A sale process that could move forward
A yacht co-owner represented by Daniel Zahavi obtained exclusive control of the vessel’s sale process through a Sint Maarten court order. The other co-owner was ordered to hand over the keys within three weeks of the judgment, backed by a conditional daily penalty. These orders addressed a practical deadlock over who would arrange the sale and on what terms.
The authority concerned management of the sale, rather than unrestricted ownership or use of the vessel. The court modified the relief requested and ordered each party to bear their own legal costs. The judgment did not establish a completed sale or money recovered.
Replacing joint decision-making with defined authority
The owners had agreed to sell the yacht and distribute the proceeds under a settlement. They subsequently disagreed over the location of the sale, the broker and the price. Each blamed the other for the lack of progress. The court found that the cooperative process envisaged by their agreement had not proved workable.
It modified the settlement so that the client alone would manage the sale, including appointing a broker and setting the asking and minimum acceptable prices in consultation with that broker. This authority remained subject to safeguards protecting both owners.
Keys, matching rights and distribution duties
Failure to hand over the keys within the ordered three-week period would attract a penalty of Cg 5,000 for each day of non-compliance, capped at Cg 500,000. Those figures describe a conditional enforcement measure, not an amount shown to have become payable or been collected.
Either owner could match an agreed sale price within two weeks of learning of it. Within that period, the matching owner had to deposit half the price with the broker or provide a bank guarantee from a bank with a Danish establishment.
After permitted deductions, sale proceeds were to be received by the client and accounted for under the settlement within one month. The distribution involved creditors first, then the client’s bank loan and the other owner’s investment, with an allocation of 60% to the client and 40% to the other owner if those repayment amounts could not be met in full. Any surplus was to be shared equally. One specified creditor obligation remained the other owner’s responsibility.
The scope of the result
The court made the judgment provisionally enforceable and rejected further or different relief. Provisional enforceability does not remove appeal rights. The reviewed record establishes the sale-control and handover orders, not their subsequent implementation or finality. For the client, the practical result was a defined route to arrange the sale without joint management of that process. Outcomes depend on the particular facts and documents.
Case summaries provide general information. Results depend on the facts, evidence and procedural position of each matter. Past outcomes do not guarantee results.
All notable cases