The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A fresh bid to resolve the title to two Exuma cays, valued at a collective $29m, has been launched by some of the parties previously ensnared by the Chief Justice’s land fraud conspiracy ruling last year involving the same islands.

Andrew Allen, attorney for Samuel Burrows, who is now seeking to obtain a certificate of title to both Lumber Cay and Jim Cay via the Quieting Titles Act, yesterday asserted to Tribune Business that the new Supreme Court action will “present the true story” concerning ownership of both cays.

Both Mr Allen, son of late finance minister, Sir William Allen, and Mr Burrows, were among those who featured in Sir Ian Winder’s September 12, 2022, verdict where he set aside a previous Certificate of Title to both islands on the basis that it had been obtained via fraud and abuse of the Quieting Titles Act.

The certificate had been obtained by the same Mr Burrows in partnership with Gardie Nixon, with both men represented by Mr Allen. But, slamming the “falsehoods” and “deliberate concealment” employed by the duo to obtain title to the islands, which was granted by the Supreme Court via a different case on July 18, 2017, the Chief Justice said the fraud meant the later sale of both islands to companies owned by a Virginia-based developer, David Tilton, was “null and void”.

His verdict detailed allegations that the two islands were sold to Mr Tilton for a combined $1.8m - a sum equivalent to just 6.2 percent of their combined appraised value. Lumber Cay, in particular, was said to have been appraised at $20m alone, and offers a prime real estate/tourism development opportunity as a 30-acre parcel located just 700 feet south of Staniel Cay, the renowned boating and second home destination.

Mr Allen was also described in the judgment as acting for Mr Tilton and his companies. He was said to have been a president, director and shareholder of Archipelago Development & Resorts III and Jim Cay Company, with Mr Tilton funding the quieting action, but Mr Allen subsequently vehemently denied that there was any land fraud or that he played a role in any such conspiracy, adding that the Chief Justice’s verdict got it “very, very wrong”.

He yesterday told Tribune Business that the latest Quieting Titles petition by Mr Burrows, with Gardie Nixon no longer involved, will expose “the actual story” concerning both cays. Jim Cay is an eight-acre island situated north of Lansing Cay, between Musher and Hog Cay, and Mr Allen said the new action is “based on a completely new set of circumstances” to what was before Sir Ian.

Asserting that there are no plans to ‘flip’, or sell, either cay to Mr Tilton or anyone else should his client be successful, he added that Mr Burrows’ claim is based on a possessory title - meaning that he actually lived on, or worked on, both cays for an extended period of time - “without those documents tying us to” the estate of the late King Richard Nixon, whose other children successfully overturned the previous title certificate in the case before Sir Ian.

“We’ve started it all over again and are testing the question of possession,” Mr Allen told this newspaper. “The court has taken no objection so far.... The issue that’s important to us is that this property is being quieted on the basis of possession, not documentary. Samuel Burrows, there’s sufficient evidence of him being in possession of both cays.”

Sir Ian, in his verdict, found that Mr Burrows “misled the court” by failing to disclose that he was placed on Lumber Cay by Wayde Nixon, a member of the Nixon family, to be a caretaker. And one witness testified in the trial that he had been promised a boat and a house “if he testified that Samuel lived on Lumber Cay for the last 20 years”.

However, Mr Allen yesterday said: “We’re going to present the true story. We have the opportunity to present the actual story. This is Samuel’s possession, and if something was taken fraudulently from King Nixon, then prove it. Prove he owned it and it was taken from him. We’re saying King Nixon’s estate never owned the property.”

Mr Burrows, who is the late King Nixon’s brother-in-law and uncle to all his children, many of whom successfully opposed him in the original Quieting Titles action, will likely fresh challenges and adverse claims from them again over his bid to obtain documentary title to the two cays. However, Mr Allen said the estate holds a confirmatory conveyance, not the original deed, giving him confidence in his client’s claim.

“This is a new action based on a completely new set of circumstances,” he told this newspaper. “What it does reflect is that the Chief Justice did not give the cays to them. He restored the status quo and left the cays in exactly the same condition as before, which made us feel we were entitled to quiet them again.”

Asked if the two cays would be sold if Mr Burrows was successful, Mr Allen replied: “There’s no commercial aspect to this. We’re just quieting.” In a previous interview with this newspaper, Mr Allen said of the Chief Justice’s verdict: “We deny it was fraudulent, and I was not a defendant in the action. We disagree with the finding of fraud profusely.”

He added that his clients had been claiming a possessory title to the two cays, and not relying on King Nixon’s will and purported documentary title. “The focus was to simply show that the estate of King Nixon had no connection to the property,” Mr Allen said.

However, Chief Justice Winder ruled that Mr Tilton and the companies were “not bona fide purchasers for value” under the Quieting Titles Act. “This could not be said to have been an arm’s length transaction,” his verdict said. “Additionally, the ultimate beneficial owner of the purchasers was the person who funded the quieting action.”

The Act only protected “bona fide purchasers for value without notice of fraud”, and the Chief Justice added: “Andrew Allen is a director and controlling mind of the purchasers. Allen is the attorney for the purchasers as well as for Gardie and Mr Burrows in the transaction.

“Allen was also the counsel, and therefore agent, for Gardie and Mr Burrows in the preparation of the quieting action. In the circumstances, given the relationships, I am satisfied that such knowledge of the fraud as Gardie and Samuel may have possessed ought to be imputed to the purchasers.”