Event and Time
Event Description
The legal dispute revolves around an alleged breach of a contractual agreement involving the sale of two units on a property between Mr. Ghannam and BB&B. The case centers on Mr. Ghannam's equitable interest in the property, secured through a series of agreements, and the actions taken by BB&B regarding the sale and refinancing of the property.
Application and Claims
- Plaintiff (Mr. Ghannam): Asserts an equitable charge and interest over the property due to his payments and agreements with BB&B. Claims that BB&B failed to comply with court orders and did not update him regarding the sale or refinancing process.
- Defendants (BB&B, Danny Basseal, Habib Boustany): Acknowledge Mr. Ghannam's equitable interest but resist the sale of the property on the basis of alleged abuse of process.
Judicial Decisions
The court ordered the judicial sale of the property, finding that there had been a significant default on the part of the first defendant (BB&B) concerning earlier court orders and an obligation to sell or refinance the property.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff’s Claims:
- Mr. Ghannam provided a deposit ($440,000) and received partial interest payments ($17,500), establishing his equitable interest. - Following BB&B's failure to comply with earlier orders, Mr. Ghannam claimed a purchaser's equitable lien based on the Sale Contracts and served notices of rescission. - The Second Caveat was lodged to protect his rights and claim for the return of his deposit.
- Defendants’ Arguments:
- BB&B accepted the existence of an equitable charge but countered the motion for sale on the grounds of abuse of process. - The defense was likely to argue procedural irregularities and their compliance with prior court orders, while failing to substantiate that compliance adequately.