- 5 -
applied to a bank for a loan and offered to use the Mitchums
Creek property as collateral. As a condition to approving that
loan application while Mr. Barber was in prison, the bank re-
quested Mr. Barber to sign a deed (Mitchums Creek deed) conveying
to Ms. Barber his interest as a joint tenant in the Mitchums
Creek property, which he did. Mr. Barber gave the Mitchums Creek
deed to Ms. Barber but did not intend that she record that deed
unless and until he defaulted on his loan payments.
While Mr. Barber was incarcerated, he and Ms. Barber di-
vorced. Thereafter, but while Mr. Barber was still in prison,
Ms. Barber recorded the Mitchums Creek deed. It was not until
after his release from prison that Mr. Barber discovered that Ms.
Barber had recorded that deed, whereupon he commenced litigation
(litigation with respect to the Mitchums Creek property) against
her in the Circuit Court of Middlesex County (Middlesex Circuit
Court). In that litigation, Mr. Barber claimed that he and Ms.
Barber as joint tenants, and not Ms. Barber alone, owned the
Mitchums Creek property. Some time after August 1, 1993, the
Middlesex Circuit Court found that Ms. Barber had fraudulently
induced Mr. Barber to convey to her his interest in the Mitchums
Creek property. That court ordered a rescission of the Mitchums
Creek deed and a so-called equitable distribution of the Mitchums
Creek property to both Mr. Barber and Ms. Barber.
In January 1988, Ms. Havens purchased for $300,000 the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011