Griffith v Coward
| Jurisdiction | Barbados |
| Judge | Douglas, J. |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | BB 1986 HC 11 |
| Docket Number | No. 478 and 845 of 1984 |
| Court | High Court (Barbados) |
| Date | 24 February 1986 |
High Court
Douglas, C.J.
No. 478 and 845 of 1984
Mr. H. deB. Forde, Q.C. and Mr. C.E. Lashley for the plaintiff.
Mr. Lawson Bayley for the defendant.
Succession - Barbados Succession Act, Cap. 249 — Whether wife was entitled under the Barbados Secession Act, Cap. 249 to the spouse's legal right to half of the husband's estate and whether the wife had complied with the requirements of the Act in exercising an election in respect of the legal right.
Family law - Husband and wife — Matrimonial property — Whether executors of wife's estate were entitled to make a claim under the Family Law Act 1981 to a share in the husband's estate — Finding that the Family Law Act, 1981 contains no provision for making Sections 56 and 57 available to the personal representatives of a deceased spouse for the purpose of an application for a declaration of interests.
Trust and trustee - Husband and wife — Whether property beneficially owned by husband was held by him in trust for his wife — Plaintiff as executor of his late sister's will sought a declaration by the Court that the property owned by his late sister's husband was held by her late husband in trust for her — Court held that there was no evidence of contribution by the wife to the acquisition of the property standing in her husband's name nor of any common intention on the part of the parties that the wife would have a beneficial interest in the property — Claim failed.
In these consolidated cases, the plaintiff as Executor of the will of Menina Augusta Riley, deceased, seeks the following orders on the first originating summons:–
- The plaintiff is entitled to half share in the estate of Richard Graham Riley deceased 2 The plaintiff is entitled to be paid the funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the plaintiff as Executor on behalf of the estate of Menina Augusta Riley deceased the spouse of the said Richard Graham Riley, deceased 3 Payment of all other expenses incurred on behalf of the estate of Menina Augusta Riley 4 The plaintiff is entitled to an account of the estate of Richard Graham Riley. 5 Further or other relief. 6 Costs.
On the second originating summons he seeks the following relief:–
- A declaration that the assets of the late Richard Graham Riley were owned beneficially and/or in accordance with the provisions of the Family Law Act, 1981 as to one-half by the late Menina Augusta Riley, his wife. 2 A declaration that in accordance with the provisions of the Succession Act, Cap. 249 the said Menina Augusta Riley became entitled to take (by way of the spouse's legal right) one half of all assets beneficially owned by the said Richard Graham Riley at the time of his death. 3 Alternatively, an order as to the ownership as between the estate of the late Richard Graham Riley and the estate of the late Menina Augusta Riley of the assets owned by them during the lifetime of the late Richard Graham Riley. 4 An order that the defendant deliver up to the plaintiff such share of the assets to which Menina Augusta Riley was beneficially entitled during the lifetime of Richard Graham Riley and upon his death. 5 Further and other relief. 6 Costs.
On the 21 st of July, 1932 the late Richard Graham Riley (hereinafter referred to as “the husband”) married the late Menina Augusta Riley (hereinafter referred to as “the wife”), at the parish church of Saint Joseph. He is described in the marriage certificate as a mason, and she as a seamstress. They lived in a chattel house on rented land. At some stage the husband went to Trinidad and on his return in 1951 he obtained work as a contractor. He built a house at Joes River, St. Joseph and owned a parcel of land at Horse Hill, St. Joseph. In addition he was the owner of two lorries and a motor car.
The husband and the wife had no children. On the 18 th of February 1983 the husband executed his will which provided for the funeral and testamentary expenses out of certain bank accounts, for pecuniary legacies to the two executors and for the following devise:–
“I DEVISE AND BEQUEATH my realty at Joes River in the parish of Saint Joseph and Island aforesaid to my beloved wife MENINA AUGUSTA RILEY of the said address for life ….”
There follows a direction that the property be sold at the death of the wife, and the proceeds divided equally between the husband's sister, Millicent Yearwood, his niece Valdine Naomi Murray, his grand nephew Edwin Murray, the wife's niece Agnes Holder, and the wife's niece Muriel Griffith. The residue was left to the wife.
The husband died on the 6 th of September, 1983 and his will was admitted to probate on the 22 nd of October 1984.
On the 20 th of September, 1983 the wife executed a will leaving her entire estate to her brother, the plaintiff. She died on the 7 th of December 1983 and her will was admitted to probate on the 26 th of March 1985.
In his affidavit the plaintiff deposes to the husband and the wife enjoying a happy marriage for 51 years. He says that the chattel house that they built a year after their marriage was built substantially from funds given them by the wife's mother, who had returned from residing in Brazil. He says that in the year 1950 the husband and the wife purchased 1 1/2 acres of land partly from funds saved by them and partly from money given to the wife by her mother who was working as a nurse in the United States. Further, he says that in 1955 the wife inherited her mother's wooden house and furniture worth $2,400. He states that the husband went to Trinidad to work but does not state when he went or when he returned. It is said that the wife worked as a seamstress until she retired 1978. The deponent states:–
“When the husband commenced his contracting business, my sister (the wife) gave him $84,000 to assist with the financing of the business. Part of this money came from savings, part from monies previously given by or inherited from my mother.”
He says that in addition to working as a seamstress, she looked after her husband and was a homemaker.
The plaintiff states that on or about the 30 th of August 1983, the wife questioned the husband about his will, a copy of which she saw and said that she had put her money, her labour and money given to her by her mother in the property, that she was dissatisfied about what he had left her under the will. He says that the husband requested him to get in touch with Mr. Simeon Reid, Attorney-at-Law, who had drawn the will. This he did but Mr. Reid did not come before the husband died.
The plaintiff describes how Mr. Lawson Bayley, Attorney-at-Law, was instructed by the wife to draw up a will for her and how, two weeks after the husband's death, he was present ~h Mr. Carl Downer, one of the executors to the husband's will when the wife told Mr. Downes “that her husband had not left her anything, a life interest was no benefit to her, that half-share was hers and informed him that she was claiming whatever she was entitled to by law.”
In cross-examination, the plaintiff states that after their mother had built her house, she gave all her earnings to the wife and the sum of $28 to the witness. He says that the wife worked 4 machines down to her death.
In his affidavit Mr. Downer says that some time in 1983 the husband informed him that he had been appointed one the executors to his will. He states:–
- A couple of weeks after his death I was visiting the wife and she expressed her dissatisfaction that her husband had not left her half of the property. She said she had worked hard and saved and her money and labour was in the property, and she was entitled to half. She said her life interest was of no benefit to her and she said she wanted me to know that she was claiming everything that the law says she was entitled to. Present at the time was her brother, Lionel Hutson Griffith. 9 At the time the wife said to me that she was claiming everything that the law said she was entitled to, I knew that she was aware that her husband had appointed me as one of his executors. 10 I understand her to be rejecting the life interest and claiming her share in any assets left by her husband, including a one-half share in the house which share she felt she had earned by her own efforts and contributions.”
He states he renounced his executorship at the request of Mr. Lawson Bayley, who was propounding the husband's will for probate, “so that there would be no holding up of the probate of the will.” There was no cross-examination of the deponent.
For the defendant, Mr. Coward states in his affidavit that he is the qualified executor of the husband's will, that he knew the husband for over 40 years and that the husband worked for him in his capacity as a contractor. He knew the wife for 30 years and during that time he never knew her to be a seamstress.
In cross-examination, Mr. Coward states that he was instrumental in employing the husband as a contractor for the vestry, and advanced him money weekly because of his lack of means.
Millicent Alberta Yearwood, the husband's sister, deposes to her remaining in close association with the husband up to his death. She says she has never seen the wife work in any capacity other than that of a housewife and she has never seen her making any clothes. She also says that the plaintiff went to the husband's home only after he had taken sick and lost his sight.
The deponent Valdine Naomi Murray, a niece of the husband's, states that she has never known the wife to be a seamstress. She deposes to a bad relationship existing between the husband and the plaintiff. She says in cross-examination that sometimes the wife would help the husband with his business, and in re-examination she says that the wife did not keep accounts and that the husband discussed work with her.
Great emphasis is placed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial