Bullen et Al v Bullen et Al

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1984
• Neutral Citation: BB 1984 HC 41
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 1202 of 1983
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Date: 31 July 1984

High Court

Douglas, C.J.

Civil Suit No. 1202 of 1983

Bullen et al

and

Bullen et al

Mr. Peter Williams for the plaintiffs.

Dr. Trevor Carmichael and Mrs. M. Mahabir for the defendants.

Trust and trustee - Class gift — Whether a devise to the testator's grandchildren included his illegitimate grandchildren — Plaintiffs were legitimated subsequent to their parents' marriage — Grandchild, first defendant claimed to be the only grandchild who could take being legitimate at the time of his birth — Whether the plaintiffs came within the class in question after the death of the tenant for life after whose death they were supposed to take by virtue of the fact that they were legitimate at the time of his death — Court found that the persons who were included in the class gift to the testator's grandchildren must be determined as of the death of the tenant for life.

Will - Interpretation — Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of a disposition of land made under the will of the testator — The first defendant contended that he was the sole surviving legitimate grandchild of the testator and as such was entitled to the entire share of the land under the will — Court found that the first and second plaintiffs (grandchildren of the testator) were born during the currency of their father's first marriage to the first defendant's mother and therefore only became legitimate in 1968 by virtue of the Legitimacy (Amendment) Act, 1968 — The third and fourth defendants also the testator's grandchildren were born after the dissolution of their father's marriage and became legitimate in 1964 by virtue of the Legitimacy Act at the date of their father's marriage to their mother — Court noted that section 10 of the Act stated that the Act would not affect before the commencement of the Act — That section 6 of the Status of Children Reform Act, 1979 is to the same effect — Bearing in mind section 73 of the Succession Act, effect must be given to the intention of the testator as disclosed by the will in accordance with the law as it stood when the will was made. Declarations not granted.

Douglas, C.J.

1 In this adjourned summons the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of a disposition of land made under the will of Nathaniel Alonzo Bullen (hereinafter called “the testator”) who died in this Island on the 25th of August, 1927. The will is dated the 23rd of November, 1926 and was admitted to probate in the Court of Ordinary of this Island on the 2nd of September, 1927.

2 The testator was a sugar dealer of the City of Bridgetown and his estate comprised of substantial holdings of real and personal property which he devised or bequeathed to various members of his family and others with meticulous particularity. In providing for his daughter Myrl Asenath, his devise was of his:

“freehold property 63 Tudor Street now rented at Twenty four dollars monthly to receive all rents and profits for her natural life should she marry and be fruitful her heir may inherit but in event of her dying without lawful issue it be kept in order and rented out for the benefit of those of my children or grandchildren that may be then alive.”

3 The particular disposition that the court is asked to construe is the following –

“I give devise & bequeath to my son McKinley Bullen all of my land below the hill at Danesbury from behind Boyce to the sea for his natural life at his death to be sold and proceeds divided among any of my children or grandchildren that may be then alive.”

4 The land referred to is in excess of two acres and being sea-side land, it is extremely valuable. The testator had four sons, — McKinley Augustus Bullen, Stephenson Alonzo Bullen, Stuart Austin Bullen and Herbert St.Elmo Bullen — and two daughters, Ermie Bullen and Myrl Asenath Bullen. McKinley Augustus Bullen died in this Island on the 25th of November, 1982 and it is common ground that the sole surviving grandchildren of the testator are the four plaintiffs and the first defendant, all of whom are the children of Stuart Austin Bullen who, like his brothers and sisters predeceased McKinley Augustus Bullen. Stuart Austin Bullen was married twice. On the 7th of December, 1927 he married Rita Sybil Parkinson and the first defendant was born of that union on the 21st of November, 1928. That marriage was dissolved on the 8th of December, 1950 by Decree Absolute of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

5 On the 17th of December, 1964 Stuart Austin Bullen married Denise Monica Wilkinson and their four children, the plaintiffs in these proceedings, who were all born prior to marriage were re-registered at various dates between 1965 and 1969 under the provisions of the Legitimacy Act, 1930. The second defendant is in occupation of the land in various capacities which I need not examine for the purpose of these proceedings.

6 The question simply put is whether the first defendant's contention that he is the sole surviving legitimate grandchild of the testator and as such is entitled to the entire share of the land at Danesbury under the will, is correct. Put another way, has the legitimation of the plaintiffs under the Legitimacy Act brought them within the class of persons — namely, grandchildren, — stipulated in the Testator's devise of...