IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between MICHAEL LEO SLATER. And ESTHER RUBY SLATER

Transcription

1 THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between MICHAEL LEO SLATER Claimant And ESTHER RUBY SLATER Defendant Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh Appearances: Ms Dennis for the Claimant Mr Holder for the Defendant Date: 6 April 2016 REASONS (Edited Oral Judgment) 1. This is one of those unfortunate cases involving family members that sometimes come before the court. The claimant and defendant are brother and sister. Their mother was Christine Amelia Slater. Page 1 of 6

2 2. Their mother died. There is a property at 34 Salazar Trace, Point Fortin. The defendant occupies it. The claimant says he is the owner, he having paid for it the sum of $65, This he says is reflected in a bill of sale for the house. The critical issue before the court is whether this bill of sale should be upheld. In other words, is the claimant the owner of the house entitled to possession of it? 3. This bill of sale is registered as DE The claimant says it was executed between him and his mother to give effect to an agreement dated 22 February There is a receipt dated 5 February 1999 where the mother acknowledged that the claimant purchased the property for $65, The bill of sale also reflects that it was sold to the claimant. This was done and executed before an attorney at law. 6. There is no serious challenge to the execution of the agreement. References were made in the defendant s witness statement to the declining health of the mother. However, there is no evidence which seriously shows that she was unable to understand or appreciate what she had done. 7. The claimant said his mother was able to converse intelligently when she received the money and executed the bill of sale agreement and the Deed. Page 2 of 6

3 8. He said he was willing to give a licence agreement to the defendant to occupy the property but she refused. 9. Certain options were given to the defendant, but she refused them. Among these was the claimant s willingness to sell the property to her at market value. 10. However, there was no agreement on the value as they both advanced different values based on different valuations. A proposal to have an agreed valuator value the premises was also rejected by the defendant. 11. The bill of sale was registered after the court granted an extension of time for it to be registered. 12. As a result of the defendant s refusal to move or purchase the house, he has had to bring this claim. 13. The claimant called Kerloin Slater, an Acting Corporal of Police, who lived in the house from his birth in 1976 to He was the grandson of the deceased Christine Amelia Slater. 14. He says the defendant was aware of the sale of the house to the claimant before the death of her mother. After that the relationship worsened. He also said it was the claimant who paid someone to take care of the deceased. Page 3 of 6

4 15. The defendant says her mother had Alzheimer s disease. She used to go to the Point Fortin Hospital and the Health Centre for treatment. She said her mother was prone to forgetfulness. She said her mother never told her she received money from the claimant or signed an agreement with him. She therefore doubts the transaction. The defendant also called her daughter, Kelly Ann Slater, who also lived in the house. 16. The critical issue concerned the receipt, the agreement and the bill of sale. 17. I preferred the evidence of the claimant and his witness on a balance of probabilities on these matters. 18. I accepted that although money did not physically pass between the claimant and his mother, the claimant had agreed with his mother that the money which he and his mother held in a joint account would not be used by him after February 1999 when the receipt was made. He was the person who had put the money into the account. 19. The effect of the agreement and transaction was to transfer the ownership in the property to him. 20. I also accepted that the bill of sale reflected the terms of the agreement. There is nothing advanced by the defendant which credibly challenges the bona fides of the execution of the agreement and the bill of sale. Page 4 of 6

5 21. Of note is that rent for the land on which the property stands has not been paid since 1981 according to the claimant. The landlord, he said, died about 20 years ago. There does not therefore appear to be any issue regarding the land. 22. He gave evidence of what transpired at the law office of the attorney, Mr Frank Seepersad. The details of what took place show that the documents were properly executed. Nothing the defendant has advanced casts doubt on this process. 23. Applying Mitchell v Cowie (1964) 7WIR 118, the use of the bill of sale here transferred the fixture (the house) which was attached to the land. This position is supported by the Court of Appeal decision in Seepersad Ramkalawan v Dhan Alexander Civil Appeal No 1 of 2002, delivered 3 October 2005 per Mendonca JA. 24. If the tenancy had expired, the presumption is that the fixture would have passed with the tenancy back to the landlord. As indicated above, the landlord is not in the picture. 25. All the court has to decide is who, between the claimant and the defendant, has any right to the property. 26. The defendant asserts no basis to claim the ownership or any interest in the house whereas the claimant shows he has a bill of sale and receipt representing the sale of the house to him by his mother. In those circumstances the claimant is entitled to succeed on his claim. Page 5 of 6

6 27. The order of the court accordingly is that there is judgment for the claimant against the defendant. The defendant is to vacate and deliver up the chattel house to the claimant on or before 31 January The defendant is to pay the costs of claim to claimant in the sum of $14, Ronnie Boodoosingh Judge Page 6 of 6