Audrey Holford v Belfield Holford
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barry L. Carrington |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 2021 HC 12 |
| Docket Number | NO. CV 812 OF 2019 |
| Court | High Court (Barbados) |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BARBADOS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barry L. Carrington, Judge of the High Court
NO. CV 812 OF 2019
In the matter of in the Estate of Kelvin Halverston Holford, Deceased also known as Kelvin Holford, Deceased
Mr. Talal A. Noumeh appearing on behalf of the Claimant
Ms. Hazelyn E. Devonish appearing on behalf of the First & Second Defendants
This is an unusual and interesting case. It requires the court to determine the validity of an ante-nuptial agreement entered by a couple two (2) days before their marriage. The marriage lasted for three (3) years before the husband died. He was a 74-year-old bachelor and she a 39-year-old spinster, when they were married on March 8, 2014. They signed an ante-nuptial agreement on March 6, 2014 stipulating that neither will make any claims against the other's property that was acquired and owned prior to the wedding.
Three years and nine months after the wedding, the husband died intestate. His wife made a claim against his estate and was told by his children that she was not entitled as she had signed an ante-nuptial agreement. The wife initially denied the existence of the agreement and when shown a copy, denied signing it. She later acknowledged that it was her signature but said that the agreement was entered into without her having the benefit of independent legal advice.
The central issue surrounding this case is whether the ante-nuptial agreement dated the 6 th day of March 2014 and executed between the parties, disentitled the wife from benefttting from her deceased husband's estate.
Kevin Holford (“the Deceased”) died intestate on the 7 th day of December 2017 leaving property situate at Bryan's Road, Welchman Hall in the parish of St. Thomas (“the property”), which is the subject matter of this claim.
Audrey Holford (“the Claimant”) met the deceased in 2009 and on the 8 th day of March 2014, they were married and the Claimant resided at the property. She is still living there.
Belfield Holford (“the First Defendant”) is the adult son of the deceased from a previous relationship.
Roger Holford (“the Second Defendant”) is the second adult son of the deceased from a prior relationship.
Following the death of the deceased, efforts were made by the Claimant to collaborate with the Defendants in order to commence the administration of the deceased's estate.
However, this proved futile as the Claimant discovered that the Defendants had retained an Attorney-at-Law to publish a public notice of intention to apply for Letters of Administration.
The Claimant then informed the Defendants that as spouse of the deceased, she did not consent to the administration of the estate. She further expressly wished to continue the process amicably and transparently.
Moreover, despite the Defendants acknowledging that the Claimant was the spouse of the deceased, their response was unfavourable. The Defendants relied on the contents of an alleged Deed (“the ante-nuptial” or “prenuptial”) executed and signed by the Claimant on the 6 th day of March 2014, prior to the marriage relinquishing and renouncing any claim or interest in the property of the deceased.
The Claimant was adamant that the ante-nuptial agreement was invalid as she had not received any independent legal advice and did not recall signing any document.
The Defendants maintained that the ante-nuptial was a valid and subsisting document having the Claimant's signature and executed prior to the marriage.
The Claimant then filed a Caveat and was met with a correlating Warning to Caveator.
The Claimant instituted proceedings against the Defendants seeking certain relief
The Claimant filed an application seeking, inter alia:
-
i. A Declaration that the agreement executed on the 6 th day of March 2014 between the Claimant the said Audrey Holford and the deceased Kelvin Halverston Holford, is declared null and void;
-
ii. A spousal interest and/or in the alternative a life interest in the matrimonial property situate at Bryans Road, Welchman Hall in the parish of Saint Thomas in this island in accordance with Sections 93 and 94 of the Succession Act, Chapter 249 of the laws of Barbados;
-
iii. An order that the Claimant be joined as an Applicant in probate proceedings 823 of 2018 in the estate of Kelvin Halverston Holford, Deceased also known as Kelvin Holford, deceased;
-
iv. Costs.
The terms of the agreement are relevant and are reproduced seriatim as follows:
This is a solemn agreement made this 6th day of March, 2014 between Audrey Swayne being the one party and Kelvin Halverston Holford being the other party.
The two parties intending to be joined together in marriage on the 8 th day of March, 2014 and each holding and owning property consisting of a dwelling house in the district of Spring Farm, St. Thomas on the part of Audrey Swayne and a dwelling house and land in Bryan Road, Welchman Hall on the part of Kelvin Halverston Holford.
It is hereby solemnly agreed by both parties that neither before nor subsequent to their marriage will either party make a claim on each other's property that was acquired and owned by the respective parties prior to their marriage scheduled to take place on the 8th of March, 2014.
I, Audrey Swayne, relinquish all or any presupposed rights to the property of Kelvin Halverston Holford as stated above.
SIGNED: Audrey Swayne
DATED: 2014–03–06
WITNESSED BY : (Unknown signature)
I, Kelvin Halverston Holdford relinquish all or any
presupposed rights to the property of Audrey Swayne as stated above.
SIGNED: Kelvin Halverston Holford
DATED: 2014–03–06
WITNESSED BY: (Unknown signature)”
The terms of the ante-nuptial agreement are clear and unambiguous. They embody the understanding and agreement of the Claimant and the deceased that neither will make a claim on the other's property acquired and owned prior to the marriage, and in that regard, they “…relinquish(ed) all and any presupposed rights…to each other's property.
Counsel for the Claimant Mr. Noumeh, submitted that the document executed on the 6 th day of March 2014 was invalid and urged the court to declare it as null, void and having no effect in law.
He contended that the Claimant should be allowed to benefit from sections 93(2) and 94 of the Succession Act, Cap 249 and exercise her legal rights afforded under the said Act.
Counsel referred to the case of Granatino v. Radmacher [2011] AC 534 at 563 para. 69 and asserted that the question arose as to whether the Claimant fully understood the implications of executing the document, and submitted that she did not know the clear implications of executing a prenuptial agreement.
Counsel indicated that the Claimant was only given the document two days prior to the marriage and that showed elements of duress, undue influence and unconscionable conduct on the part of the deceased. Also, Counsel urged the court to look at the emotional state of both parties in signing the document before marriage, and contended that those elements should negate any effect of the prenuptial agreement.
Mr. Noumeh argued that the Claimant had no alternative but to execute the document or face the shame and castigation by society after planning and preparing for a wedding well in advance of its date of 8 th day of March 2014.
Counsel acknowledged that the signature on the document and the signature annexed to the Affidavit looked close, but the Claimant explained that she did not understand or appreciate the implications of executing the document and the consequences in the event that the parties divorced or one of them died.
Counsel further contended that the Claimant did not have the benefit of independent legal advice or a Certificate of Independent Advice. If this were the case, all doubts would have been eradicated concerning the understanding of the implications of the document.
Counsel submitted that the Claimant's transparency and constant efforts to meet with the Defendants and their Counsel, show that she sought to work amicably with them but was never given the opportunity. Moreover, the behaviour displayed by the Defendants show their true intentions to deny the Claimant the right as a beneficiary to the estate.
Counsel indicated that the evidence suggests that unknown to the Claimant, the deceased had savings accounts at CIBC and City of Bridgetown Cooperative Credit Union. As a result, it is submitted that there was no full disclosure as to the assets of all parties. Counsel referred to the decision in Granatino, supra to the effect that where disclosure is withheld, it operates to negatively impact the weight given to a prenuptial document.
Counsel also urged the court to deem the document executed on the 6 th day of March 2014 null and void and grant the Claimant her right to exercise her spouse's legal interest in the deceased's estate.
Counsel for the Defendants, Ms. Devonish submitted that the Claimant shifted and changed her defences conveniently to rebut the evidence as it was produced. As an example, counsel highlighted the fact that the Claimant initially vehemently denied signing any such agreement to renounce her interest in the property.
Counsel indicated that the denial of the signature came as a result of the Claimant not being aware that the existence of the agreement was known to others, particularly the Defendants.
Ms. Devonish submitted that the Claimant is a young woman not suffering from dementia and ought to have known that she had signed...
To continue reading
Request your trial