Armstrong v. Forbes & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_174 (16 December 2008)

Armstrong v. Forbes & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_174 (16 December 2008)

The court held that the pursuer was not entitled to the declarators sought, as the judicial factor was not a party to the joint minute and could not be compelled to transfer title in the absence of estate solvency and the ability to meet outstanding liabilities. The property formed part of the sequestrated estate, and the judicial factor's actions were within his powers. The decrees of possession and ejection were not reduced or suspended, as there was insufficient evidence of procedural unfairness or incapacity that would justify such orders.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_174
Parties
Pursuer: Mary Vance Armstrong; First Defender: Robert Lindsay Forbes, Chartered Accountant, as judicial factor on the Sequestrated Estates of G. Dunlop & Son; Second Defender: Michael Cameron Dunlop
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Factor Powers, Divorce Settlement Enforcement, Disposition of Heritable Property, Sequestration of Partnership Assets, Reduction and Suspension of Decrees, Interdict Against Eviction
Property Law Family Law Trusts and Estates Judicial Factor Powers Divorce Settlement Enforcement Disposition of Heritable Property Sequestration of Partnership Assets Reduction and Suspension of Decrees +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Vance Armstrong

Pursuer

Robert Lindsay Forbes, Chartered Accountant, as judicial factor on the Sequestrated Estates of G. Dunlop & Son

First Defender

Michael Cameron Dunlop

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to ownership and occupation of Clachan of Penninghame Farmhouse free of claims by the judicial factor
  2. 2 Whether the judicial factor is bound to effect a disposition of the property to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether decrees of recovery of possession and ejection should be reduced and suspended

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer was not entitled to the declarators sought, as the judicial factor was not a party to the joint minute and could not be compelled to transfer title in the absence of estate solvency and the ability to meet outstanding liabilities. The property formed part of the sequestrated estate, and the judicial factor's actions were within his powers. The decrees of possession and ejection were not reduced or suspended, as there was insufficient evidence of procedural unfairness or incapacity that would justify such orders.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Decree of dismissal granted in favour of the first defender
  • No expenses due to or by the second defender or the pursuer