The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Supreme Court judge has pleaded with a government-owned bank not to proceed with repossessing a couple’s Charlotteville family home after they purportedly made monthly payments plus a $32,000 “lump sum” to bring their mortgage back into compliance.

Justice Camille Darville-Gomez, in a March 11, 2026, verdict urged BISX-listed Bank of The Bahamas, which is 82 percent majority-owned by the Government through the Public Treasury and National Insurance Board (NIB), to resume mortgage restructuring negotiations with Andrew and Natasha Gibson so as to “avert unnecessary hardship” and destabilising their family.

She argued that this may prove a better path for Bank of The Bahamas to recover its depositors’ funds than seizing and ultimately selling-off the Lot 33 home that the family now occupies, having ruled that the “writ of possession” that was served on the couple on November 28, 2025, be “stayed” for 90 days until June 9 this year.

“While the court cannot order the bank to resume restructuring discussions with the defendants, it is appropriate to invite them to consider doing so, particularly given the 90-day stay presently in place and because the defendants are now in possession of the requested documentation,” Justice Darville-Gomez urged.

“Such engagement may secure stability for the defendants' household and avert unnecessary hardship, while at the same time advancing the bank's own interest in recovering its funds through consensual repayment rather than by resort to possession and eventual sale.”

The writ’s serving on the Gibsons occurred more than two-and-a-half years after Bank of The Bahamas obtained the initial April 6, 2023, judgment against the couple over their delinquent mortgage loan. But, despite making efforts to bring the mortgage back into compliance, the BISX-listed lender said they had made “inconsistent and sporadic” payments” with the $90,046 - excluding the $32,000 lump sum - that was received between March 2024 and November 2025 falling short of the $117,600 that was due.

The Gibsons, after finally being served with the “writ of possession” on November 28 last year, applied to the Supreme Court 13 days later, on December 11, 2025, for an Order that the process be stayed on the basis that they had made “consistent monthly payments” in compliance with an agreement with Bank of The Bahamas. They argued that they had also accepted the lender’s proposed mortgage restructuring, and asserted that the bank had moved before the deadline for producing the required documents expired.

The loan, whose repayment the couple had guaranteed, had been taken out in the name of their business, The Heart Services Company, trading as La Scoops Deli & Ice Cream/Island Grubb, in 2013. Justice Darville-Gomez agreed to “stay” the bank’s attempts to seize possession because the Gibsons had negotiated in “good faith” and made payments towards the mortgage of more than $90,000.

“The defendants [the Gibsons] contended that following judgment delivered on April 6, 2023, they made a lump sum payment of $32,000 to the claimant and consistent monthly payments of $5,600 pursuant to an agreement with the claimant, and that negotiations for restructuring of the mortgage were ongoing,” the judge recorded. “They argued that the writ of possession was served before the extended timeline for restructuring expired.

“The claimant [Bank of The Bahamas] disputed the relief sought and maintained its entitlement to enforce possession on several bases, including the defendants' failure to comply with the monthly payments and their failure to comply with the timeline for provision of documents requested for restructuring…

“The claimant, despite its negotiations to restructure, had given several deadlines to the defendants for submission of required documentation which had not been provided. Further, the claimant had made it expressly clear via e-mail that any failure by the defendants to provide the documentation by November 2025 would result in enforcement of its rights under the April 2023 order,” Justice Darville-Gomez continued.

“However, there was a dispute on this issue because the defendants' evidence was that they were given a further extension to December, 2025. In any event, the court took the view that the defendants were on notice from November 2025 of the consequences of non-compliance, and their failure to comply caused the claimant to proceed with service of the writ of possession.”

The Gibsons, though, had made a lump sum payment of $32,000 towards the mortgage arrears in September 2023 and monthly payments thereafter. “Their evidence, which included receipts totaling $39,275, was that they made payments totaling $128,800 from about September 2023 to 7 November, 2025,” Justice Darville-Gomez said.

“On the other hand, the claimant's evidence was that between March 2024 and December 2025 they paid $90,046 excluding the lump sum payment of $32,000. Despite this, the claimant noted that $117,600 ought to have been paid and characterised the defendants' payments as ‘inconsistent and sporadic’.

“In any event, and notwithstanding this, the court was satisfied that the defendants had acted in good faith in pursuing restructuring negotiations, albeit with missed deadlines, and that they reside in the family home with four children, at least one of whom is a minor,” the judge ruled.

“Importantly, the court found that the defendants had made payments of over $90,000 since the date of judgment and therefore the claimant would not be unduly prejudiced by the grant of temporary relief in circumstances where the defendants had at least been servicing the debt up until service of the writ of possession even if inconsistently and sporadically.”