Ex-minister’s land dispute troubles roll on
(CNS): Mike Adam, the one-time community affairs minister in the last of the UDP administrations, is still embroiled in a land dispute with his neighbour over access rights that no one in authority seems to want to resolve. Once again, stones have been placed across an access road preventing the Adam family from getting to their West Bay home. The family has been embroiled in a dispute for more than four years with their neighbour, Wilson Mendoza, because he does not accept their prescriptive right of access across his land.
While the authorities have said this is a civil case, it has already boiled over into the criminal courts after arguments between the two families became heated. As a result, Adam and his son were prosecuted for common assault and the family is currently under a court order to keep away from Mendoza, who has challenged the legality of Adam’s access.
Since then, Mendoza has continued to use various means, including chains, to block the family’s access, even though Lissa Lane, the road in question, was formally gazetted in 2019 as a public road. This weekend Mendoza again blocked the access, but this time with rock boulders, preventing the Adam family from getting out of their home. But given the current court constraints on them, they are unable to remove the blockage.
Billy Adam, Mike’s brother, contacted the police at the weekend and asked them to observe him removing the stones to avoid any potential future allegations against the family. But he was fobbed off as the police have been reluctant all along to get involved, despite the family’s lawful access rights.
Past meetings with the police commissioner failed to persuade the RCIPS that they do need to become involved because the constant blocking of the road is unlawful, given the access rights. Eventually, an officer did arrive, but the boulders have reappeared as the saga rolls on.
Billy Adam contacted various politicians, including the premier, and other authorities via email this week about the ongoing issue and pointed out the consistent failings by those in power regarding his brother’s problems as well as the failure to uphold access rights more broadly across the Cayman Islands.
Billy Adam pointed out that the right of way being used by his brother has been an access point for over 50 years, and while the police charged his brother for objecting to his home being blocked off, they have failed to bring charges against his neighbour for violating those rights and breaching the Penal Code.
“Some of you use roadways that are actually rights of way to access your homes; you are potentially in the same situation as my brother and his family,” Adam said in his email, urging someone to act and put an end to the nightmare that is taking a serious toll on the family.
“The long-known deficiencies in law to make blocking a registered or prescriptive rights of way a criminal violation are well known to all in Government. Since the 1960s, these problems have been discussed in the Legislative Assembly, now Parliament, but that is it, ‘discussed’, another waste of expensive time. Without resolution of the problems the Caymanian people have been the long-term losers, while the politicians reap the benefits of working for their Developer Masters,” said Billy Adam, who is a long-time community activist.
He told CNS that after years of community work trying to protect access rights, he firmly believes that government will not deal with this long-standing and broad problem because of pressure from wealthy landowners and developers, who want to ensure the land they already own or buy is not “encumbered” with access rights that have to be accommodated.
In the meantime, Billy Adam is hoping that more of Mike’s neighbours in West Bay will continue to help keep the right of way clear and uphold everyone’s lawful access until someone in authority properly upholds the principles of prescriptive rights everywhere, once and for all.
See video footage below:
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News
I see no way out of this mess between the parties involved. It may take generations to come to finally resolve this dispute. A generation that could produce a more logical and kinder understanding into the matter. MAYBE an Adam and a Mendoza will elope in the distance future and that union may combine both assets into one entity. We have to make way, teach, inspire, and set examples for our future generations to learn from. This is a prime example on how NOT to live. To the future generations –
look,laugh,learn,love & live a joyful life.
It’s time for the Adams to wake up from that nightmare they all insist to be in. There is no such thing as “blocked road access” to the Adams home, there are two real road accesses on their property that are clearly visible on the main road with gates and locks that belong to the Adams. Wake up and use them, just like you all have been doing from the 14th of February. All of you know that those accesses are real but prefer to pretend to be suffering to the world.
The only material thing that can be slightly damaged if you use your land for access would be the grass, but for God’s sake, you insist to use our land and are putting our 3 children at risk. In particular, our 10-year-old son Adrien, which you all are aware has a minor congenital abnormality to his right ear and it prevents him from hearing in stereo mode as the average person. In other words, at times he can’t differentiate directional hearing.
AS SUCH, WE WILL CONTINUE TO UTILIZE ALL OUR POWERS TO MAKE IT STOP.
I’m done commenting!
Yes apparently it’s time to stop commenting, sir, and to go read the order for injunction.
Let me make it clear…
There was no easement over Parcel 4B 3 (Mendoza’s land) registered in favor of Parcel 4B 2 (Adams land) when we purchased Parcel 4B 3 on the incumbrances section of the Land Register for Parcel 4B 3.
This might be slightly technical for some of you to understand, but I surely know that the Government officials know exactly what I’m talking about.
For one, by provisionally approving an Easement by Prescription Vehicular Right of Way (VRO) running parallel to each other (just over Mendoza’s parcel 4B 3) to the Proprietors Michael Adam and Lissa Adam of (4B 2) over an already existing VRO which was registered on 16/10/73 over our land as clearly evident on the Land Registry and indicated on the Registry Map.
Now, even though the law states that – “Access routes depicted on maps are indicative location only, and may not represent the true ground position until detailed survey” the Registrar still approved it. She also stated that to be fair, she wouldn’t grant a new one unless the old one was removed. Particularly, since she had received evidence from both parties that proved (old one) it was abandoned / never used.
Well, guess what, she never removed it and left two VROs burdening our property. However, the decision of the Registrar of Lands in this matter is not enforceable by police absent a Court order and penal notice as she has no power.
Hence, the right of way begins at the end of King Road across from Jude’s Lane and ends on our property. However, the owners of the lots to the East of us 4B 4, 4B 8 & 4B 9 were not initially dragged into this mess. In other words, the Registrar provisionally approved the VRO just over our parcel even though she knew that the Adams must cross all the adjoining parcels mentioned before reaching ours.
In a nutshell, the Adams have never acquired the right to cross those parcels. Between 1989 – 2019, on various occasions, the owners have verbally spoken with Mr. Mike Adam and advised him that the path over their land (4 B8 & 4 B9) was not meant for continuous use. The Adams family and guests over the course of the years have continued to trespass over their land against their will.
The Registrar also knew this and two sworn affidavits from the owners of the parcels (4B 8 & 4B 9) mentioning of such, would have squashed the whole prescriptive right application. Particularly since the owners have owned their land in excess of over 30 years.
However, my wife and I from late 2016, and it would’ve been difficult to prove as we were not the previous owners thereof for a period of twenty years.
So, the Adams does not have an easement on/over Parcel 4B 4, Parcel 4B 8, and Parcel 4B 9 registered in favor of their Parcel 4B 2 on the incumbrances section of the Land Register for Parcel 4B 4, Parcel 4B 8, and Parcel 4B 9.
However, as of July 10, 2019, I have permission to cross those parcels that are owned by Crosby Collymore Ebanks and Mario Alberto Gomez as it is on the incumbrances section of the Land Register for Parcel 4B 3 (Mendoza’s land).
Wow, what a screw-up! What can the Government do to fix this mess she created? Attempt to take proprietor’s land.
Videos surely don’t lie Mr. Mendoza.
https://youtu.be/3sgB5PBS3lk
The registrar and NRA have some explaining to do me thinks?
Seems like both parties are acting like two-year olds. Watching the video where Mr. Mendoza blocks the road, and the satisfaction he seems to express whilst doing so, seems a bit immature. On the other hand, previous videos have shown Mr. Adam and visitors driving recklessly whilst passing Mr. Mendoza’s property and young child. If there are additional ways for Mr. Adam to access his property, there is no reason for him not to use them…and put an end to this childish behaviour.
If someone plans on going visible, you just have to turn the volume way up and employ the power of the press to shed light on the issues that have been outstanding for a while.
I honestly believe that the private ownership of land should be respected above all else in this situation. It is reasonable and understandable that easements are sometimes necessary to other landowners to access their property, no doubt. But it cannot be reasonable to the landowner over whose land the easement is should be expected to permanently live with that situation if it takes away from peaceful enjoyment of his own property. It should be reasonable to expect of perhaps government to review the easement on request, especially if circumstances changed over the years which could be very well the case here. Some comments keep referring to the significant time the easement has been used 30, 40 years – the only relevance is that after 20 years of using the access it becomes an ‘easement’ and to be treated as such. It should be noted its an ‘easement’ and not a public road. The RCIP is therefore correct to not take action as the easement is on private property. Easements can be modified by the Court or by both property owners if they can come to an agreement. For one property owner to expect an easement over someone else’s land to simply become a public road because its convenient for them is absolutely untenable.
Options to consider:
(1) Mr.Adam becomes very generous and considers the other access points to his property
(2) On Mr.Mendoza’s land the easement is moved to go along the boundary of his property. I suspect this might result in more loss of land for Mr.Mendoza but at least his land is then not bisected. If the Court is willing to consider this option one would think they would also consider that circumstances in the surrounding area have changed from 40 years ago in that vicinity and the easement is no longer necessary. Who knows. 🙂
You nailed it Peter…exactly my point.
We live in a generation of emotionally weak people, everything has to be watered down because it’s offensive, including the truth.
So you are trying to rewrite the laws of the jurisdiction? Tell us, what other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth allows a landowner to extinguish encumbrances such as registered easements, “at will”.
Unless you can do that and can convince the parliament (and thereafter the UK) to undo 100s of years of the land ownership systems, you’re not going to get very far.
But hey, go for it and see how it goes.
In the mean time the torrens system of land titles protects both legal owners, interested third parties and prospective buyers alike.
I think you just don’t like how it is, and this is all sour grapes.
Well said.
We don’t know how our story will end, but nowhere in our text will it ever read… “We gave up!!”
Standing your ground and not giving up is commendable, provided the legal basis is solid and it is an important stance to take.
On the other hand, Mr. Mendoza, making a public spectacle of majoring on minors and causing this negative attention, whether intended or not, is ill-advised and unproductive in remedying (but rather perpetuates) this problem.
Love thy neighbor as thy self. Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
Your best option at this point, Mr. Mendoza, is to actually give up and stop trying to win this legal dispute in the court-of-public-opinion.
Life goes on and, in Cayman, you are isolating yourself from potential sympathizers and damaging chances of remedying this matter.
Under this right, “property” we have a right to enjoy the land that we own, we will continue to stand up for what we believe in, even if it means standing by myself. I’m my own person. I’m in charge of what I do. I get to decide what I want and what I like. WE REFUSE TO WILLINGLY GIVE UP OUR PERSONAL FREEDOM BY SIMPLY BEING A FACELESS BODY IN THE CROWD. It’s a right that we all have and is such a shame not to fully exercise it. Because even if I’m standing alone, I’ll know for a fact that it was my choice.
Seems to that the NRA need to be investigated as to why they gazetted this private easement? A cabinet decision…. why? Has compensation been paid to Mr Mendoza? and why after being gazetted the NRA have not built the road to the standards they maintain are needed for them to take over these private roads?
Cool story bro. But Mr. Mendoza a tall horse often shits on itself. Unfortunately you are not seeing that you are indirectly affecting the community that surrounds you, and so you have lost the respect of many more, that you do not even know. You live in Cayman and yet are blind to Cayman. What lesson have you learned in all this time?
Mr Mendoza may I suggest you stop trying to win in the court of public opinion – you are losing and will continue to lose. Your words and your actions are antagonizing to all and you’re only making yourself even more disliked. Unfortunately for you, even if you win in the eyes of the law, you will still have lost.
There is obviously a mutual dislike between the parties.
This sounds like a lawyer’s dream.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and the red mist will dissipate?
This is a civil dispute over land by two property owners. It should never have become public AND could have been resolved amicably thru the civil court without involving the police or community at large. The police is NOT an arbitrator in land dispute. Stop trying to push blame to the police and government. This should have remained a private matter. There are hundreds of land disputes in the Cayman Islands that are not in the public domain.
It’s a properly gazetted public road. That means that every member of the public is allowed access to the road and therefore cannot be a private matter between just two individuals.
Is that really true though?
Yes.
No, it’s not. Its an easement over private land. It’s not a public road. Even Mr. Adam acknowledges that he can’t wait for it to become a public road…
How it became a “properly gazetted public road” is another question. Look at all the developments in Cayman that have hundreds of people living on roads originally put in by developers where the government has steadfastly refused to gazette them so they can avoid the cost of maintaining them. Yet this little track with 4 houses on it gets gazetted, but only once Mendoza starts restricting access? Sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Adam is a former minister.
NRA should be asked to comment?
But its not properly gazetted, only the intend to gazette.
The Adams’ land has benefit of a legally registered easement/right-of-way which goes through the Mendoza property and connects with the public road.
It has been on the Lands and Survey maps for many years. I have online access to those maps and it clearly shows Lissa LN as a public road.
In 2019 government gazetted a plan to widen the road which can be seen here on page 6.
http://gazettes.gov.ky/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/12852497.PDF
Quite obviously Crosby (owner of 4B9) and Gomez (owner of 4B8) will side with Mendoza (whose land the road splits into two) as they stand to lose 0.10 acres and 0.09 acres of land respectively by the road being widened.
The only thing that I don’t understand is the police calling it a civil matter when a public road is being blocked.
Thanks, but that notice refers to the widening of the road, not making it a ‘public road’. Is there another notice declaring Lissa Lane as a public road?
You’re grasping at straws. When has the National Roads Authority ever served notice that they were going to widen someone’s private road?
They do on the Brac…and tarmac it?
And the Governor grins.
And the Commissioner says the crime situation is stable.
And Franz tells us the civil service is world class.
I wonder if NRA paid Mr Mendoza any compensation for the land acquisition for the public road to go across his land?
Why would NRA gazette a private right of way? Questions need to be asked of the NRA!
No man it gazette. Look it up or ask them people at NRA
Civil disputes become part of the public record the moment that a statement of claim is filed at court.
Whats happening here? Is there no other access? Or is someone being a pain because they have always done something illegal and no one told them no. If there is no other access I can see the problem. But currently I just see someone being upset because they can’t get thier way anymore
@12.22am It is a public road. It’s gazetted. It has been used for over 40 years. Anyone can drive over it, that is until [he] decided to block it.
Or another way to look at it. Mr.Adam had the benefit for 40 years on driving on a road that was on private land and at no cost to him for maintenance etc. But that benefit needs to come to an end if it become burdensome for owner of that land.
Unfortunately not when it’s a Registered right of way. No one can take that away, especially to a home that’s landlocked.
How the landowners before didn’t stop Adams from using the road.
Its Mr. Mendoza’ parcel of land that’s landlocked. Mr. Adam has access points through his other parcels of land.
Surely there is a way to reverse an easement when appropriate?
Show the people and stop posting videos. Post the maps
Sir, you do not understand how rights of way work. A right of way once established and registered cannot be taken away. Do some reading before you say somethin that has not basis.
I have, have you? 🙂
Right of way can be taken away and cancelled.
From the Registered Land Act: “95. (1) Upon presentation of a duly executed release in the prescribed form the registration of the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants shall be cancelled, and the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants shall thereupon be extinguished”.
And:
“96. (1) The court shall have power, on the application of any person interested in land affected by an easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants by order wholly or partially to extinguish or modify any such easement,…”
You gave reference to section 95, but I don’t see where the Adams’ have presented a release of the easement. Based on the story so far it sounds pretty unlikely!! It was also pretty unlikely to have been of any use when your client, being on notice of the registered easement, purchased the land in the first place.
So there is no value in referring to it.
You have posted only an excerpt of Section 96.
The balance of 96:
easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants (with or without payment by the applicant of compensation to any person suffering loss in consequence of the order), ON BEING SATISFIED THAT —
(a) by reason of changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood or other circumstances of the case which the court deems material, the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants ought to be held to be obsolete; [NO SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS THE CASE HERE]
(b) the continued existence of the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants impedes the reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes without securing practical benefits to other persons or, as the case may be, will unless modified so impede such user to a different extent, from that which could reasonably have been foreseen by the original parties to the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenant at the time of its creation; [OBVIOUSBTHAT THIS CREATES A BENEFIT TO THE ADAMS’]or
(c) the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the person entitled to the benefit of the easement, profit, positive or restrictive covenants. [SUSPECT THAT THE ADAMS COULD EASILY ARGUE THAT TO DISCHARGE WOULD BE INJURIOUS – THEY DO USE THIS ROW – at least when it isn’t blocked]
Alll this on top of the fact that Mendoza keeps blocking it without a court order backing his personal decision to do so. There is case law suggesting that the Adams, raced with a blocked ROW, could drive with impunity across any other part of the property given that the burdened landowner has blocked the prescribed one]
Hello! Just to clarify a few points:
1. I was only making reference to sections 95 and 96 to highlight that easements can be removed, and of course there will be conditions. On section 95, agreed that it may be unlikely but persons of good character and the neighborly thing to would be to sit down and have the discussion. So far I’ve only seen Mr.Mendoza imploring for this approach. The comment being responded to and also made by others appears to indicate once an easement is set that it is permanent which is clearly incorrect (I believe based on these sections).
2. Mr.Mendoza is not my client. I’m assuming Mr. Adam is also not your client. 🙂
On to the conditions of 96, in response to your points:
(a) [NO SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS THE CASE HERE] Really? You mean to say or suggest that in 40 years West Bay and the area in question hasn’t changed much in character? Are you sure all the roads in the surrounding area were there 40 years ago?
(b) [OBVIOUSBTHAT THIS CREATES A BENEFIT TO THE ADAMS’]or Of course Mr. Adam benefits and has been benefiting for many decades from that access. But today at greater cost to someone else, Mr.Mendoza. 40 years ago it is quite possible that Mr.Mendoza’s land was undeveloped and the owners at the time had no intention to do anything with the land in question, meaning very little inconvenience/cost to the then owners. There is now clearly a homestead on the property, family and kids living there. I would argue that this particular sub-section is very relevant in that the easement clearly impedes the current user “that was likely not reasonably foreseen” (Have you seen the video footage of Mr. Adam’s family racing through with utter impunity and disrespect?).
(c)[SUSPECT THAT THE ADAMS COULD EASILY ARGUE THAT TO DISCHARGE WOULD BE INJURIOUS – THEY DO USE THIS ROW – at least when it isn’t blocked] – Not so. If its replaced with an alternative option they are no worse off. The comments in this article keep on implying that this must be the access point for Mr. Adam, and if not all hope is lost! That is simply just not the case. It’s just an access point to their property, they occupy that space on the easement for perhaps a couple of seconds at a time when passing through (given the speeds they driving through it is probably a few seconds less that it should be!).
Curious….does anyone know the speed limit on such a road? I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that if not posted, the law is 15mph?
Based on the videos, looks like anyone driving on that road is doing about that. Unless Mendoza is doctoring his videos to make it look faster?
Things like this only go on so long before they turn into a Dateline story. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone has that point where they snap and the laws won’t protect you then. You can be a model citizen for 50 years and it only takes an unreasonable idiot who keeps pushing buttons to break you.
Yes, and then somebody makes a trebuchet to zing those nasty little rocks back, and everybody in the neighborhood is shaking their heads sadly and lamenting on what a sad thing has happened.
This has got to stop. This will only escalate to a critical level. It can go nowhere else, and in my opinion, the RCIPS are taking the wrong view by choosing to interpret the law in a manner which excludes their proper response. Are they choosing to respond AFTER critical things happen? Is this the goal? NO! So do some [expletive] intervention folks! Talk to your Commissioner/Superintendent, and get this crap sorted out, please, for the sake of the community and the families at stake. Please. This has gone on too long. It MUST be settled.
Well said.
Mendoza: You brought an action against the government alleging breach of property rights etc under the Constitution. You lost on every point. Yes, you have appealed it. But the law is that you should, in the meantime, obey the ruling. Yes, the Adams have to go to court. But this would have been unnecessary if the government had prosecuted you for the crime of persistently blocking a registered right of way which amounts to harassment etc (of the Adam family) under the Penal Code.
Well said.
agree 100%
CNS – Let me post this comment again but on the main thread. Thanks
The Adams did file a civil lawsuit. Here’s the letter I sent the Adams attorney Waide DaCosta on Monday, January 11, 2021.
As of today, it’s 412 days in non-compliance.
Dear Mr. DaCosta,
On Thursday, November 19, 2020, a statement of claim from Plaintiffs, Michael Thomas Adam and Lissa Ann Adam was served with the writ to the Defendants, Wilson Jonathan Mendoza and Deaven Ann Mendoza.
On November 30, 2020, the Defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service (AS) with the Civil Registry giving notice of intentions to contest the action along with the defence and counterclaim all within 14 days of service. Thus far, it’s been over 42 days and the Plaintiffs haven’t filed any reply (particularly as the Defendants have raised new allegations of fact) and any answer to the counterclaim.
On December 16, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Cassandra Cole from the Civil Registry department confirmed she had emailed you the stamped and sealed AS, along with the defence and counterclaim for your records on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 3:00 PM. I believe a copy was previously placed in your Court office post box.
As such, the Plaintiffs are not complying with the following procedural requirements.
1. The Plaintiffs have failed to extend subsequent deadlines by agreement between the parties or by way of court order;
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to file a defence to a counterclaim within the allotted time;
3. The Plaintiffs have failed, unreasonably, to take steps to bring the case to trial.
Further, the whole of the Plaintiff’s claim has no prospect of success or, in respect of their claim for damages, the Plaintiffs have no prospect of recovering more than nominal damages.
And Further, the Defendants will not discontinue an action or counterclaim or withdraw a particular claim made by them. If the Plaintiffs apply for the grant to the discontinuance of action, etc., with leave, the Defendants will still bring forth their counterclaim against the Plaintiffs by filing their own Plaint afterwards.
Regards,
Wilson Mendoza
Wilson Mendoza the simple fact is you’re being a jerk (that the kind version) because you feel the law allows you to do so. You’re in someone else’s country trying to deny the locals access to their own home. That’s the simple reality no matter what legal arguments you want to make. Caymanians by and large have lived with right of ways to each other’s homes commonly and been good neighbors throughout our history. You are now a cautionary tale about importing values of others and the poster child for being the worst in what a neighbor can be.
Nativism is disgusting. Nativism this blatant is racism pure and simple. The law is secondary to place of birth to this idiot.
Well said my friend. Let’s all just get along with each other. We’re all in the same boat.
Sounds like Mendoza has some points of his own. Don’t know who is right but there’s like a thousand years of law about these things. It will never be resolved unless a court decides. Everybody stop whining and go to court. Otherwise, I don’t want to hear about it because yoy’re not serious.
go to arbitration…job done in a week.
You have to get consent from both parties.
Peace-Love
Get on with your lives . Have an (Access blocked) street grill session and some beer with Tiki torch lights & make an attempt to be civil respectful neighbors until such time as C.I.G can resolve the access issue to everyone’s satisfaction .Christ , how hard would that be to accomplish ?
You are an antagonizer and taking law into your own hands because the situation you’re in is no longer convenient for you. You said yourself that you knew you had to get access to your property through other land owners when you purchased the land. But, when it comes to people using your land to get to their homes, it’s a huge problem.
The stories you linked say that you have to traverse property owned by at least three other landowners to access your own parcel. In fact, you had received a discount when you purchased the property because of the loss of use of that portion of land.
On a tranquil, peaceful island such as this, was it really necessary to start a war with your neighbors over such a trivial thing as a road that happens to go by your property? Especially since you do THE EXACT same thing to access your own property…
If you look at the map you will see the road goes along the borders of the other properties, and not cut through anyone’s property. So not exactly the same.
Goes through the middle of other properties for owners to access their lands. I believe his friend Crosby Ebanks owns the majority of the land in the area.
I’ll concede there is some similarity. Although those are separate parcels (even if owned by same owner) so at least some expectation roads can be built on those boundaries. Mr. Mendoza’s parcel is being split in two with the road which seems a strange approach.
Hmmm, but it’s not something new. That’s the bigger picture, he purchased the property knowing this according to all sources, land records, realtors, sellers. So why is he causing such havoc now? Just doesn’t make sense. He really should have researched more and understood what it all meant. He’s just being a silly man now, goodness.
Maybe. But it doesn’t mean he is wrong.
Yeah it do
Would he rather be right?
Or happy?
Even if he is right, he should not be blocking an existing right of way until he has a court order.
If he needs to pass through 3 other properties, then simply move the rocks to block his access?
are you saying its not a registered access?
There is both a Registered Vehicular Right of Way AND a Prescriptive Right of Way!
What will happen if emergency vehicles need to get in there ?
Exactly. It is my understanding that Mrs. Adam is not doing well with the current situation and it has taken a toll on her health.
I pray for her and Mr. Adam.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, “for example, recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and upholding international law.
The Supreme Court also recognises that some Acts of Parliament have special constitutional status, and are therefore part of the constitution. These include Magna Carta, which in 1215 required the King to call a “common counsel” (now called Parliament) to represent people, to guarantee fair trials, etc…
The Cayman Islands Constitutional Order 2009 is the highest law of the land. It establishes the system of governance, creates procedures and structure for the government and sets out the government’s powers.
If you and I must follow the law, the government and its agents must follow the Constitution.
The Government cannot take away our property or place restrictions on our use of our property without very good reason. If the Government plans to take our property there must be laws in place for such action. It must also have a procedure to check that a fair balance has been struck between the public interest in acquiring our property and our right to property.
This right is a qualified right.
Typically, public use has been defined as government projects intended to bring a benefit to its citizens, such as widening or laying a public road.
With that being said, who were they proposing to lay the public road for? The 3 petitioners including myself, Crosby Collymore Ebanks, and Mario Alberto Gomez (citizens) primarily the entire owners of the land that is required to lay a new public road refuse to give the Adams access to a portion of our property and have objected to the proposal.
Doesn’t the Government get it? The easement was not meant for continuous use. Who the heck unlawfully attempts to gazette to build a public road (without public interest) bisecting someone’s land? Roads are primarily built along boundaries.
I suppose my neighbor Mike Adam being a former community affairs minister and having three other means of access to two main roads on their 2.50 acres of properties without the need of crossing ours is considered public interest…
I mentioned the Governor in this post because he is the ultimate decision-maker empowered to authorize the taking of land as a public road. This is done on advice from the Roads Authority and as the law states has to be in the public interest. Which in this case there isn’t, as the government is unable to justify its taking by failing to provide an adequate public purpose. This decision was not property taken and was motivated by ulterior motives.
Furthermore, it is unlawful for a public official to make a decision or to act in a way that is incompatible
with the Bill of Rights unless the public official is required or authorised to do so by primary legislation, in which case the legislation shall be declared incompatible with the Bill of Rights and the nature of that incompatibility shall be specified.
And furthermore, there appears to be no right of appeal against their decision. The lack of a right of appeal is in breach of Article 15 of the Bill of Rights. Under this, the government shall not interfere with our peaceful enjoyment of our property and shall not compulsorily take possession of same except in accordance with the law (here the Roads Law) and where there is a provision in the law for securing a right of access to the Grand Court whether direct or on appeal from the decision.
The Roads Law is contrary to the Bill of Rights and we should be granted the right to appeal this decision as a judge has not approved an order to possess our land.
As such, our constitutional rights are being violated on the issue of the failure to grant a right of appeal and we will continue to fight to ensure that the Bill of Rights is not an empty promise.
It seems you had the RIGHT to Object and Appeal within the given time frame when you were notified.
It seems you had the RIGHT to a Hearing and the Magistrate Richards ruled AGAINST you on October 4, 2021 in favour of the Governor and NRA.
It seems you had the RIGHT to Appeal the Magistrate’s ruling, which you have done.
What exactly is your point about NOT having RIGHTS?
You knew the situation when you bought the land and still you bought it, that was your RIGHT. A dumb decision but nevertheless, your RIGHT! 🤣🤣🤣
“In favour of the Governor and NRA.”
You clearly have not read the Judgement and/or understood it…
The Petition was dismissed because as provided for by s.15 of the BoR in that the right of access to the Grand Court is provided by other means. “Judicial review”
In her opinion, Honourable Justice Cheryll Richards Q.C. having considered all the circumstances and the submissions made, The Roads Act is not incompatible with the right of the Petitioners and The right of the Petitioners to a fair trial has not been infringed because this matter should have been put forth for Judicial review.
So are you out of time / in breach of Order 53 GCR?
There is no Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Yes, apart from that Supreme Court there isn’t one.
Look at this pesky fake website https://www.supremecourt.uk/
Yes, the UK Supreme Court is now what the House of Lords was, which the final court of appeal in England.
Her Majesty’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands.
Wait, setting everything else aside, you bought land that clearly had had been used as access (for a long time and set out writing as an encumbrance on the land register) and and now you are saying you surprised and disappointed that someone is allowed to use it?
And you want to use antagonism (physical blockages and court proceedings) to try and change that?
Sorry bud, you will get zero sympathy from me. If you wanted a plot that didn’t permit access you should have bought one that didn’t have this issue in the first place. Especially one that had it Stamped on the Land Register as a notice to all who might buy it. That’s just common sense.
Who was your lawyer when you purchased it- maybe you should redirect your frustrations to them.
I thought it was NOT registered as an encumbrance on the land register.
It WAS and IS.
I thought i saw a comment somewhere that when Mr.Mendoza purchased the land there was no encumbrance registered. Would be great to see confirmation one way or another.
Lands and Survey can clear that up for you. Also believe Cayman Marl Road did huge coverage on it with all the maps and land registers and stuff. She really got it right!
Even CMR acknowledges it is his property, and that is the key point. There is no road. Only an easement.
“the minimum width of an easement is 12 feet, and that is what Mendoza has allowed over his property.”
https://caymanmarlroad.com/wilson-mendoza-threatens-to-kill-over-land-dispute/
The plot can be Mendoza’s property and still carry the burden of a right of way in favor of a neighboring parcel. Which is the case here.
Well said.
Why are humans such dickheads? Everyone has a limited time on this planet, and this is how some people choose to spend it.
It’s just a dirt road. Chillax & live in peace brother.
Well said. Better to stay off the pavement, if one has such a choice. Cleaner air. Cleaner everything.
Basically, if that’s the only access route to the dwelling, and it’s been in place for over 20 years, or the lifetime of the structures, then that’s the deal. All that’s left to sort out are registered easements and covenants where Adams covers maintenance costs. If there is an alternate, perhaps longer access route available, and this other route has evolved as the more expedient route out of laziness, then that’s a tresspass matter.
Only access to the dwelling since 1970s. It is a Prescriptive Right of Way AND a Registered Vehicular Right of Way. All on Land Register.
I publicly stated my intentions on December 5, 2021.
Please see below for ease of reference.
Mike Adam, I hope this post finds you. As I will state some facts just so that the public is crystal clear, as I’m not the one having to put on a façade. I’ve accepted your apology just for this incident, but an apology is not going to fix the current issues. What about everything else? Perhaps, what about an apology to those that have been or will possibly continue to be dragged into this mess?
Lands and Survey, Department of Planning, Department of Environment, Abernethy & Associates Ltd, Roland Bodden & Co Ltd, Giglioli & Company, Cayman Water, CUC, Central Planning Authority, Building Control, Department of Environmental Health, RCIPS “police officers” “senior officers” including members of the Commissioner Ranks, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, Waide DaCosta Attorney-at-Law, The courts of the Cayman Islands, The Department of Immigration, Ombudsman Team Members, The Ministry of Planning, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure, NRA, some Ministers from the previous Cabinet, Attorney General, The Governor, KSG Attorneys-at-Law, Department of Community Rehabilitation, Cayman Marl Road, Cayman News Service Ltd, Cayman Compass, etc.
I suppose only time will tell…
This was a civil matter, that has instead turned criminal, and it should not have been anyone else’s problem but ours. I didn’t need a platoon to fight a war that you started; all it took is one man. If you dislike someone, dislike them alone. Don’t recruit others to join your cause.
In this news article you stated and I quote, “I hope you understand that I was just trying to protect my family.”
No, we don’t understand. “Accepting responsibility for our actions is a sign of emotional maturity; it demonstrates self-awareness and a belief that we can change and learn to do better. On the other hand, people who don’t think they’ve done anything wrong, have no reason to change.”
As such, even though I’ve accepted your apology, we still don’t trust you. Hence the reason why in my victim impact statement I wrote and I quote, “I can’t put anything past the Adams family.”
With that being said;
Protecting your family from who?
Do I need to show the public the CCTV video of the assault so that their free to draw their own conclusions? Maybe
Was the dead-end 24 ft highway /easement fully obstructed? No.
Was our 8-year-old son (at the time) and I minding our own business? Yes.
Was my wife, our son, and I a threat? No.
Among other things, was I protecting my family from the continued misuse of the easement? Yes.
Do you have various accesses to get onto your residence without the need of bisecting ours directly through the middle? Yes.
Problem solved, go and use your 2.50 acres of land and stop bisecting through ours and all the problems will magically go away. You acknowledge that you’ve done it for a period of 3 months when I blocked the easement a couple of years ago.
Mike, the root of the problem is the easement and as long as you’re bisecting our land through the middle the problems will never go away. For the 27 years that you’ve lived there, you never had any problems because the area had been undeveloped as you didn’t have to bisect anyone’s resident. Now that we’re neighbors the problem is there. Whether it’s us or another family you would’ve had the same problems. It was inevitable, and you had 27 years to prepare as Crosby Collymore Ebanks and Mario Alberto Gomez have advised you numerous times that the vehicular right away was not meant for continuous use. You and your family and guests over the course of the years have been trespassing over their land against their will. Hence the reason why all three of us are suing the government.
Andrel Harris wrote it himself and I quote, “may have finally ended a four-year land-use dispute.”
Unfortunately, it will never end. As such, in an effort to prevent any further land disputes and incidence of violence, the following is suggested:
Pursuant to section 96 of the Registered Land Law, an order that the easement be wholly or partially extinguished or modified on the grounds that:
b. the continuing existing of the easement impedes the reasonable user of the land for public or private purposes without securing any practical benefits to other persons; or
c. the proposed discharge or modification will not injure the person entitled to the benefit of the easement.
We must agree on an alternative route (modification) and find ways to prevent any further incidents and reduce the impact of any future developing works in such a way that any interference with the easement is minimized.
Alternatively, if you do not agree, we will create another route (providing that the diversion remains on our land) and then block or otherwise obstruct the current easement. Once the easement is obstructed, you may divert along the new route to get to your residence.
We’re aware that the offer of or existence of an alternative route does not prevent the interference from being actionable in its own right, although it may affect the remedies available. However, and among other things, the easement has been misused and bisects our parcel directly through the middle. The indisputable evidence that will be presented to bolster our case in the Grand Court Civil will support such claims, and in bringing a claim for actionable interference you’ll need to show that there has been substantial interference with your rights, and that, as a result, your rights cannot be ‘substantially and practically exercised as conveniently as before the interference. Hence the reason why the proposed modification will not injure the person (being you) entitled to the benefit of the easement.
Mike, you should not forget that we have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of our land and the legitimate development of our land, and the performance of the easement should not interfere with our peace nor prevent us from exercising our right to develop our land (provided that the development caters for the easement).
If you want uninterrupted access, I suggest you take that option because you will soon not get it. If any other incident arises, you can’t say I didn’t tell told you so.
If you feel you’re entitled to access a portion of our property that bisects our land to get to your residence, an action that we have objected to countless times, then you will cross where we want you not where you want. Otherwise, go and use your own land. A property owner cannot create an easement over its own land, but can over their adjoining parcels as you don’t need anyone’s permission or right to drive over your own land. An easement is defined as a “nonpossessory interest in the land of another that gives its owner the right to use the land of another or to prevent the property owner from using his land.”
Mike, you and your family own two adjoining parcels 4B 365 is heavily wooded & 4B 366 is cleared.
You and your family in the past have used 4B 366 to enter your residence at 4B 2 as well as going south of 4B 2. Instead of burdening four proprietor’s owners of their land in which three of the owners (4 B3, 4 B8 & 4 B9 primarily the entire owners of the road) inclusive of ourselves refuse to give you access, have your lawyer or yourself go to Lands and Survey and order an easement over your other adjoining parcels.
Extremely easy to do, an ORDER will be made for the registration of an EASEMENT burdening Registration Section, West Bay North West, Block 4B Parcel 365 or 366 or both in favor of the registered proprietors of Registration Section West Bay North West, Block 4B Parcel 2 which would be you.
Now, if you ever decided to sell either of the two adjoining parcels, an easement appurtenant is one that benefits the dominant estate and “runs with the land” and so generally transfers automatically when the dominant estate is transferred. … Conversely, an easement in gross benefits an individual or a legal entity, rather than a dominant estate.
What I’m trying to tell you is, if you sell or whoever inherits (4 B2) won’t have to ever fight for it because it’ll already be there.
At the end of the day, we need closure, and we need to do what is right to protect the well-being of our family. It is also within our proprietary rights as we have a right to enjoy the land that we own. If any of those suggestions can be rectified, both families would be in a better place. We are yearning for peace in our lives, and I’m sure you would appreciate the same.
Regardless justice must be served for the harm you and your sons have caused as that will never be erased.
Sincerely,
Wilson Mendoza
Would I be an absolute fool to suggest that you and Adams sit down with an experienced arbiter? Perhaps adult beverages could be allowed, and a small fire for atmosphere.
We’re all hoping we don’t have to install an octagon.
Would you even consider such a simple potential solution as a sit-down?
Well said.
Where Mr. Mendoza’s actions fail is that a Section 3 Declaration has been Gazetted by Government declaring their intention to Gazette a pubic road approximately over the already established registered rights-of-way that go over his land. The Gazette notice is a matter of public record, as is the proposed Boundary Plan. The proposed public road is denoted on the BR626 map as the green-dash outline. However, the road has not yet been fully gazetted as a public (Crown) road.
Clearly there are currently registered legal accesses in favour of Mr. Adam’s land, accessing it from Kings Road over the Mendoza parcel. These are denoted on the BP626 map as the dotted red lines.
Mr. Mendoza is apparently refusing to acknowledge the legal right of Mr. Adams to use the current legally registered access and easement.
I now take to task the Cayman Islands Government for being so breathtakingly impotent in protecting legally registered accesses. This is very shocking and should serve as a somber warning to all prospective property purchasers that they are on their own if–like countless properties on the market–the parcel they are looking to purchase does not have a fully Gazetted public road to access it. My warning, in light of this debacle, is that if the property you are looking to purchase has only a registered easement or a registered vehicular-right-of way to it DO NOT BUY IT! Wait until the Government takes positive action to protect legal accesses! It is quite clear that if you purchase a property without a fully gazetted public (Crown) road access, you could end up in the same situation as Mr. Adam and end up having to hire an attorney and fight a very ugly (and very costly) court battle should some scofflaw land owner take a cue from what is going on in the Adam-Mendoza case and decide to close off your legal access over their land. The term “Caveat Emptor” was never more applicable!
The relevant Gazette Notice and Boundary Plan map are public records and may be found on this page, listed in the Boundary Plan list as BP626: https://www.caymanlandinfo.ky/Services/VEO/Road-Schemes
Well said and correct.
Is it relevant that its listed under the “Boundary Plan” section? This road does not appear to be on a boundary for Mr. Mendoza’s property?
You bought the land with a vehicular right of way bisecting the land. Just because you don’t like it now doesn’t give you the right to block it.
This is the same argument DART is having at Britania. He bought it knowing the covenant that the golf course had to stay. Then he tried to ignore that covenant and get rid of the course for major profit. Not so fast buddy!
Well it is privately owned land… I understand an ‘easement’ is NOT supposed to be a permanent right of way.
Well said.
Why don’t you post a copy of the land register/title, including showing the public what is set out in the incumbrances section. It will inform very clearly whether there is a debate worth having. I assume that since you believe so strongly in your opinion, you won’t have any issue in doing this!
From the Registered Land Act: (7) A proprietor of two or more parcels may enter into a positive or restrictive covenant with himself..” So I think Mr.Adam can actually have his own covenants as he owns at least 3 parcels I believe.
Can you show these 3 parcels that Mr. Adams owns?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2i_5NSOOY&t=1536s
Pause video at 7:44. Admam’s property marked in pink. I count 3 parcels.
Unfortunately a video is not evidence in this case. “Peter” you should research and show the properties owned by Mr. and Mrs. Adams on a map.
Adams shouldn’t have hit/slapped/physically touched Mendoza so bad on him.
Mendoza is continuously blocking access illegally and should be prosecuted and Adams should sue him for monetary damages.
When Mendoza bought the property this easement should have both been apparent and been disclosed so he has zero excuse for his actions.
Perfectly stated.
Whether he knew or not when the land was purchased is probably irrelevant. At this very moment it’s not a public road and only an ‘easement’. It seems to me he has every right to challenge it. Especially given how it awkwardly splits his property in two. And also given that Mr. Adam appears to have other access points to his land.
If there are other access points, that is a relevant factor to consider.
Where? Can someone show us where the other access points are so we can all see? We keep hearing this from Mendoza but he never posts the maps or pictures showing the other entrances the Adam’s have.
I think he did. In comment further below from him.
“Cold Hard Facts”
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfLvwt3EJ-hSNDg9fPxmPlg
I looked but doesn’t actually have a map or proof showing the other accesses. So I’m wondering if he’s just making this up now.
Pause the video at 7:42, the pink lettering shows where Mr Adam could have access, and which he has used before (this part is a bit mind-blowing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2i_5NSOOY&t=1928s
Just post the pictures nah man? Nobody want to watch no video.
Show the proof Peter.
The proof is there, two clicks away. Don’t be so lazy. 😉
Yes it does matter whether he knew. The whole reason for the ‘incumbrances’ section on your land register is to give notice to prospective buyers or lenders as to a defect (potential or otherwise) to absolute title over the property. Sometimes known as a ‘caveat’ (as in caveat emptor). That he purchased it anyway either means he didn’t bother to read, or decided that the depressed value due to easement could be ‘remediated’ by engaging in the campaign to which we are now witness.
Well said.
Imagine if a well connected man like Mike Adams is having trouble getting the authorities to do their jobs, what can the average Joe expect? this is a national embarrassment.
Government does not have the balls to stand up to
Dart et al in these matters.
This is not Dart for heavens sake. CIG just doesn’t have the fortitude to make a decision In this and enforce it – just hoping it will all go away.
Typical government. Consuming our resources without fulfilling its obligations. Another outrage. #worldclass Franz.
So forget the politicians and police, file a civil lawsuit. Get an injunction against the guy. Sounds like a slam dunk. You wait too long and prescriptive rights can disappear.
If Mendozas posts on this are correct and the other landowners have objected over the years, not a prescribe right. But agree – if the police won’t deal with it either Adam or Mendoza should apply to court for a determination.
@Anonymous 16/02/2022 at 11:26 am
Slam dunk! lol, they did file a civil lawsuit. Here’s the letter I sent the Adams attorney Waide DaCosta on Monday, January 11, 2021.
As of today, it’s 412 days in non-compliance.
Dear Mr. DaCosta,
On Thursday, November 19, 2020, a statement of claim from Plaintiffs, Michael Thomas Adam and Lissa Ann Adam was served with the writ to the Defendants, Wilson Jonathan Mendoza and Deaven Ann Mendoza.
On November 30, 2020, the Defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service (AS) with the Civil Registry giving notice of intentions to contest the action along with the defence and counterclaim all within 14 days of service. Thus far, it’s been over 42 days and the Plaintiffs haven’t filed any reply (particularly as the Defendants have raised new allegations of fact) and any answer to the counterclaim.
On December 16, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Cassandra Cole from the Civil Registry department confirmed she had emailed you the stamped and sealed AS, along with the defence and counterclaim for your records on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, at 3:00 PM. I believe a copy was previously placed in your Court office post box.
As such, the Plaintiffs are not complying with the following procedural requirements.
1. The Plaintiffs have failed to extend subsequent deadlines by agreement between the parties or by way of court order;
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to file a defence to a counterclaim within the allotted time;
3. The Plaintiffs have failed, unreasonably, to take steps to bring the case to trial.
Further, the whole of the Plaintiff’s claim has no prospect of success or, in respect of their claim for damages, the Plaintiffs have no prospect of recovering more than nominal damages.
And Further, the Defendants will not discontinue an action or counterclaim or withdraw a particular claim made by them. If the Plaintiffs apply for the grant to the discontinuance of action, etc., with leave, the Defendants will still bring forth their counterclaim against the Plaintiffs by filing their own Plaint afterwards.
Regards,
Wilson Mendoza
Anyone know what the large island in Red Bay / Prospect is zoned under? The one owned by Mr Briggs? Currently a storage and repair shop for heavy equipment and trucks. Would be nice if they moved to a more suitable location.
You are so correct.
Troll
Cow itch ….politics…me na want nothing to do with either…i headed meditation calming class…lol
I publicly stated my intentions late last year. Why are you all surprised? Links below.
https://caymanmarlroad.com/no-conviction-recorded-in-ongoing-west-bay-land-dispute/
https://caymannewsservice.com/2021/12/adam-court-case-ends-but-access-saga-rolls-on/
https://www.facebook.com/wilson.mendoza.376/posts/10158897159493195
People need to see these videos.
“Cold Hard Facts”
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfLvwt3EJ-hSNDg9fPxmPlg
The fact is that the Adam’s purchased their property more than 30 years ago. The road they use now is the road they have used since they purchased their property. You knew this and in spite of this you purchased your lot (years ago) and have recently decided that they should not use their access.
I am terribly sorry if you don’t like my harsh honesty. But I don’t like your sugar coated bullshit either.