WILLEMSTAD – Construction company Betonbouw Curaçao has lost a legal attempt to lift enforcement seizures imposed on its bank accounts in a dispute over a residential development project valued at more than XCG 10.6 million. The Court of First Instance ruled that project developer Triangle Curaçao Development was entitled to continue enforcing an earlier judgment requiring the contractor to resume construction activities.
The decision, issued on September 29, 2026, and published on November 3, concerns the La Vie residential development in Curaçao, where Betonbouw was contracted to construct 42 homes with swimming pools.
According to court documents, Triangle and Betonbouw entered into a construction agreement on November 1, 2024, with a total contract value of XCG 10,612,000.
Betonbouw completed two model homes toward the end of 2025. However, construction activities came to a halt in March 2026 following disagreements over outstanding invoices and proposed adjustments to the contract price.
The dispute eventually reached the courts.
On June 5, 2026, the Court of First Instance ordered Betonbouw to resume construction within 14 days and continue the work according to the agreed schedule and contract price.
The court attached a penalty of XCG 5,000 for each day the company failed to comply, up to a maximum of XCG 500,000.
Betonbouw did not appeal that ruling.
However, the disagreement continued after the judgment.
Triangle maintained that Betonbouw had failed to resume construction as ordered and subsequently initiated enforcement measures, including seizures involving the contractor's bank accounts.
Betonbouw challenged those measures in new summary proceedings, requesting that the seizures be lifted and enforcement of the June judgment be suspended until a decision could be reached in separate substantive proceedings.
The construction company argued that it had been unable to fully comply with the earlier judgment because Triangle had engaged other contractors and refused proposals to revise the construction schedule and budget.
Betonbouw also warned that the seizures threatened its financial stability.
According to the company, restrictions on its bank accounts could prevent it from paying employees and meeting obligations connected to other ongoing construction projects.
Triangle opposed the request, maintaining that Betonbouw had not complied with the court's previous order.
In reviewing the dispute, the court established that Betonbouw had resumed work on only one residential plot, identified as lot 717.
The contractor had not resumed construction on the remaining homes for which it was responsible.
Although the parties had held discussions about revised construction arrangements, those negotiations had not produced an agreement.
The court also examined Betonbouw's argument that Triangle had complicated the situation by bringing in another contractor.
However, the evidence indicated that Betonbouw had agreed to the involvement of a third party in the construction of some homes.
According to the court, that arrangement did not relieve Betonbouw of its obligation to resume work on the remaining properties.
The judge concluded that completing work on a single house could not reasonably be considered full compliance with the June 5 judgment.
The court also considered statements made during the proceedings indicating that Betonbouw regarded continuation of the existing construction contract as financially disadvantageous.
Based on the available evidence, the court found it sufficiently plausible that Betonbouw had incurred penalties for failing to comply with the earlier ruling.
The judge therefore rejected the argument that the enforcement seizures were unlawful on that basis.
Betonbouw's concerns about its financial position were also insufficient to justify lifting the seizures.
The court acknowledged that enforcement measures can have serious financial consequences for businesses, but emphasized that such consequences do not automatically invalidate a creditor's right to enforce a court judgment.
The judge found no sufficient grounds to conclude that Triangle was abusing its enforcement powers.
The court also noted that Betonbouw had not presented concrete proposals for completing the remaining construction work or providing security for payment of the penalties.
Consequently, the court rejected all of Betonbouw's requests, allowing the enforcement measures to remain in place.
Betonbouw was also ordered to pay XCG 1,500 in legal costs, with additional post-judgment costs potentially applicable.
The decision represents another development in the dispute surrounding the La Vie residential project, where disagreements over payment obligations, construction costs, and contractual performance have led to repeated legal proceedings.
The ruling does not resolve every contractual disagreement between the developer and contractor. It specifically addresses whether the enforcement measures arising from the June judgment should be suspended or lifted.
For now, Triangle retains the right to enforce the earlier judgment, while Betonbouw remains subject to the consequences of its failure to resume construction as ordered.