Vilmoth Jones v Janice Perkins Ricaldo Caines
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | Moise, J |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2021] ECSC J1210-1 |
| Docket Number | Claim Number: NEVHCV2020/0019 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
His Lordship Justice Ermin Moise
Claim Number: NEVHCV2020/0019
Mrs. Angela Cozier of counsel for the claimant
Ms. Dollrita Camilla Cato of counsel for the defendants
On 24 th February, 2020, Mr. Vilmoth Jones filed a Fixed Date Claim seeking a total of 16 orders and declarations against the defendants, who are his daughter and former attorney at law respectively. Despite the significant number of declarations being sought, it is somewhat difficult to summarize the exact cause of action pleaded in this case from a mere perusal of the claim form. The claim was stated to have been filed in accordance with Rule 8.1(5)(b) of the CPR. However, the evidence led at trial does not seem to raise any issue of Mr. Jones' actual possession of the land in question. Therefore, it is now unclear to me as to whether this claim should have even been commenced as a Fixed Date Claim at all.
In essence, it would seem that Mr. Jones wishes for the court to invalidate a conveyance of a parcel of land which was transferred to the 1 st defendant on 9 th February, 2012. He claims that this conveyance was executed by fraud on the part of the 1 st defendant with the dishonest assistance of the 2 nd defendant. From the pleadings it can also be gleaned that Mr. Jones relies on professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the 2 nd defendant. However, in closing submissions, and for the first time, counsel for Mr. Jones raised the issue of undue influence with no prior notice to the other side. In these circumstances, Mr. Jones would also wish for an order that the property be re-conveyed to him and that damages be award to him together with interest and costs. However, after having reviewed the evidence and the submissions of counsel, I am of the view that the claim is not sustainable on the basis of the findings of fact which I have made and I have decided therefore, that the claim should be dismissed with costs to the defendants. These are the reasons for my decision.
Mr. Jones was a joint owner of a parcel of land situated at Cotton Ground in Nevis. He owned this property jointly with his wife, Mrs. Gwendolyn Jones, who is now deceased. As I understand it, there is a dwelling house on the property which was the matrimonial home shared between the couple. In his affidavit in support of his Fixed Date Claim, Mr. Jones states that he owned this property from 1975 and that it was only in 2016, when he went to pay property taxes to the Inland Revenue Department, did he discover that he was no longer the owner. It was then that he was informed that the property had been transferred to Ms. Janice Perkins, who is the 1 st defendant in the matter. The property was also subsequently transferred from Ms. Perkins to her son Lenroy Lescott in March, 2012.
Mr. Jones states that he recalled that sometime in 2012, Ms. Perkins approached him and asked that he put her name on the property. He said that he informed her that the property was to be left for all of his 6 children after his passing. He also states that since she would have been one of the beneficiaries, he would add her name to the property together with that of himself and his wife. That was the transaction he claims to have agreed to. According to his evidence, Ms. Perkins informed him that she would consult with Mr. Ricaldo Caines, an attorney at law, in order to carry out the transaction.
Mr. Jones states that sometime in 2012 he went to Mr. Caines' office to pay the money to his secretary. He met Mr. Caines and informed him that he wished only for his daughter's name to be added to the property. He states that he never gave permission for the entire property to be transferred to Ms. Perkins. After discovering that this was what was in fact done, he contacted Ms. Perkins and accused her of deceiving him. He also tried to communicate with Mr. Caines at his office, but alleges that Mr. Caines refused to speak to him. This is, in substance, the evidence initially filed by Mr. Jones. In that initial affidavit, he makes no mention of his wife's role in this transaction, although she was alive at the time and was a joint owner of the property with him. He makes no issue of the actual signing of the deed and although the original of the document was not presented into evidence by either party, the documents presented suggested that Mr. Jones did sign the deed of conveyance together with his wife.
In a further affidavit filed in this case, Mr. Jones asserts that after his initial conversation with Ms. Perkins, she informed him that the transaction was done and that he and his wife should go to Mr. Caines' office to sign some papers and pay him some money. He states that it was he who paid the money even though the invoice was issued to Ms. Perkins. He claims that he now knows that Ms. Perkins was deceiving himself and his wife. He claims that he did not know that Ms. Perkins had given Mr. Caines different instructions and that he never gave any permission to convey the entire property to Ms. Perkins.
That was the nature of Mr. Jones' pleadings and the evidence led in chief in support of his claim. Before addressing his cross examination in detail, I wish to address an issue which arose during the course of Mr. Jones' evidence and the concerns which the court continues to express regarding compliance with its case management orders and the general manner in which this case had been litigated in the first place.
This court has been persistent in encouraging counsel in particular, to comply with its orders in relation to the preparation and filing of trial bundles. The bundles are a critical aspect of the trial process and the pre-trial directions to agree on and compile the bundles are orders which must be complied with. The court's proceedings, being conducted via zoom, makes it all the more important for counsel for all parties to jointly agree on the bundle and file it within the time prescribed by the court's order. This will assist in ensuring that even the witnesses are adequately briefed and prepared for trial. Any peculiarities which the witness may have ought also to be addressed so that any assistance which is required is arranged beforehand in order to ensure that the witnesses can follow the bundles and give their evidence in a manner which is incorruptible and fair to all involved.
In this case, two of the bundles were filed two working days prior to the trial and one was filed on the day before. This was despite the court's express admonition to counsel at the pre-trial review. Counsel for the defendants informed the court that she in fact contacted counsel for the claimant and offered to help in preparing the bundles. This offer was not accepted and the bundles were simply filed in non-compliance with the court's orders. Counsel for the claimant sought to represent that there were administrative challenges in her office which affected her in complying with the court's order. I do not accept these as being excusable; especially in light of the fact that counsel for the defendants had offered to assist. It appears that counsel never discussed and agreed to the bundles, which were then filed at the eleventh hour.
The effect of this was that Mr. Jones was completely unable to follow the bundle and to give evidence in line with what had been filed therein. He was unable to identify even the very documents that he tendered before the court. He was completely unable to navigate the bundles in any way. I appreciate that Mr. Jones is elderly. However, this is precisely why the preparation of the bundles on time and in keeping with the court's order is important. Adequate arrangements could have been made to assist Mr. Jones, with the safety and sanction of the court. This was not done. When the court took a break to enquire of counsel on the best way forward at this stage, someone entered the room and appeared to me to be giving directions to Mr. Jones in relation to his evidence. When the court enquired into this, it was stated that Mr. Jones was only being asked to speak up. That however, did not appear to me to be what was taking place.
In those circumstances the court wishes to reiterate that counsel has a duty to adequately assist the court in managing this trial process and compliance with the Pre-trial review orders is critical in fulfilling this purpose. Any peculiarities which the witness may have, such as vision problems or an inability to read must be brought to the court's attention. It may very well be that the events which transpired can compromise the integrity of the trial process and should never occur in the future.
Having said this, I note that in cross examination Mr. Jones denied that he had ever even signed the document conveying the property to Ms. Perkins. He states that he was unaware as to whether his wife had signed. This was notwithstanding the fact that he expressly stated in his affidavit that he was brought to Mr. Caines' office to sign the document. It did not appear to me that Mr. Jones had ever put the actual signing of the document into issue in his own pleadings. Even in closing his counsel had argued that he was in fact unduly influenced into signing the document. It was one thing to say that he was not aware of what he was signing, but another to deny that he had signed it altogether. Taken at its highest, the case for Mr. Jones was that he did envisage some transaction between Ms. Perkins on the one hand and himself and his wife on the other. He stated that he did agree to sign over at least some of the ownership of the property to her. It is not that there was no transaction to take place. It was just that he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial