Ralph Hall and Louise Hall - Philipps v Shaquille Sands
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Hilton, J,. |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 2019 |
| Date | 23 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017/Cle/Gen/693 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Common Law and Equity Division
The Honourable Mr. Justice Gregory Hilton
2017/Cle/Gen/693
Stephanie Wells for Plaintiffs
Ramona Farquharson - Seymour for the Defendant
Land Law — Documentary Title of Plaintiff — Whether Defendant is a Trespasser — Proprietary Estoppel / Constructive Trust claimed by Defendant
The Plaintiffs, as Joint Administrators of the estate of the Late Eltha Hall, instituted this action against the Defendant (their niece) alleging that the Defendant was a trespasser on the property situate in Little Blair. They seek, among other things, an order for vacant possession of the house and damages for trespass. The Defendant asserts that she is not a trespasser and claims, by way of a Constructive Trust or Proprietary Estoppel, that the Late Eltha Hall promised her that the house would be hers and also that she made repairs to the house and upkept the house to her detriment and as such is entitled to possession of the house or a beneficial interest in the house.
HELD: The Defendant is declared as a trespasser on the property and is liable to the Plaintiffs in damages.
-
1. On a balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are the owners of the property/house in Little Blair.
-
2. The Defendant has not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she acted to her detriment sufficient to establish Proprietary Esstoppel or Constructive Trust.
-
3. The Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the house and are entitled to an order for vacant possession and the other consequential orders which they sought.
This is a Land dispute (among family members) concerning a house (the property) situate in Little Blair in the Eastern District of the Island of New Providence The Bahamas.
The Property was owned by the late Eltha Hall by virtue of a Conveyance dated 18 th March 1983. She was the mother of the Plaintiffs and grandmother of the Defendant, who died on 10 th May 2017, intestate, survived by her three children children, two of whom are the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs took out letters of Administration in the Estate of the Late Eltha Hall with the written consent of their brother Deon Hall (the father of the Defendant) and obtained the Grant of Letters of Administration on 21 st December 2017.
At the time of the death of the late Eltha Hall, the Defendant had been residing with her on the property for a number of years; and the Defendant asserts that the deceased had promised the house would be hers after she died.
The Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons on 8 th June 2017, amended on 17 th September 2018. The Amended Statements of Claim is settled in the following terms:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Plaintiffs are two of the surviving children of the late Eltha E. Hall (hereinafter called “the deceased”) the third being Deon Hall, who consents to the action. The Deceased died intestate on the 10th day of May 2017. A grant of Letters of Administration was granted to Ralph R. Hall and Linda L. Phillips on the 21st day of December 2017.
2. By Deed of Conveyance dated 18 th March 1983. The deceased is and was at all material times the fee simple owner in possession of a dwelling home property situate in Little Blair and the owner of a 2013 Honda CRV (the “Assets”). The Defendant is allegedly the putative granddaughter of the deceased and has no legal or beneficial interest in part or whole to the Assets.
3. By reason of the Grant of Letters of Administration, the Plaintiffs are vested with the legal authority to the bring this action. By reason of Section 4 (b) (ii) of the Inheritance Act 2002 and by reason that they, along with their brother Dean Hall are the only heirs-at Law of the deceased, they are the only ones beneficially and legally entitled to the title, use and control of the Assets.
4. By numerous verbal communications to and with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs requested the defendant to desist from Trespassing or from having any further dealing with the Assets but the Defendant has failed to do so.
5. Notwithstanding these request the defendant has persisted in wrongful entering the Little Blair dwelling home and property and has remained in possession thereof. The Defendant has unlawfully taken control and use of the 2013 Honda CRV and has failed to yield up possession of the said vehicle to the Plaintiffs.
6. The Defendant has threatened that she intends, unless retrained by the Honourable Court, to continue to Trespass and remain in possession of the dwelling home and property.
7. By reason of the matters aforesaid the Plaintiffs has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the Assets the subject matter of the estate and have thereby suffered damage and loss.
AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:
(1) Possession of the Assets the subject matter of the estate of the late Eltha Hall.
(2) A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to enter the said dwelling land and/or having access to or making use of the 2013 Honda CRV.
(3) An injunction to restrain the Defendant whether by herself or by her servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from entering the Plaintiff's said land and/or having access to or making use of the 2013 Honda Crv.
(4) Damages or mesne profits.
(5) Costs.
(6) Further or other relief.
Dated the 17 th day of September A.D. 2018
The Defendant filed a Defence on the 7 th November 2018 settled in the following term:
DEFENCE
1. That the Defendant admits paragraphs 1 of the Amended Statement of Claim (hereinafter referred to as “the claim”) dated the 17 th day of September. A.D., 2018 save and except the Defendant's unable to speak to Deon Hall's, her biological father's consent or otherwise, nor the grant of said Letters of Administration. To those Acts, which the Defendant has no direct knowledge, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.
2. That the Defendant admits paragraph 2, save and except she vehemently rejects the assertion that she ha no legal or beneficial interest in the assets of her Deceased grandmother, Eltha E. Hall.
3. That the Defendant denies paragraph 3 and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof.
4. That the Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiffs in particular her uncle, Ralph Rolle has shouted at her and hurled insults which she deciphered as him wanting her out of her home. A home she has shared for more than ten (10) years with the Deceased. As for numerous and the exact content of the alleged communications, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of paragraph 4 of the Claim.
5. That paragraph 5 of the Claim is accepted, save and except the Defendant denies any and all suggestions that she is a trespasser and thereby wrongful entering Little Blair dwelling home and unlawfully using assets. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof thereof.
6. The Defendant denies paragraph 6 of the Claim and asserts that she is not a trespasser and has never threatened the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof pf paragraph 6 of the Claim.
7. That the Plaintiff denies paragraph 7 of the Claim and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof of any and all loss and damages as referred to in paragraph 7 of the Claim.
8. That the Defendant contends that she visited her grandmother, the late Eltha Hall often as a child and began living with her from more than twelve years ago.
9. That once the Defendant became gainfully employed, she began assisting her grandmother with household expenses, maintenance and general upkeep of the home.
10. That the Defendant never paid any rent to her grandmother or anyone else and was permitted to live in the said subject home with no interference from the Plaintiffs or anyone.
11. That the Late Eltha Hall verbally advised the Defendant and other close family friends that she wished for all that she owned to go to the Defendant. Further, she would state that she did not want the Plaintiffs or any of her children to get their hands on anything she owned. Reliance is also placed on my Affidavit.
12. Filed the 29 th day of May, A.D., 2017, Action No. 2017/PRO/ cpr/00031.
13. One of the last conversations the Defendant had with her grandmother she made her promise not to allow her ungrateful children to get their hands on any of her things.
14. That the Defendant asked the Deceased if she had a Will. She claimed that she did but refused to say where it was or who had prepared it.
15. Further the Defendant contends that she has always resided with her Late Grandmother and any requests for her to leave were made after her grandmother's death. Also the same has been totally motivated by greed.
16. That the Defendant contends that she was and still is a beneficial owner of the said property and that it is further advanced that the same was held on trust for her. Also, that she has not deprived the Plaintiffs of anything as they never had any use of the said home or vehicle of her grandmother.
17. That the Defendant believes that she has a life interest in the subject property.
18. That the Defendant has acted to her detriment in investing monies into maintaining the said home and has built many memories with her grandmother there. That the same is her home and she wishes to stay.
Dated this 7 th day of November. A.D., 2018
At the trial the Plaintiffs (in addition to the documents filed in their bundle of documents) relied upon their witness statements dated 12 th and 13 th March 2019 respectively and their supplemental witness statements dated 15 th April 2019. They were both cross-examined on their respective statements.
At the trial the Defendant (in addition to the documents filed in her bundle of documents) relied upon her witness statement filed 9 th...
To continue reading
Request your trial