A HIGH Court judge has wiped the slate clean for former temporary senator and PNM youth officer Ndale Young who was sued by the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB) for monies the bank claimed he owed after defaulting on a mortgage.
Justice Frank Seepersad, in an oral decision, dismissed the ADB’s claim against Young for repayment of a portion of the principal sum and interest arising out of a mortgage/loan agreement with the bank for two parcels of land in Blanchisseuse. Young intended to plant peppers and rear ducks on the land.
The judge said on Wednesday that the court was not satisfied the ADB exercised and ensured a duty of care nor did it fully engage with Young fairly as provided for in the ADB Act which gives the bank the authority to take into consideration hardships faced by farmers before enforcing its debt.
He said now that the slate has been wiped clean, Young no longer owes the ADB anything nor did the bank owe him anything as he had sought compensation as part of his counter-claim.
The judge challenged the ADB to encourage, not discourage, agricultural development because of current threat to food security.
Young entered into the mortgage agreement with the bank in 2009, for $388,000 for the two parcels of land.
He said he encountered difficulties in developing the land as the previous owner allegedly harassed, physically attacked and assaulted him whenever he tried to develop or plant crops. He reported these attacks to the police every time he was prevented from going onto the land.
Young also told the ADB he was further unable to develop the land because of excessive rains during the dry season in 2010.
He told the bank because of these two issues, he was unable to meet the mortgage payments but still made payments up to February 2013.
Sometime in 2011, Young was told by the ADB they were closing his loan facility and that he should look for new buyers for the land. He got someone willing to purchase the properties for $500,000 which would have allowed him to settle the outstanding debt and receive a return on his investment.
The land was eventually sold for $388,000 to another buyer and the ADB sued Young for repayment of the principal which he still owed and the interest on the loan.
His lawsuit contended the ADB acted unfairly and used a fundamentally flawed process in selling the land under value – Young had also provided the court with a valuation report for the land. He contended the ADB's tendering process for the sale of the land was also flawed.
Seepersad agreed that the tendering process used by the ADB was irregular and less than desirable based on the testimony he heard from the ADB’s witnesses and the new purchaser, during at the trial. But, he said, the court did not find the bank acted dishonestly.
He said the bank had a statutory duty to treat farmers fairly and legislation provided that capital and interest payments can be waived for justifiable circumstances.
“The bank has a positive duty to act, investigate and assist farmers with their legitimate p
