent income overstatement on mortgage applications during the credit expansion of 2002 to 2005. Web.
Moore and Another v Sheriff ZAGPJHC 230 (2014).
Rose, R., Hofstätter, S., & Plessis, C. D. (2010). Brusson under fire from investors, banks.Times Live. Web.
Shutte, P. J. W. (2012). The characteristics of an abstract system for the transfer of property in South African law as distinguished from a causal system. Web.