A tenancy dispute that goes wrong

The dispute concerns a property that has been let since January 2024, without a written tenancy agreement but with rent receipts issued to the tenant on a regular basis. Following the owner’s death, his heirs decided in the spring of 2025 to reclaim the property and stopped accepting payments. The tenant claims to be “ready to leave” but cites the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation on the island. In September 2025, the heiress and her mother, who is over 70 years old, visited the property to try to resolve the situation.
According to witnesses, the exchange quickly escalated into threats from both sides. The police intervened for the first time and reminded them that legal proceedings were the only lawful recourse in this type of dispute. Two hours later, the heiress called her brother for backup: according to her, the tenant then threatened them, with his dog by his side and stones in his hand. The second heir, a local police officer in Saint-Martin for 34 years, arrived at the scene. According to consistent witness statements and the physical evidence observed, he smashed the bay window with a hammer, then attached a strap between his vehicle and the window frame and accelerated, literally ripping the bay window from the wall. The gendarmerie intervened a second time at the scene. Questioned in police custody, the man admitted to the facts. In the dock, he stated that he was “ashamed of the whole turn of events” and admitted to having “acted in a fit of anger”. ” The tenant left the premises the following day, as the property was no longer habitable.

Legal action, the only legal recourse

The case illustrates a recurring reality in Saint Martin. Without a written tenancy agreement and without eviction proceedings initiated before the competent court, the owner cannot reclaim the property of their own accord. Added to this is the absence of any title deed submitted to the court and an estate for which the opening of proceedings has not been established, leaving the question of the defendants’ status as owners entirely unresolved. The tenant, a civil party, did not appear at the hearing. His lawyer nevertheless made it clear: the law requires that the matter be brought before the court, that an order to vacate the premises be served, and that a court decision be awaited. The prosecutor highlighted the existence of “numerous tenancy disputes in the area” before adding: “One cannot take the law into one’s own hands, especially when one is a local police officer; it is deplorable.” ’
She sought a conviction for both defendants on charges of coercion for forcing a person to leave their home and damage to another’s property, requesting a fine of €1,000 each, accompanied by a four-month suspended prison sentence. The heir’s defence, meanwhile, argued that this was an isolated incident, citing provocation and the absence of any previous convictions, and requested that the offence not be recorded on his criminal record in order to preserve his job. The verdict is expected on 25 June. S.M