“Lawsuit over ownership dispute of luxury housing units in Dubai between American man and his sister”

A financial dispute over the ownership of four housing units in luxury areas in the Emirate of Dubai between an American man and his older sister moved to the courts, as he filed a lawsuit against her, claiming that she had seized the apartments after he asked her to buy them for his benefit, and accused her husband of complicity with her.

After the case was deliberated by the Real Estate Court of First Instance, it ended with the dismissal of the case, because the plaintiff relied on statements sent without certain evidence, and it also refused to direct the decisive oath to his defendant sister, and the Court of Appeal upheld the preliminary ruling.

In detail, the plaintiff, a “businessman”, stated in the lawsuit papers that he had handed over part of his money to his sister to buy real estate for his benefit, through money transfers through two other sisters to them, in addition to sums delivered by hand, bringing the total money he paid to 5 million and 554 thousand dirhams.

He explained that he resorted to this method because he was unable to open a bank account at the time in 2014, so he asked her to buy real estate and register it in her name at the beginning, provided that the ownership would be transferred to him later upon request, pointing out that his sister, the defendant, also pledged – according to the agreement – to open an account. A bank for her brother’s investments, to deposit the rental proceeds of the housing units referred to in this account.

He indicated that she had registered in her name four housing units in high-end areas, which she bought for his benefit, at an amount of 6 million and 540 thousand dirhams, provided that she manages them with her husband for his account, but they breached their obligations, so they refused to hand him the bank account data for the apartments, or pay the rent for the units since the date of purchase. In 2014 and until the filing of the lawsuit during the current year, under the pretext of forgetfulness, or the defendant’s older sister using her moral influence to embarrass him so that he would not claim his rights, then she finally refused to transfer ownership of the apartments to him when he demanded that, which eventually prompted him to sue her.

For his part, the legal representative of the defendant sister, her husband, the arbitrator, and the legal advisor, Muhammad Najeeb, said that the ownership of the units in question is fixed for the defendant, and registered in her name in the Dubai Land Department, indicating that the financial transfers exchanged between the parties to the case are nothing but transactions between family members. It has no connection with the real estate owned by the defendant.

He added that the defendant attached to the case papers her certificates of ownership of the disputed apartments, which she bought with her own money, indicating that her request from her brother, the “plaintiff”, to help her pay the service fees is normal in light of the siblings’ relationship, contrary to what the plaintiff said.

For its part, the Court of First Instance stated in the rationale for its ruling that the plaintiff’s documents were devoid of any evidence or agreement with the defendants to purchase the disputed units in his favor or in his name, pointing out that the burden of proof rests on him, but he only provided sent statements.

She explained that the letters exchanged between the plaintiff and his sister, the defendant, were completely devoid of evidence of his ownership of the apartments or promises from them to transfer ownership to him, or even an acknowledgment of his right to sell these units or the proceeds of their rent.

And about the existence of mutual financial transfers, and the plaintiff relied that they were part of the deal, the court stated that the papers were also devoid of evidence that they were related to the real estate owned by the defendant, and that these were normal financial transactions between the plaintiff and his family members.

The court refused to direct the decisive oath to the defendant sister at the request of the plaintiff, after deeming that this request was not productive in the case because it lacked any evidence of the buying and selling incident, and because the court found enough in the case papers to form her belief without the need for an oath.

In turn, the plaintiff appealed against the primary judgment before the Court of Appeal, which considered the appeal and the memorandums of the two parties, and ended up rejecting his appeal and upholding the appealed judgment.