Loan cheque leads to litigation

A writ filed by a married couple against the heirs of a deceased notary was dismissed against the heirs but upheld against a third party who encashed a cheque following the notary's death.

Mark and Maria Victoria Sammut filed their writ in the Magistrates Court, presided by Magistrate Silvio Meli, against the heirs of Notary John Patrick Hayman. Edmond Mugliette was called into the suit by a court decree issued last year.

The Sammuts claimed in their writ that they had given Notary Hayman a cheque for Lm2,840 so that the notary could settle their outstanding loan with Bank of Valletta plc. However, plaintiffs claimed that the payment had not been effected and that they continued to incur interest on the outstanding loan. They requested the court to condemn the notary's heirs to refund the money.

The heirs of the late Notary Hayman pleaded that the cheque had been encashed by Edmond Mugliette who had misappropriated the money. Mugliette was then called into the suit and he pleaded that he had no contractual relationship with plaintiffs or with the heirs. Mugliette further pleaded that he was owed money by the late notary and that the notary used to pay him in instalments.

In its judgment the court noted that plaintiffs had, in November 2000, given notary John Hayman a cheque for Lm2,840 in order to settle their loan with Bank of Valletta plc. It resulted from the evidence produced that plaintiffs' cheque was encashed in May, 2001 after the death of the notary.

Magistrate Meli pointed out in his judgment that plaintiffs had testified that they had communicated with Mugliette who had told them that the cheque had been endorsed in his favour as the notary had owed him money. According to plaintiffs, Mugliette had assured them that he would refund them the money as long as he would in turn be refunded by the notary's heirs. However, Mugliette had failed to refund the money and litigation had ensued.

Magistrate Meli concluded that the cheque had been paid to the notary with specific instructions that it be utilised only for the purpose of settling plaintiffs' loan with the bank. Furthermore, Mugliette had chosen not to produce any evidence, and his pleas were therefore deemed to be unproven.

The court upheld the heirs' pleas and condemned Mugliette to refund to the Sammuts the sum of Lm2,840.