Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A contractor has successfully sued his former romantic partner over ownership of a vehicle she purchased on his behalf while he was stranded in Canada during the covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
In a judgment delivered last week, High Court Judge Westmin James upheld Steffon Belfon’s case against Marva Khan. The lawsuit centred around a Honda Vezel that was purchased by Khan using funds sent by Belfon.
While Belfon claimed that she purchased the car on his behalf and was expected to transfer it to him upon his return, she alleged that the car was an unconditional gift.
In his case, Belfon claimed that his relationship with Khan began in 2009 and ended in 2017.
He claimed that even after their relationship ended, they still interacted, and he provided financial assistance to her and her daughter.
In late 2019, he travelled to Canada but was unable to return as expected due to travel restrictions related to the pandemic.
He claimed that he sent approximately $305,400 in Canadian currency for her to purchase a car, as he felt that the car price would increase before he returned in March 2021.
Khan purchased a Honda Vezel for $185,000 and used the remainder to pay for insurance, a GPS tracker, and to pave her driveway where she parked the vehicle.
In the lawsuit, Belfon claimed ownership of the car, the remainder of the money advanced to her to purchase the car, a separate CA$10,000 transfer sent to her, and a set of electronic items he claimed he sent her to secure for him upon his return.
While the case was being considered, Belfon admitted that the CA$10,000 transfer was a gift to her daughter and one of the three pairs of televisions and laptops he claimed was meant for her (the daughter).
Khan claimed that the relationship ended in 2022 following an incident involving a police report. She claimed that Belfon told her that he won a “lottery” while in Canada and agreed to purchase the car as a gift to entice her to marry him.
She said he only pursued the lawsuit after she rebuffed his romantic advances. She said the electronics, including a Jura coffee maker, a television and a laptop, were also gifts.
She also disputed the quantity of electronics that Belfon sent.
In determining the aspect of the case dealing with the funds sent for the car, Justice James had to consider whether Belfon expressed a clear and unconditional intention for her to use it to purchase the car as a gift.
“While the parties’ relationship and the Claimant’s history of generosity are relevant contextual factors, they do not, without more, establish such intention,” Justice James said.
He pointed out that Belfon’s brother corroborated his version of the events, and he presented message exchanges that showed that he had repeatedly called on Khan to account for the balance he advanced.
While Justice James ruled that he was entitled to the car, he found that he could not claim the balance that was used to pay for non-recoverable expenses incidental to the purchase of the vehicle.
He also found that she was entitled to the coffee maker intended for use in her business.
Justice James found that Belfon had inconsistencies in proving the exact quantity of laptops and televisions that were purportedly sent to Khan.
As Belfon only won one aspect of his case, Justice James did not order Khan to pay his legal costs for the case.
Belfon was represented by Sunil Seecharan and Vanita Ramroop, while Khan was represented by Shawn Fulchan.
