The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Real Estate Association’s (BREA) president yesterday said the legal costs and uncertainty associated with its battle against a former Cabinet Minister had forced it to “shelve plans” beneficial to members.

Carla Sweeting told Tribune Business that BREA had wanted to purchase its own head office and “strengthen the Family Islanders”, but could not progress these initiatives because of the ongoing legal fight with George Smith.

She said the fight, which BREA believes is essential to maintain its integrity and that of the profession’s governing law, was entirely responsible for the financial loss it suffered in 2015.

Financial statements issued at this weekend’s BREA annual general meeting (AGM), and which have been obtained by Tribune Business, reveal that a small 2014 profit of $5,317 became a $123,039 loss in the 12 months to end-December 2015.

BREA’s income from membership (realtor and developer) fees and other activities, such as the Multiple Listings System (MLS) and holding seminars and luncheons, increased slightly year-over-year - from $456,997 to $464,616.

However, the Association’s total operating expenses jumped by 30 per cent year-over-year or more than $135,000, growing from $451,680 the previous year top $587,656.

The greatest jump was in the ‘professional and legal fees’ category, which rose 82.8 per cent - from $112,349 to $205,327.

Several realtors, speaking to Tribune Business on condition of anonymity, expressed concerns with the increased expenses, which they suggested resulted from BREA’s court battle with Mr Smith.

While confirming that this was so, Ms Sweeting told this newspaper that in her opinion, it was a fight worth fighting, and something the Association needed to win.

“He is the reason we have a loss. There’s no doubt about it,” she told Tribune Business, adding that BREA was effectively at a standstill until either the legal action was resolved/finished, or it recovered its legal costs.

“We had plans on the drawing board, but we have had to put those on the shelf,” Ms Sweeting revealed. “We can’t move forward.

“We wanted to strengthen the Family Islanders. We’re a Real Estate Association. We want to buy a building. We’re still renting. We can’t go into that venture without this nightmare coming to an end.”

Mrs Sweeting said BREA’s legal costs were currently “$200,000 and counting”, and she confirmed to the weekend’s AGM that the Court of Appeal had awarded these to the Association following the recent hearing.

Recovering these may well determine how quickly BREA is able to act on its plans, but Ms Sweeting acknowledged that it was having “to pursue a legal process as we speak” to recover them.

She previously hailed the Court of Appeal’s verdict against Mr Smith as “a great day for BREA”, adding that both its integrity - and that of the Real Estate (Brokers and Salesman) Act 1995 - had been “preserved”.

Mr Smith, though, told Tribune Business then that he would “not roll over and play dead”. He promised to continue his legal battle with BREA over his application for restoration of his realtor’s licence.

He confirmed that position to this newspaper yesterday, adding: “It ain’t over yet.”

Mr Smith said he was now pursuing a two-pronged legal strategy, including a Judicial Review of BREA’s actions during the episode that led to to him launching legal action.

He added that he and his attorney, Raynard Rigby, were also planning to amend the initial case. Mr Rigby had previously described the Court of Appeal verdict as “a small victory for BREA”, adding that the matter had been sent back to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal overturned Justice Fraser’s original May 12, 2015, decision, in favour of Mr Smith’s argument that BREA had violated section 35 of the 1995 Act.

This requires the Real Estate Board to give a hearing to all applications made to it under that law.

The application in this case was one by Mr Smith for ‘re-registration’, after his name was published in a newspaper advertisement among 70 realtors who had failed to pay their due licence fees.

Those realtors ceased to be registered under the Real Estate (Brokers and Salesman) Act 1995, and were no longer authorised to engage in the real estate business.

Ms Sweeting argued then that the Board felt Mr Smith never applied for such a hearing in his July 21, 2014, letter to them – a position the judge disagreed with.

Mr Smith was granted a declaration that BREA’s refusal to renew his licence and membership violated the 1995 Act’s provisions, and was “against administrative jurisprudence and the law generally”.

The Supreme Court also Ordered that Mr Smith’s damages, which he alleged to be $250,000, be assessed by the Supreme Court registrar. Both the declaration and damages assessment Order have, though, been overturned by the higher court.

Ms Sweeting yesterday argued that BREA had no choice but to continue opposing Mr Smith, as a different verdict would pave the way for “a free for all” when it came to realtor licence fees and the timeliness of payments.

“BREA is about following the rules and the Act,” she reiterated. “We’re not about making personal decisions. It’s about the membership, all of them, from Inagua to Grand Bahama.

“This is my last year as president. It would be very unfair for anyone else to put the time I’ve had to put into this [legal battle]. But I have a very strong Board and a very good vice-president to fill my shoes next year whether this is over or not.”

Ms Sweeting added that out of 500-600 BREA members, just five-six were backing Mr Smith. Two of the latter happen to be past presidents, William Wong and Patrick Strachan.