Anson Randall Layne v Lillian Williams
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Byer, J. |
| Judgment Date | 03 September 2018 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2018] ECSC J0903-1 |
| Docket Number | SVGHCV2018/0078 |
| Date | 03 September 2018 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SVGHCV2018/0078
Ms. Ann-Marie Jack for the Claimants
Mr. Jemalie John for the First Defendant
Ms. Annique Cummings & Mr. Jadric Cummings for the Second Defendant
This was a case which flowed from a series of unfortunate circumstances resulting in brothers impugning the trustworthiness of brothers, sons no longer having a relationship with the woman that gave birth to them and raised them and in the end presenting before this court none other than a family torn apart.
Ralroy Layne of Joseph Land McCarthy died intestate on 7 th September 2000 leaving his spouse, the first defendant and issue, namely Wayne Hansel Layne and the claimants as the only persons entitled to benefit from his estate.
The claimants are also the children of the first defendant.
The first defendant applied for and was granted Letters of Administration in Ralroy Layne's estate on 12 th January 2006 and recorded as grant No. 09 of 2006.
Pursuant to a lawyer prepared Deed of Assent dated September 5 th, 2006 and recorded as 3698/2006 the first defendant was erroneously named as the only beneficiary of the estate.
The first defendant on the strength of that deed, subsequently mortgaged the property inherited from the late Ralroy Layne's estate and secured two further charges from the second defendant dated 12 th September 2006, 6 th December 2010 and 4 th August 2014, recorded as Deeds 3722/2006, 4149/2010 and 2175/2014 respectively.
The first defendant after having obtained the initial mortgages remarried (the apparent impetus for the breakdown of the relationship between mother and sons) and consolidated the mortgage with that of her new husband. The first defendant's new husband subsequently died very shortly after the marriage.
The first defendant defaulted on the said mortgage and the second defendant to realize its debt listed the property, which is the subject of this Claim, for sale. It was, however, at this stage, brought to the second defendant's attention, that the said Deed of Assent had not incorporated the three other beneficiaries of the said Estate of Ralroy Layne.
In light of this realization, the Claimants and Wayne Hansel Layne on the 31 st October 2017 executed a Deed of Confirmation effectively transferring their interest as beneficiaries to the First defendant and confirmed and ratified the Deed of Assent 3698/2006. This Deed of Confirmation is recorded as 3518/2017. (Confirmation Deed)
The Confirmation Deed explicitly stated that the three other beneficiaries of the Estate of Ralroy Layne, including the first and second claimants confirm and ratified the Deed of Assent bearing registration number 3698/2006 and released unto the first defendant the entirety of the property herein.
It is this Confirmation Deed and the purported actions of the first defendant that led to the execution of that Deed that lay the basis for this claim.
That being said, I have assessed the issues itemised by Counsel for the claimants and although I am in agreement that the ones stated are in fact the salient issues to be addressed, I will address them all but in a slightly different order than as presented to give ease of reading.
Issues for the Court's Consideration
-
(i) Whether the first defendant committed a fraud/breach of trust when, in her capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Ralroy Layne, she vested the interest in the property the subject matter of this action in herself as sole beneficiary.
-
(ii) Whether the first defendant holds the estate of the late Ralroy Layne in trust for the remaining beneficiaries.
-
(iii) Whether Deed of Confirmation No. 3518 of 2017 was executed as a result of undue influence.
-
(iv) Whether as a result of the foregoing, the second defendant holds a valid and subsisting mortgage.
The basis for this allegation is rooted in the fact that the Deed of Assent that was executed in favour of the first defendant recited that the said Ralroy Layne having died intestate with Letters of Administration being granted to the first defendant, then went on to transfer all the estate of the said Ralroy Layne to the first defendant and the first defendant alone.
The Administration of Estates Act Cap 486 of the Revised Laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Section 62 thereof makes it clear “if the intestate leaves a husband or a wife and issue, the surviving husband or wife shall be entitled to one third thereof and the issue shall take the two thirds in equal shares” (my emphasis added).
Thus, the starting point must be that at first blush the first defendant was not entitled to have the property conveyed to her in her sole name. But going beyond that, the question must then be, what does this really mean in terms of the claim as pleaded.
When one therefore considers whether there was fraud or breach of trust by the first defendant, it is generally whether there is an action on the part of the first defendant that can sustain an action of deceit.
In this regard, the words of Lord Herschell in the case of Derry v Peak are instructive: “First, in order to sustain an action of deceit, there must be proof of fraud and nothing short of that will suffice. Secondly, fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, (ii) without belief in its truth; or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I have treated the second and third, as distinct cases, I think the third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement from being fraudulent there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its truth.”1 (My emphasis added)
The only evidence that is led by the claimants in this regard can be found in the witness statement of the first claimant at paragraph 17:
“17. My brother, Dave, and I then decided to get some legal advice. This was in December 2017. I was informed and verily believe that when the First Defendant completed my father's estate in 2006, and was issued a Grant of Letters of Administration, she unlawfully transferred by Deed of Assent, the said 1.63 acres of land to herself as the sole beneficiary of his estate”
and paragraph 17 of the second claimant's witness statement:
“17. At this point, I felt as if the First Defendant was being dishonest with her actions. So I decided to get legal advice. I went to a lawyer in December 2017, and I retained him to do searches for me. After the searches were done, I was duly informed and verily believe that when the First Defendant completed my father's estate in 2006, and was issued a Grant of Letters of Administration No. 09 of 2006, she unlawfully transferred the 1.63 acres of land as Administratrix to the deceased estate to herself as the sole beneficiary of his estate by Deed of Assent No. 3698 of 2006.”
On the other side of the spectrum, there is the evidence of the first defendant herself at paragraphs 4 and 5 of her witness statement in which she said:
“4. I firmly deny having any intention of secretly taking all the benefit of the estate of Ralroy Layne for myself. This is evidenced by the fact that all the beneficiaries were named in my Oath leading the Administration…”
5. I instructed a Solicitor to prepare the Deed of Assent. That Deed of Assent was incorrectly prepared due to no fault of my own. I was never aware of the error until the Solicitor acting for the Purchasers of the now foreclosed property drew it to our attention.”
When one therefore assesses the evidence on this issue, the claimant's case is based on very bald unsubstantiated claims of fraudulent behaviour of their mother the first defendant.
From the learning and research examined by this Court, it would appear that in order to impugn an action based on fraud there must be an act that is done knowingly, without any belief in its truth or reckless to its truth. In fact, the statement of law is concisely summarized in these words: ‘A charge of fraud is such a terrible thing to bring against a man that it cannot be maintained in any court unless it is shown that he had a wicked mind’2. I therefore agree with the submission made by Counsel for the first defendant that to prove this there must be credible and reliable evidence upon which a court is entitled to make such a finding. 3
This is sorely lacking in the case at bar and I do not consider that in light of what transpired that the nature of the conduct complained of by the Claimants meets this threshold.
In the oath of administration leading to the Grant of Letters of Administration, the first defendant clearly stated at paragraph 2:
“RALROY LAYNE late of Joseph Land McCarthy, died on the 7 th day of September 2000 intestate in the State of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, as the same is shown on a copy of his Certificate of Death hereto attached, leaving this deponent and three children namely: Anson Randall Layne, Davidson Everson Layne and Wayne Hansel Layne him surviving.”
Showing that the persons entitled to the estate of her late husband were herself and the issue of herself and her husband (including the first and second claimants).
The Deed of Assent was prepared by the same lawyer who prepared the Grant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial