Doreen Richards v Ronald Simpson
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Foster-Pusey JA,Simmons JA (AG),McDonald-Bishop JA |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] JMCA Civ 31 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 113/2017 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Jamaica) |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
THE HON Mrs Justice McDonald-Bishop JA
THE HON Mrs Justice Foster-Pusey JA
THE HON Miss Justice Simmons Ja (AG)
SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 113/2017
and
Seyon Hanson, Mrs Crislyn Beecher-Bravo and Shamar Hanson instructed by Beecher-Bravo Hanson & Associates for the appellants
Miss Jeromha Crossbourne, Miss Renee Freemantle and Miss Sarah Bailey instructed by Scott, Bhoorasingh & Bonnick for the respondents
I have read in draft the judgment of my sister Foster-Pusey JA. I agree with her reasoning and conclusion and there is nothing I could usefully add.
Dudley and Winnifred Simpson were married on 1 January 1955. They had three children. The eldest is Ronald Simpson, the 1 st respondent in this appeal. They also had two girls, Gloria and Maureen Simpson. Maureen Simpson is the 1 st appellant in this appeal. Both Maureen and Doreen Richards, the 2 nd appellant, are the executrices of Winnifred's last will and testament. Ronald married Patsy Simpson, the 2 nd respondent in this appeal. For ease of reference, with no disrespect meant, I will, from time to time, refer to the parents and the children by their first names.
Dudley and Winnifred acquired property together during their marriage, and often discussed with their children, how they intended to share the property among them. They built their family home on a piece of land, the first parcel of land, which was located at Canoe Valley, New Roads in the parish of Clarendon. No issue about that property arises in this appeal. However, it is an important part of the background facts.
In the 1970s, they bought an unregistered parcel of land (‘the second parcel of land’), comprising of approximately 11 acres. It was also located at Canoe Valley, New Roads, in the parish of Clarendon. They constructed two houses and a commercial building on it. In 1992, they obtained title for it in both their names as joint tenants. It is registered at Volume 1255 Folio 97 of the Register Book of Titles. In 1993 and 1998, they sold parts of the property, and in 2002, they transferred a piece of it to themselves as joint tenants, and acquired title registered at Volume 1351 Folio 987 for that third parcel of land.
Ronald and Patsy, the respondents, got married on 22 December 2002.
Dudley died on 23 June 2003, while on a visit to Canada.
On 6 December 2005, the third parcel of land was transferred by way of gift from Winnifred and Dudley to the respondents as joint tenants.
Winnifred signed an instrument of transfer dated 12 October 2007, gifting the second parcel of land to the respondents. She signed another transfer document in respect of the same property, on 3 April 2008. The transfer by way of gift to the respondents as joint tenants, was registered on 30 November 2011.
On 23 November 2009, Winnifred died leaving a will naming the appellants as her executrices. The appellants obtained probate of the will on 16 January 2013. In June 2013, when they obtained copies of the certificates of title for the second and third parcels of land, they became aware that those parcels of land had been transferred to the respondents before 2013.
The appellants filed a claim against the respondents, which was amended in April 2014. They claimed that the respondents acquired the third parcel of land by fraud. They also claimed that the respondents exercised undue influence over Winnifred and Dudley in relation to the third parcel of land, and Winnifred solely, in relation to the second parcel of land. Additionally, the appellants asserted that, when Winnifred transferred the second parcel of land to the respondents, she did not have the requisite mental capacity to do so. The appellants also averred that the transfers were intrinsically inequitable and unconscionable, and were contrary to Winnifred's testamentary dispositions in her last will and testament executed on 8 March 2004.
The respondents responded to the claim in their defence filed on 29 May 2014. They denied exercising undue influence over Winnifred and Dudley, and pleaded that when Winnifred and Dudley made the gifts, they were still capable of living independently and making decisions, fully understanding the implications of their actions. The respondents denied the particulars of fraud in the claim and rejected the assertion that the transfers of the parcels of land were fraudulently obtained. In addition, the respondents denied that the transfers were inequitable and unconscionable. In fact, they stated that Winnifred and Dudley transferred the properties to them out of love and affection.
Tie J (Ag) (as she then was) (‘the judge’) heard the claim over the period 5–9 June, 17 and 31 July 2017, and handed down judgment on 2 November 2017. The judge found that the appellants had failed to prove that the respondents had acquired the third parcel of land by fraud. She found that the appellants had not proved that the respondents, Winnifred and Dudley, shared a relationship of trust and confidence or of ascendancy or dependency. The judge also ruled that, even if such a relationship had been proved, the appellants had not established that the influence generated by the relationship had been abused, as the transactions in question were readily explicable by the relationship among the respondents, Winnifred and Dudley. In addition, the judge found that the appellants had not proved that Winnifred lacked the requisite mental capacity when she transferred the second parcel of land, and the transfers of both the second and third parcels of land were neither inequitable nor unconscionable. She therefore dismissed the claim.
By way of a notice of appeal filed on 6 December 2017, the appellants challenged the judge's findings. In this appeal, we have had to consider, broadly speaking, as the grounds will show, whether the judge erred in her findings of fact and mixed findings of law and fact concerning:
-
(i) Whether there was a relationship of trust and confidence or ascendancy and dependency among Dudley, Winnifred and the respondents;
-
(ii) The appellants' failure to prove that the respondents acquired the third parcel of land by fraud;
-
(iii) Winnifred's mental capacity when she signed the documents for transfer of the second parcel of land; and
-
(iv) Inequity or unconscionability of the transfer of both properties.
On 28 and 29 January 2020, we heard the appeal, reserved our decision, and with apologies for the delay, now deliver our judgment in this matter.
In light of the issues which arise for determination in this appeal, including the judge's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, it is important to carefully examine the evidence led at the trial.
Maureen and Gloria testified that the entire family lived in Canada at one time, but eventually both parents returned to Jamaica, as did Ronald.
The sisters remained in Canada, and Ronald, being the only child in Jamaica, became someone on whom their parents heavily relied. At first, Ronald lived in the family home with their parents, but he eventually went to live in the house which had been built for him on the second parcel of land in close proximity to the family home. Winnifred and Dudley had given Maureen the other house on the second parcel of land.
In or about December 2002, Ronald married Patsy. Although they had always had a close family unit, Ronald did not invite his parents to his wedding. After marrying Patsy, Ronald went to live with her on property belonging to her family. Ronald nevertheless continued to visit Winnifred and Dudley who continued to rely on him heavily.
During a visit to Canada in 2003, Dudley died. Ronald did not contribute to his father's funeral expenses, stating that he did not have any money. When Gloria and Maureen came home for their father's funeral, they realized that someone had removed all the documents from a safe located in the family home, including the certificates of title for the lands owned by their parents. Only Ronald had access to the safe, Winnifred having given him the key.
Ronald and Patsy then moved to live on the second parcel of land. After Ronald and Patsy moved into Ronald's house, due to their close proximity, Winnifred became very dependent on them.
Maureen visited Jamaica in February 2004 and stated that, at that time, she realized that Winnifred was not well. She found the family home in a very messy condition, and observed that her mother was urinating on herself. She sought medical treatment for, and, along with Gloria, employed a caregiver to look after her mother on a full-time basis. During that visit, she took her mother to see a Justice of the Peace, Mr Arthur Phidd, who assisted her mother to prepare a will.
Gloria and Maureen sent money to the caregiver to assist with their mother's living expenses, but Ronald, although living “a few meters away’, did not provide any financial assistance to their mother. Maureen stated that, during her yearly visits to Jamaica, she noticed that neither Patsy nor Ronald contributed anything to their mother, ‘not even food’. Ronald did not want to take their mother to the doctor and confiscated their mother's medication. Ronald and Patsy began removing appliances and utensils from the family home, and placed them in their own home. Instead of helping his mother, Ronald was helping himself, as he, for example, removed a washing machine which had been left in the family home.
In addition, Ronald made the lives of the caregivers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garnett Dennis v Newton Barnes
...... Vecas Pennycooke & Others [2015] JMCA App 5 ; Maureen Beverly Simpson (Executor of Estate of Winnifred Simpson, Deceased) & Another v. Ronald ......